Whenever ones species evolves into existence, it comes from a branch off the parent species. Those of the parent species not of this off-shot go on living until extinction or until they evolve into something else. This means that the picture presennted to layman of species A evolving into species B evolving into species C and so on is incorrect. To be more precise, when a new species arises, it overlaps in time with the parent species.
In Africa, Homo Sapiens evolved out of part of Homo Erectus. The former species left Africa for the most part. The degree of gene flow of the new species back into the more primitive one (or vice versa) is hard to speculate on. We do know that one Homo Sapiens left Africa, and we also know that a branch of Homo Erectus left Africa in an earleir wave (Java Man in the Indian Ocean area). I think that that branch, instead of dying out as is claimed, went on to become the Australian indigenous population (as well as other peoples in the surrounding islands). Meanwhile, Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa, then left Africa in a later wave, and populated Eurasia, while the branch of Homo Erectus that stayed behind in Africa and continued to advance maybe? this is all theory btw, and can't be verified.
And how exactly could the indigenous populations in Australia BE Homo Erectus? The general consensus at the moment is that humans first populated the Island about 40 to 50 thousand years ago (With the farthest estimate I've seen being 70 thousand years ago). Most of the scientific community puts Homo Erectus' extinction at about five hundred thousand years ago. How does your theory deal with that large of a disparity in dates?
__________________
"Such as I was you are, and such as I am you will be. Wealth, honor and power are of no value at the hour of your death."
At the end of the day we're all apes(whites, blacks, hispanics, asians etc)so I need people to understand that this is not a racist thread.
we're all learning here, so feel free to add on.
Well i'll type a bit regarding that statement...this is from an article i read a while back about recent human evolution, specifically with the brain...
Quote:
Many scientists apparently worry that proof of divergent brain evolution could be so racially polarizing that we, as a society, would almost be better off in the dark. Hawks responds that the best safeguard against bigotry is educating the public. He thinks we understand enough about human genetics to know that the notion of racial superiority is absurd. Intelligence, he argues, is not a single trait but a cast suite of abilities, and each ancestral environment may have favored a different set of talents. What is sorely needed, he says, is "an ecological framework" to interpret the results. "Groups are best adapted to their own environment, which eliminates the question of superiority." Even he concedes, though, that communicating the nuances will be no easy task.
"Whatever we find," Wang says, "it would never be justification for abandoning the egalitarian value that all individuals, regardless of their ethnicity, are deserving of the same rights and opportunities." Moyzis expands on that line of reasoning, putting a sunny spin on the group's findings. "it would be boring if all the races were fundamentally the same," he argues, "It's exciting to think that they bring different strengths and talents to the table. That is part of what makes melting-pot cultures like our own so invigorating and creative."
And how exactly could the indigenous populations in Australia BE Homo Erectus? The general consensus at the moment is that humans first populated the Island about 40 to 50 thousand years ago (With the farthest estimate I've seen being 70 thousand years ago). Most of the scientific community puts Homo Erectus' extinction at about five hundred thousand years ago. How does your theory deal with that large of a disparity in dates?
Not of Homo Erectus, direct decedents of the same group that left Africa 70 000 years ago, so basically the most original form of human.
In Africa, Homo Sapiens evolved out of part of Homo Erectus. The former species left Africa for the most part.
Do you have a source for this? No?
Quote:
Meanwhile, Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa, then left Africa in a later wave, and populated Eurasia, while the branch of Homo Erectus that stayed behind in Africa and continued to advance maybe? this is all theory btw, and can't be verified.
your thoughts?
Sounds like a lot of junk science. You're basically saying that Homo Sapiens left Africa in toto. It can't be verified because it lies outside of science, not because it's "all theory."
__________________
"Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." - Georgi Plekhanov
Homo Erectus http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/tro...ectus_176.jpeg In Africa, Homo Sapiens evolved out of part of Homo Erectus. The former species left Africa for the most part.
Do you have a source for this? No?
Sounds like a lot of junk science. You're basically saying that Homo Sapiens left Africa in toto. It can't be verified because it lies outside of science, not because it's "all theory."
I don't understand the first question. What are you asking? Yes, homosapains left africa?(obviously). Homo erectus originated about 1.8 million years ago. They wouldn't have just disappeared once homosapians came along. It makes sense that some were still around during the time sapians left Africa, no?
and also hybrids are usually, but not always, sterile. I have heard that some mules (donkey,horse mixes) can reproduce (as can Ligers (Tiger & Lion breed) and other inter-species hybrids). It's possible that once erectus evolved into homo sapian some stayed and interbred while other "sapains" left, no?
Homo Erectus: Extinct or still with us?
lol its really not looking good for the australian aboriginals 
