Homo Erectus: Extinct or still with us?

[Von Braun]

I have read about evidence for modern syb-Saharran Africans being mostly if not entirely Homo Erectus. Modern establishment scientists will tell you that all people are modern Homo Sapiens. This is clearly a lie. Sub-Saharran Africans are either archaic Homo Sapiens or Homo Erectus, or a mix of the two, in my opinion.

Whenever ones species evolves into existence, it comes from a branch off the parent specis. 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 presented 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. In my opinion, 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 indiginous 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 advanced litte (and are the people whom we call "black" today).

Liberal multicult scientists will throw the definition of "species" at me and point to the fact that members of various races can produce fertile offspring. To counter this, I cite Darwin's "Descent of Man" which cited information on mixed race people being less fertile than people who are racially pure. In any case, the notion that hybrids are ALWAYS sterile is not true. I have heard that some mules (donkey-horse mixes) can reproduce (as can ligers and other interspecies hybrids). Unfortunately, when mating occurs as often as it does with the mixed-race mud people in this country, they will still have several offspring regardless.

[Azdaja]

<< 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 indiginous population (as well as other peoples in the surrounding islands). >>

Ok, I've actually been thinking for awhile now that this may be true. I even posted about it in another thread. Going strictly by physical appearence, it seems obvious.
However going solely on physical appearence can lead one astray. I wonder if there have been any genetic tests done that would lend some more weight to this theory?

[GreenHeart]

That just might be. What evidence have you read Von Braun? They seem rather primative to me, and skeletal structure fits also.

Here's a sketch of Homo Erectus






They look like Homo Erectus, albeit slightly evolved. Slightly less prognathic. Does that make them Homo Sapiens? I don't think it does.

[Von Braun]

Originally posted by NordicPower88
That just might be. What evidence have you read Von Braun? They seem rather primative to me, and skeletal structure fits also.

Here's a sketch of Homo Erectus






They look like Homo Erectus, albeit slightly evolved. Slightly less prognathic. Does that make them Homo Sapiens? I don't think it does.

I read this on SF several months ago. It was a thread with a catchy title: something like "All humans are equal." It turned out his point was that many other races are not human like us. People were commenting that they thought he was an anti-racist from the title of the thread. Anyway, I think he had some good sources.

[Evolved]

This site claims Aborigines are clearly homo sapiens. It's a statement made to dodge any claims of Australoids being subhuman. The modern Aborigine skull shown on that site bears more than a passing resemblance to homo erectus.

Aborigine?

Though it somewhat reminds me of the negroid Whoopi Goldberg, too. x_hehe

[Von Braun]

I agree with Von Braun.

[Allenson]

Not that Coon is the 'be all end all' in physical anthropolgy but he states that there is nothing MORE sapiens than the Negroid. That's right, the Negroid. According to his hypothesis, the modern European population is a combination or blend of sapiens and the Neaderthal, whereas the Negroid is purely sapiens....albeit an archaic variety.

[GreenHeart]

The theory that whites are mixed with Neanderthals has long been disproved. Why people keep propagating it I have no idea.

Coon copied most of his ideas from anti-racists.

[Allenson]

Originally posted by NordicPower88
The theory that whites are mixed with Neanderthals has long been disproved. Why people keep propagating it I have no idea.

Coon copied most of his ideas from anti-racists.

Oh I'm not saying that there is Neaderthal in us or not....just presenting theories that have have been devised before. Personally, I find the notion to be quite possible. What about all the intermediate skulls that have been found....especially the ones from what is now Israel/Palestine? Coon's theory is that the rugged Upper Paleolithic types (Brunns & Borrebys) are the direct result of this blend.

I thought you were a 'Coonist'. You quote and site his work often here but now you say he 'copied his ideas from anti-racists'.

I'm not being argumentative here but I'm curious what you know about the disproval of this theory. Have genetic studies been conducted? Thanks.

[Angelcynn Beorn]

Have to agree with Dalon. I used to be very interested in the multi-regional theory a while back, and read up on it some. I tend to believe its actually the out-of-Africa thory, so beloved of commies, which is the anti-racist idea.