Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Artifacts & History
The human skull that challenges the Out of Africa theory
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Earthmasque" data-source="post: 79743" data-attributes="member: 4383"><p>From your link:</p><p> (my emphasis.)</p><p>This skull is not Homo Sapiens. If it were, more than the "Out of Africa" theory would be in trouble!</p><p> </p><p>Your linked site seems to be trying to make hay out of the fact that the fossil is referred to as "human." Either that, or the author is ignorant because the term "human" is correctly applied to any species of the Genus Homo - including the (at least) 2.3 million year old Homo Habilis.</p><p> </p><p>The presence of a skull of the Genus Homo outside of Africa is actually rather ho-hum. It has no impact whatsoever on the Out of Africa theory, since that theory postulates that <em>Homo Sapiens</em> arose in Africa, not that other members of the Genus never left.</p><p> </p><p>I mean, there's a "Homo" in front of the classification for all the Erectuses (whatever the plural of that word is - Erecti? LOL) - Ergaster, Heidlebergensis, and other variations (depending on who you ask.) There is also a "Homo" in front of the classification for Neanderthal.</p><p> </p><p>All these species predate the Greek find. All have been found outside of Africa.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Earthmasque, post: 79743, member: 4383"] From your link: (my emphasis.) This skull is not Homo Sapiens. If it were, more than the "Out of Africa" theory would be in trouble! Your linked site seems to be trying to make hay out of the fact that the fossil is referred to as "human." Either that, or the author is ignorant because the term "human" is correctly applied to any species of the Genus Homo - including the (at least) 2.3 million year old Homo Habilis. The presence of a skull of the Genus Homo outside of Africa is actually rather ho-hum. It has no impact whatsoever on the Out of Africa theory, since that theory postulates that [I]Homo Sapiens[/I] arose in Africa, not that other members of the Genus never left. I mean, there's a "Homo" in front of the classification for all the Erectuses (whatever the plural of that word is - Erecti? LOL) - Ergaster, Heidlebergensis, and other variations (depending on who you ask.) There is also a "Homo" in front of the classification for Neanderthal. All these species predate the Greek find. All have been found outside of Africa. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Artifacts & History
The human skull that challenges the Out of Africa theory
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top