(June 12, 2011 at 11:46 pm)Shell B Wrote:(June 12, 2011 at 9:14 pm)Ryft Wrote:(June 12, 2011 at 8:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: As long as we are talking about fossils, this one could blow the Out of Africa crowd out of the water ... [snip rest]
As evidence builds, theories are refined or replaced. I am not particularly married to the out-of-Africa theory so it would not be too devastating to find out that it is wrong. It has never quite added up right for me anyway so I have always been open to a better theory. Thanks for the link to this.
I do not think it is impossible that convergent evolution may have happened in the span of human history as well. Why couldn't we have humans in Asia and Africa, evolving separately, but filling the same ecological niche? Obviously, unlike other convergent species, we have covered the globe, so there is no need for more than one human species on Earth any longer. However, that does not mean that it did not start that way.
You misunderstand the concept of convergent evolution. Convergent evolution deals only with superficial similarities like the shape of whales to those of the fish. The evolution of the genome of two different species never converge. The genes of whales did not, can not, grow more similar to those of the fish. No species will ever arise from a merging of the whale and the fish. It is impossible that homo sapiens descended from two or more extinct homo or pre-homo species. There can only be one species that is the direct ancester of homo sapien.
This fact is a unbreakable constraint that any theory of homo sapien origin must observe.
