Not long ago I was ranting on a similar subject with my caver buddy Buford.
_http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051107080321.htm_
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051107080321.htm)
...This is what I was talking about, the replacement of aboriginal
populations of Negritos, Melanesians, Aussie abos, etc by modern Asians. The
diff
is that I think the resident negroids were the ones that got replaced, not
H heidelburgensis, erectus, or some other kind of supposedly "non human"
(Gimme a break! We are all human!) form.
I think the original inhabitants of southeast Asia were all some form of
Homo erectus that merged with the first wave of modern negroids some 70,000
years ago to form the abos of today, then much later modern Asians showed up
and took over. That is especially obvious when you look at Malaysia where
pigmy negritos live only in peripheral habitats. In Borneo they were driven
to extinction, whereas in Melanesia they continued to dominate. Vanuatu is
apparently the most genetically and linguistically diverse place on earth,
even more so than New Guinea. My friend Anna tells me that there are
Polynesians living alongside wooley buggers with whom they do not interbreed,
so
I guess it is a standoff. Some might point to that as an example of why
there is no genetic evidence of modern man having interbred with previously
existing humans, but I think it is just a matter of genetic swamping, not
absolute rejection due to aesthetics. Boys will be boys.
I'm not sure what the latest is in regard to Homo floriensis, AKA the
Hobbit, but I'll bet that if one was chased out of the woods by a komodo dragon
today he would be indistinguishable from a pigmy negrito from the highlands
of Malaysia. If the Hobbit's brain was so little howcum they used a
"modern" toolkit? Maybe they weren't so dumb after all, maybe they were us?
Regardless of what anthropologists say I find the idea that modern humans
raced out of Africa in recent times and "speciated" into the races of today
without any input from preexisting populations of Neanderthals, erectus,
etc, who supposedly fell over dead on the spot, to be absolutely ludicrous.
There simply wasn’t time, and the idea that the so called conquering species
(this is where the word race should apply) didn’t rape the women after
killing the men doesn’t accord with anything I have ever observed about human
nature.
Others have argued that any offspring would have been sterile, but I see no
reason to believe that. Mules notwithstanding, nature is full of "species"
that can interbreed with other "species" and produce fertile offspring but
do not due to some barrier, either physical or behavioral.
I fully realize that I am very much in the minority here and that all the
supposed evidence contradicts me, but I believe that the "out of Africa"
hypothesis needs to be set back by at least a million years. So what if
erectus had brow ridges and small brains, so do a lot of people today, ever go
to
walmart? I believe erectus evolved in place and simply became us as they
evolved and interbred with successive later waves of more advanced humans
"out of Africa".
The way I see it my view is a much less racist view than the current "out
of Africa" hypothesis which sounds a lot like "manifest destiny" to me!
Sleaze
