the human head is odd.
apparently its gone through a crapload of changes since its deviation from apes. paleoanthropology or whatever you want to call the early study of man thrives on pointing out differences in what seems to be the most common fossils remains found of past hominids: the skull.

funny thing is, the major view in the scientific world today is that even though homo erectus, which is seemingly the first hominid to get out of africa, or at least the middle east, has similarities that are prevelant today. accordingly, these guys were in asia, we're talking china. but i guess they all just died out for some odd reason, natural disaster, ice age, you pick your favorite extinction scapegoat. but erectus has these similarities that are passed on to what is considered two new species. one that will go to be neandertal, the other to our very own sapien. so if similarities persist in sapiens that were present in erectus and erectus died out, why couldn't sapiens just have been a continuation of erectus.

what i dont get... and it may be spawned from this thought of seperate species idea, is that its really faux pax, or however the fuck you spell it, to compare different races. sure you got the skin color, hair, facial features, but hold up, wait a second, anything beyond these blaringly obvious characteristics is unscientifically putting people of the same species into different categories. some argue that there is no such thing as race. only clines or some bullshit. i've come to notice that scientists will tell you that you are wrong in thinking in a certain mindset and go on to explain their view of how it should be, when in all actuality, its the same concept that you've presented, only they word it slightly different. such bullshit. anyway. back to the topic.

ok. so you have erectus in africa, europe, and even all the way the hell in east asia (china). eventually the sample that you have starts to look differently in europe and africa than in asia. yeah. go fig. a million years of separation (maybe not completely) and they start to have their own skull niche.

what i'm questioning now, is if anybody recently has compared skulls of recent humans across the human gambit of "races".
because seriously. call me racist or whatever, but certain characteristics are pronounced in certain cultures than in others. nothing racial about it. i mean, wardrobe aside. if you take a fuckload of europeans, and a fuckload of people from the US, and another fuckload sample from australia, i'm sure you'll have a better than 50% or 33% (however you're sampling them) correct choosing of who goes in what category.

i mean its not like comparing neandertals to sapiens, but those that they name in the "divergence" of erectus from neandertal to sapien are rather comparative with a few differences.

i guess what i'm arguing for here is that i'm guessing (guessing = no evidence) these weren't different species and in fact they could interbreed. because natural hybridization is, and always will be, the secret to successfully conquering a niche beyond one either of the two original parenting species could survive in.

but i guess this is all how science moves along.
mentors present what they know, and the arrogant students find the details that dont quite match up. and when there's a whole mess of them the idea flip-flops from the previous thought to the rival theory. this is seen throughout science, at least from what i've seen in my field. but i guess that is how science evolves. one idea created. its opposite proposed. a swing back to the original idea, and possibly another reversion until the two are almost melded together and people realize that explanations are rather complicated and can't be explained through one single causal event.

i apologize for the abstractness. i'm sure that abstractness will never allow me to be a good writer because i'm always hoping people will figure out what i mean on their own. but i'm afraid it might not be possible.
anyway. to make it less grandiose and less vague, i'm just talking about out of africa versus multiregionalism in human evolution. i think the original trend (due probably primarilly to racists veiwpoints) was that sapiens evolved out of the west, and we couldnt have come from the "primitive" east. but then people decided that maybe we've been a single species for a lot longer than previously though (multiregionalism). so anything contemporary could breed with anything (granted male/female parts matched up). but now on further inspection, the tide is back to separate species. this time out of cranial differences namely a flat back of the head versus not, and a prominent mid-face versus a flat one. but. now. here i am. thinking that maybe a dozen specimen over a million-year period (as everyone knows) may only be showing temporal differences rather than a wanted spatial difference in skull features. and as i see people today, i'm more away of these features, and they're different in many that pass me by on the street as i walk to the bus stop. and ya know what? theyre all fuckable. if its a chic, barring trisomy 21 or some other reproductive inability, i can make a baby with any chic walking by me, and her head can be as "distorted", "primitive" or "perfect" as they come.

its a moot point, but i think interbreeding was a definate possibility during the pleistocene.