Thank you very much for your comment, it is good to get the discussion rolling along. It might have been easier to split your post into parts, but I will try to address it as is.
First off let me say I do not see the contradiction between these two statements:
"Examination of the recent conclusions associated with the analysis of Homo erectus skulls in the Georgian Republic confirms that several species of hominins in Africa are in fact nothing more than expected variance within the greater H. erectus population."
"These matters are more complicated than first glance. The findings of the Dmanisi site actually included the strong suggestion that Homo habilis (and similair hominins in Africa) represent early H. erectus forms."
These seem to me just two ways of saying the same thing, as best as I can see. My point being that most African hominin fossils we know of are, in fact, representative of Homo erectus. I should have added that the this is for fossils dating between 2.5 million years ago to around 1 million years ago, including European and Asian fossils. This provides a new view of our family tree.
In response to your comment:
"Well, it is by no means a “fact” but rather opinion to explain [away] the implications of having multiple species outside of Africa at such an early date."
It may not be a rock solid undeniable fact (such are hard to come by) but I don't agree that this latest finding is just given to explain away any implications of having multiple species outside of Africa early on, even having the same species outside Africa at such times is problematic for the mainstream. The multiple species model is the dominant perspective so few scientists are very interested in explaining it away (other than perhaps a handful of radicals). The Dmanisi team simply recognised that the morphological diversity observed among the five skulls (which are universally accepted as being from H. erectus) was so incredibly high that there was no longer any solid basis upon which to place the multiple species model - which is currently based on the same level of morphological diversity across geographic regions. Morphological diversity alone is no longer a sufficient reason to claim multiple species if we have real world data telling us that Homo erectus were immensely diverse in their anatomy and skull morphology. What other evidence do we have to argue multiple species across regions between 2.5 - 1 million years ago?
As for the discussion about Early Modern Humans vs Fully Modern Humans, this is a slippery area. What really makes us fully modern humans? Is it simply having hugely reduced brow ridges and a more gracile form, or is it all the behavioural traits? What exactly is the criteria?
We now know that the first Homo sapiens, our ancestors that diverged away from Neanderthals, Denisovans and the shared ancestor, were on that lonesome path by around 700,000 years ago. In the most literal sense then, Homo sapiens have been around from perhaps 700,000 years ago, these would be the true early humans. When did they become early modern humans and when did they become modern humans? What is the criteria for these stages and are there really such clearly defined stages at all?
This all needs rethinking, now that we know our line is MUCH older than previously understood (as explained in my opening article). We also see modern behaviour much earlier than believed, including use of watercraft and production of abstract art. Conversely we see archaic traits surviving much later than previously understood, just look at the fossils of WLH50.
Your intuition on possible problems with some aspects of archaeogentics, like dating mutations, especially when divorced from physical fossil evidence, is very astute. You might find these papers of some interest, here, here and here.
Thank you for your points and I do hope you will continue to question my claims!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07-Jun-17 05:34 by Bruce R. Fenton.