At http://phys.org/print323596759.html … scientists have revised the timeline of human origins after it was found Homo erectus sometimes overlapped their assumed ancestors by several hundred thousand years. This sounds an awfully long time but it is worked out from dating geological deposits and therefore may be subject to some revision itself in the future. Be that as it may it would seem to cast doubt on the evolution from one to the other – but that is not the outcome. Instead, it is suggested, some traits were adopted first of all, and somewhat later some further traits, until Homo erectus eventually emerged in full flower. This is perhaps an idea that is contradictory to the idea evolution proceeded in fits and starts, mutations triggered by outside influences (which would include catastrophism).
The same story is at http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/timeline-of-human-o… … where the research seems to revolve around the size and shape of skulls. Big skulls are thought to equal big brains. The novelty is the researchers propose that climate change was a major factor in the evolution of humans – but once again climate change is acceptable at the same time as ignoring what caused the climate to change. This might just be as a result of the grant system in operation, where climate change is a requirement – big money is at the root of this situation but it does have a catastrophist link if one would make the leap that climate changes as a result of outside factors (including cosmic events). It is therefore useful to be able to plot where and when such climate change occurred – but what it may have had to do with a piecemeal evolution of Homo erectus is something else. If evolutionary changes did occur contemporary with climate change incidents this could amount to firm evidence of evolution via general upheaval, mutations coming in the wake of death and destruction, filling in a niche newly created etc.