Isn't it safe to say that 200,000 is still an educated guess?
As I recall, "Lucy" is about 6 million years. That leaves quite a gap and quite a story about the possible timing and development of the transition(s)...
bttt for later read.
The evidence suggests that homo sapiens arose around 200,000 years ago. Obviously the exact date isn't clear, but this is an example of evolutionary science predicting results before they're discovered.
As I recall, "Lucy" is about 6 million years. That leaves quite a gap and quite a story about the possible timing and development of the transition(s)...
3.2 million years, but yes, there's a huge difference between Lucy and early homo sapiens, but its not a "gap". We know about homo ergaster, homo habilis, etc. in the intervening years.
No gap. Lucy was an Australopithcine, and a fairly early on at that. Modern humans followed (and I believe overlap) archaic sapiens, and archaic sapiens followed (and I believe overlap) Homo erectus.
Yes, the terms 'reasonably good argument', 'more likely than not' and 'estimate' make that clear.
I'm not sure that Lucy was Homo Sapiens...I believe she was Homo Erectus, a distant predecessor.
See my comment in #417.