Re: Jeffrey H. Schwartz' theories today - still alive???

Ludvig Mortberg (
8 Jul 1995 21:03:36 GMT (Erin Miller) wrote:

>In article <3tht52$>,
>Ludvig Mortberg <> wrote:
>>Anyway, I'm not going to debate that here, what I want to ask
>>the readers of this newsgroup is how Schwartz' work is regarded
>>today, after nearly ten years have past, since the publication
>>of "The Red Ape". Have the molecular systematicists "won" the
>>battle? Are JHS' theories forgotten? Has Schwartz or anyone else
>>published any further evidence supportingor refuting the "orang
>>connection" theory? I'm interested in both popular books and
>>scientific articles and monographs.

>He still was touting it in _What Bones Tell Us_ (1993). I used to say
>"well, what can you expect from a physical anthropologist who calls the
>hyoid bone the Adam's Apple" but then Bill Maples did that, too in _Dead
>Men Do Tell Tales_ (a definately pet peeve of mine).

Touting it? Schwartz isn't "touting" anything. In his books he's argumenting
in a very humble way his opinoins of human evolution. He shows none of the
extraordinary arrogance shown by the molecular systematicists when they
advocate their theories of the molecular clock and god knows what.

I say, show me some good synapomorphies, morphology or molecules, linking
humans to african apes. And name the outgroup used in the comparison

In Encyclopedia of human evolution and prehistory (a book edited by Ian
Tattersall, Eric Delson and John van Couvering) the author of the article on
Hominoidea says right out that "This [Homininae (the group supposed to
contain homo, pan and gorilla)] is a hard group to define, because it has so
few shared derived characters..." And yet the scientific community is so
certain that it is a monophyletic group that anyone merely suggesting
something else is ridiculous.

By the way, who's Bill Maples? And where did Schwartz call the hyoid bone
the Adam's Apple?

---more (deleted)---

Will this start off a thread?

Ludvig the Swede