Phil Nicholls (
Sun, 16 Jul 1995 16:33:11 GMT wrote:

>NE>did he do a good job representing other views? in the first, it was basical
>NE>all him, but the second and third episode seemed to go over lots of other

>He certainly did give Mary Leakey lots of air time and lots of credit,
>which is kind of surprising, but he's obviously trying to be a nice guy.
>No mention, however, of Richard Leakey-- notice that?

I think may Leakey was shown for about six seconds. We saw Richard
Leakey's name in a shot of a newspaper clipping.

No mention of any of the following:

The Hadar "first family" fossils.
Tim White
Yves Coppens
OH-62("Lucy's Child").

Lot's of shots of Johanson driving in San Francisco and Afar, though.

The only point where views got any indication that there was a debate
in paleoanthropology was the discussion of the Origin of Modern Homo
sapiens. Interestingly in this debate, Milford Wolpoff was not
mentioned or shown.

>NE>or is it just his personality that some people dont care for?

>Hey, there are lots of oceanographers who can't stand Jacques Cousteau!
>I wonder why?

>It seems to me that it's the same old story: will Bolgani, Kerchak, or
>Tarzan wind up King of the Apes?


To me, Johanson represents much of what I think is wrong with
paleoanthropology. There is too much adovocacy. Too much politics
in terms of who has access to fossils for study. To much "Look at me,
I'm Mr. Bigshot Anthropologist" in the NOVA series, which is I believe
one of the reasons Johanson's Institute for Human Origins lost a lot
of funding.

My opinion, of course.

Phil Nicholls " is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists --
whether from design or stupidity I
do not know -- as admitting that there
no transitional forms." S.J. Gould.