Re: Savannah strawman
Ralph L Holloway (rlh2@columbia.edu)
Fri, 5 Jul 1996 23:40:30 -0400
On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, Mike Muller wrote:
> This messeage is not from Mike Muller.
> Re: Holloway and Shreeve
> I accept your most impassioned defense of Tim White's motives. But that
> still does not change the fact that the discovery of the new ramidus
> material will not impact the Savanna hypothesis negatively. And as one
> who will be working towards her Ph.D. in paleoanthropology next year I
> will be lusting for a better understanding of how mankind evoles and
> hoping that the field of paleoanthropology will evolve also and catch up
> with the research that is being done with isotopes and laser ablation,
> along with genetic research.
I am ready and willing to learn about the research on human origins being
done with isotopes and laser ablation (particularly this, as most
ablations involve the brain). Why not tell us about it?
> Studying morphology alone is no longer enough. Other fields
> have moved forward and let go off the old dogma of the last fifty years
> Only paleoanthropology seems to be clinging to it with its last dying
> breaths.
Who in the world ever claimed that studying morphology ALONE is(or was)
enough? What exactly is the old dogma of the past 50 years that you are
talking about? As far as I can tell, morphologists are becoming quite
rare...
> evolution and I love a good challenge. So into graduate school I
> go...and if I offended White or Holloway, well it probably might not be
> the last time that will happen. But I do respect their work and will
> enjoy testing their theories. reeser@flmnh.ufl.edu
Dear "reeser". I wasn't offended, and I'm reasonably certain Tim White
never saw your post, and if he had he would have simply chuckled. Look
forward to your tests of my (our) theories.
Ralph Holloway
|