Re: Paleoanthropologists and Morphology

Richard Foy (
Sun, 14 Jul 1996 19:00:09 GMT

In article <>,
Mike Muller <> wrote:
>I must clarifywhat I am getting at here. In the face of evidence from
>other means such as DNA and isotopes some researchers are still arguing
>their points with strictly morphology. All I am trying to say is that
>along with basic morphological analysis there needs to be an examination
>of other lines of evidence. An excellent example of this is Wolpoff's
>insistence on continuity when reliable dating of past fossil, new
>discoveries and DNA all refute this argument...yet he continues to beat
>it into the ground with morphology. I have nothing against morphologists
>at a paleoanthropologist I look first at morphology when
>formulating questions I can answer with isotopes. I never said there was
>a problem with using morphology to describe anything I don't know where
>that came from. Of course you use it when faced with a new find, at
>that point there is nothing else to rely on.... but when other evidence
>comes to light that refutes your description or theory, whether it be
>isotopes ar DNA or what ever, it needs to be acknowledged and respected.
>(And let me clarify I am not suggesting that White doesn't..everyone
>calm down!)

I am not exactly sure what you are saying. But IMO I think it is
important to consider all data in trying to understand the evolution
of h.s.s.

"The form is the content in motion, and the content is the form at
rest." --Northrup Frye

URL Unity and Diversity