Re: An alternative to ST and AAT
Gerrit Hanenburg (G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.net)
Sun, 17 Nov 1996 19:29:09 GMT
"John Waters" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>JW: Yes. This confirms the Jolly and Plog study. But
>according to Susan, C. Owen Lovejoy also carried out a
>biomechanical study of this species and apparently reached
>an entirely different conclusion. So who are we to believe?
Christine Berge's analysis was based on the reconstruction of Peter
Schmid. This seems to be a more accurate reconstruction than
>Is Christine Berge a qualified physical anthropologist?
Yes and she is also a locomotory specialist of the Equipe "Locomotion
Animale" C.N.R.S.,Labratoire d'Anatomie comparee,Museum National
>And more importantly, where does that leave us regarding
>Paul's original question on the matter? Don't tell me he's
>been proved right once again.
There's nothing wrong with Paul being right. Intellectual integrity
requires that we sometimes have to acknowledge that someone else may
be right. But I suspect that Paul just made a lucky guess that wasn't
based on any biomechanical analysis (he wasn't able to give a
reference when Phillip Bigelow asked for it). Sometimes a guess turns
out to be right.