Re: DISCOVER/Neanderthal/Homo Sap.
H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
5 Sep 1995 22:49:43 -0400
ghanenbu@inter.nl.net (Gerrit Hanenburg) writes:
>You keep appealing to evidence but fail to mention a single specimen that
>displays a transitional morphology.The least you can do is name the specimens
>which you think are the evidence so that other people can check them and
>possibly refute your claims.
I guess we'd have to ask Trinkaus and Wolpoff. Naturally I only
saw them specimens on TV and could only notice the outlines of
the skull shapes and chins. Since there isn't much more this
game than eyeballing so far, it seems too easy to play.
Maybe that's the main problem.
>The mechanism of evolution is natural selection and possibly some genetic
>drift.The idea behind the separate species hypothesis is indeed that
>Neanderthals and modern humans have descended from a common ancestor (the
>"humanoids" as you call them) and that by the time they came into contact
>they had diverged too much to be able to interbreed.(as A and Z in your
>example).
Yes. That was the reason for the example.
so now the question is whether the said specimens show transitory
types as claimed by people like Trinkaus and Wolpoff.
The problem so far seems to be that the same eyeballing technique
is going to be used while ignoring other evidence. I can't see
how 50,000 years in the north can make subsaharans white and blonde but
25,000 has not noticeable effect on Orientals.
--
Regards, Mark
http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey
|