|
|
Re: Paleoanthropologists and Morphology
Richard Foy (rfoy@netcom.com)
Sun, 14 Jul 1996 19:00:09 GMT
In article <31E555C3.BAF@flmhh.ufl.edu>,
Mike Muller <muller@flmhh.ufl.edu> 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 all...as 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!)
>Holly reeser@flmnh.ufl.edu
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 http://www.he.tdl.com/~hfanoe/udc.html Unity and Diversity
|