>> JF:<<I will find this book and evaluate it at more length, but that
>> phrase "a startling new theory" doesn't sound to me like someone
>> interested in presenting an unbiased view of the current thinking.
>> It sounds like someone interested in presenting his own radical view.
>> Let's face it, most "startling new theories" turn out to be wrong.
>> And "outside intervention": does he have a religious agenda, or is he
>> a space-alien nut?>>
>> I detect a pattern here. An author cited with a view outside the
>> party line is marginalized. That sort of tactic is usually used by
>> true believers who would rather not debatd the evidence. "Religious
>> agenda...space alien nut" are not terms for serious debate.
"Space alien nut" was lightheartedness, and I used it only because I was
fairly certain that Goodman isn't one. "Religious agenda" is not an
insult, it is a recognition that biases, both religious and
non-religious, do affect our thinking. I think my reservations about
his book, based on the catalogue entry I found, are perfectly valid. I
will treat *anyone* who is pushing a "startling new theory" with
caution, whether they are religious or naturalistic.
Jim, if the scientific data supports your view, as you say, why don't
you use *mainstream* scientific data? You can prove anything by picking
and choosing among people who are in a minority of 1 with startling new
ideas.
I didn't reject Goodman because of his supposed bias. I did it because
the quotes you gave from his book don't make a lot of sense in the light
of everything else I've learnt about human evolution, and because his
argument seemed to depend a lot upon ideas that are either controversial
or totally speculative.
>> <<Goodman talks as if we evolved from Neandertals.>>
>> You're wrong. Better get your hands on the book.
But then why does Goodman spend paragraphs comparing Cro-Magnon skulls
with those of Neandertals, if he does not think are not our ancestors?
Wouldn't it make more sense to compare our skulls with those we
supposedly descended from, rather than an extinct offshoot? How could
Cro-Magnon man have evolved in 5000 years, if not from the Neandertals,
who were the only people living in Europe immediately before them? He
talks about a "redesigned vocal tract", compared with Neandertals. What
is the point of these comparisons, if they're not our ancestors?
Maybe Goodman doesn't say we evolved from Neandertals, but the few
paragraphs you quoted from him managed to give that impression very
strongly.
>> <<My impression is that Goodman is totally clueless about the human
>> fossil record>>
>> Based on what? Your misinterpretation of his analysis, above? Is
>> that a good way to do science?
Yes. I used all the information I had available about Goodman. That's
the best way to do science that I know about. And I tried to make it
clear that it was an impression based on limited information; I haven't
seen his book yet. Maybe I did misinterpret him, but you've provided no
evidence of that yet.
>> What are you, a hominid nut...with a naturalistic agenda?
Yes. And I'm not even insulted. Can you respond to my points about
Goodman's arguments now?
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765* 1st 1.11 #4955 * "I am Homer of Borg! Prepare to be...OOooooo! Donuts!!!"