I just want to clear up a couple of misunderstandings.
<<Following the quote you give here, the rest of the sentence is the quote
I give two paras up. How can *anyone* possibly interpret that as saying
that modern and Neandertal brains are not different???>>
No one is making that argument. I was merely pointing out that SIZE is not the
key difference. Capacity is. You originally wrote:
<<I doubt any modern scientist claims that the Neandertal brain is visibly any
different from ours.>>
The word that threw me was "visibly." From your latest post, I don't think you
meant that, and that we all (Goodman, you, me, Tattersall, etc.) agree that
capacity is the key, not appearance.
<<What are these mental and physical abilities? What are the changes in
the brain, if, as you say, Goodman agrees that the modern human brain is
no different from the modern human brain.>>
I'm puzzled by "the modern human brain is no different from the modern human
brain."
<<No, Goodman is talking about all these dramatic differences, and
Tattersall is telling us that we can tell *almost nothing* about the
capabilities of the brain by looking at the outside of it, or at a cast.
As far as I can tell, Tattersall is contradicting Goodman's claims, not
supporting them.>>
Obviously we have a disagreement over the interpretation of Tattersall. We are
reading the same book, but I'm puzzled about how you can reach some of your
conclusions. For instance, you write:
<<Yes, but unlike Goodman, [Tattersall] doesn't write as if Neandertals were
known to be deficient in speech compared to us, which Goodman does.>>
That is exactly what Tattersall writes! Read the key passage, pp. 211-212. He
points out first how anatomically Neanderthals were "deficient in three of the
most basic sounds associated with articulate speech." You say he doesn't
believe them to be "deficient," but that's the very word he uses!
And then he concludes by saying, "[I]t's hard to avoid the conclusion that
articulate language, as we recognize it today, IS THE SOLE PROVINCE OF FULLY
MODERN HUMANS." If that's not recognizing Neanderthal deficiency, then English
ain't my language.
Now let's leave aside whether you agree with Tattersall or not, vis-a-vis
other experts. For our purposes, this is only to show that Tattersall is
saying something Goodman is saying. It is support for a key thesis, and enough
to demonstrate that Goodman is not pure "rubbish."
And that's really all I was responding to. The reason is I'm troubled by some
of your stark opinions when someone doesn't agree with you. Goodman becomes
"rubbish." And other suffer the same fate. For instance, you write:
<<I read Taylor some years ago, and considered it worthless; an amateur in
well over his head. Since I don't want to go back and reread it to
justify that conclusion, let's just please agree to leave Taylor out of
the discussion and use Tattersall.>>
I happen to know evolutionists who consider Taylor one of the best popular
writers on the subject. But to you he's "worthless." Again, I think this kind
of overkill ultimately hurts your case. I find Taylor a wonderful writer, and
would be negligent to leave him out of any discussions if I think he can help.
But you've made your points, I'll consider them, and re-read Goodman in that
light. Some of what he wrote years ago obviously needs to be modified.
However, looking at the big picture, there is no doubt in my mind that
Goodman's main point is correct. It's the same point Taylor, and Tattersall
make. Tattersall concludes his book by calling our human biolgical past "an
enigma." That means we DON'T KNOW what happened, or how it happened. It's a
puzzle. And I believe that all we know about the natural world argues AGAINST
a natural explanation, and that to rule out the supernatural with pejorative
terms is per se irrational.
So on the big issue, the most important issue, Goodman is not only right on,
but in harmony with numerous well known scientists. Chandra Wickramasinghe
comes immediately to mind. I hope you don't consider this Oxford don a "nut"
too. Your nut bowl will begin to overflow!
Jim