Re: The Shaman's Cape-Religion among the Neanderthals
Glenn Morton (grmorton@gnn.com)
Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:35:16>Glenn writes:
>
><<Tattersall is basing his view on non-existent data. This is a bad way to
> do
>science.>>
>
>He is NOT "basing" his view on this. Read the passage again and you'll see he
>does what a good scientist should do. Realzing that the crucial evidence is
>missing, he is unwilling to jump to a conclusion on the scanty evidence that
>is left. But then he marshalls the OTHER evidence we have about Neanderthal
>capacities, and reaches his conclusion.
>
Wait, the evidence is all consistent with speech in Neanderthal. What
morphological evidence is there that Neanderthal was morphologically incapable
of speech? His hyoid was normal, the flexing of the cranial base is normal.
And Tattersall cites the unfossilizable cartilage.
Tattersall and Shreeve also don't tell their readers that the only flower
anthers found at Shanidar was in the burial pit. Why don't they tell this?
Because it goes against their view.
>The rest of your post is more of the same, another example of duelling
>experts. But once more you start with the denigration. You take the gloves
>off on Tattersall, calling him names. Well, that doesn't cut it. He is an
>expert in a field you are an amateur in. I'll take his tales over yours
>anytime. Name calling is really not helpful or persuasive.
>
See my other post and the data that Tattersall isn't telling you about Gargett
s paper. Jim, in the panoply of views about fossil man, Tattersall is at an
extreme end of the spectrum. Anyone in that position is called what?