>> Jim Foley writes:
>> <<There are neither large gaps nor sudden leaps in the
>> transition from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens.>>
>> This is not a statement a careful paleoanthropologist would make. Not
>> Niles Eldredge. Not Ian Tattersall. In fact, see Tattersall's recent
>> book, "The Fossil Trail" (Oxford, 1995) for the latest assessments. I
>> highly recommend it to you. His qualifications are, of course,
>> impeccable, and his writing style superb.
OK, I'll concede it's not a statement *every* paleoanthropologist would
make. But Tattersall, though I respect his views greatly, does not
speak for everyone.
Jim, thanks for this interesting and substantive post. I have read this
book (and liked it), but it was a few months ago. You will have to wait
at least a few days until I have a chance to get it out of the library
again before responding fully to your points.
>> <<There is a known intermediate. It is the group of fossils known as
>> archaic Homo sapiens, or sometimes Homo heidelbergensis.>>
>> This is not a "known" intermediate. There ARE NO "known"
>> intermediates. There are theories and interpretations, and a variety
>> of them. None of this is settled. That statement cannot be
>> made. Tattersall: "However many species of extinct hominids you
>> accept, the relationships among them are, and will continue to be,
>> the subject of vigorous debate." [Id. at 231]
H.heidelbergensis is exactly what we would expect intermediates between
H.erectus and H.sapiens to look like. Sure, there's a lot of debate on
which fossils are related to which others and how, but that is only
natural considering all the uncertainties. I doubt that Tattersall says
that none of these are human ancestors, or that none of them are
erectus/sapiens intermediates.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort CollinsJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765