<<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.
<<Goodman talks as if we evolved from Neandertals.>>
You're wrong. Better get your hands on the book.
<<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? What are you, a hominid nut...with a naturalistic agenda?
See how easy that is to do?
Jim