"However many species of extinct hominids you accept, the relationships among
them are, and will continue to be, the subject of vigorous debate."
Which means, there is no hard "evidence" of humanity among hominids. It is
all subject to continuing and evolving interpretation.
Is it part of an evolving stream, or is man's sudden appearance suggestive of
something else, like the exploding evidence of God's hand?<<
First, it would be nice if you would reference page number for your quotes.
I got lucky on this one and found it on the first page I looked at.
I believe that you have mistaken what Tattersall is saying here. The whole of
page 231 (The Fossil Trail) is talking about how many taxonomic species
fossil man should be divided into. This is quite a different question from
whether or not they engaged in any kind of activity which might be
classified as human. The issue on page 231 is very similar to the question
of how many human races there are. While various experts might disagree on
that question, they would agree that all are human and engage in human
activity and have a human culture.
Tattersall seems to define humanity as the the possession of a culture. (see
page 127). Thus I think for Tattersall the issue concernes whether fossil
man had a culture.
glenn