>> Ian Tattersall writes:
>> "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.
EH?? (Sorry, I almost choked on my Friday morning donut.) I'm sure that
Tattersall would be as stunned by this interpretation as I am.
Tattersall means exactly what he says, and he is saying nothing about
evidence, hard or soft, of humanity among the hominids.
Sorting out the relationships of extinct hominids *is* hard, when you
consider the small number of good fossils, their usually fragmentary
state, intra-species variation and sexual dimorphism, etc. But that's a
totally separate problem from evidence of "humanity". For example, I
think there is evidence of dwelling places and huts from a few hundred
thousand years back (Glenn, correct me if necessary), but that has
nothing to do with debates about whether the builders should be assigned
to Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, archaic Homo sapiens, or
whatever.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765* 1st 1.11 #4955 * "I am Homer of Borg! Prepare to be...OOooooo! Donuts!!!"