JF>(sigh) Certainly a valid complaint. It's worth pointing out
>however that the finders of fossils are the worst culprits in this
>regard, and that other scientists have usually been more than willing
>to cast a skeptical eye.
>> Agreed. Zuckerman and Oxnard are the prime examples of this healthy
>> skepticism.
Was, in Zuckerman's case; he snuffed it a couple of years ago at a very
advanced age. Oxnard, incidentally, lives in Perth with you, Steve.
One paleoanthropologist has told me that Oxnard is still trying to live
down his coauthorships with Zuckerman, and is very gently backpedalling
away from his previous assertions about how different piths are from
humans. I think he still believes they evolved bipedality parallel to
the human lineage, but is not as definite about it as he was.
>> AFAIK all the Australopithecines are not ancestors and now it seems
>> the Neanderthals are not.
I think the idea of Neandertals as ancestors has always been a minority
view, though I would want to check on that. But erectus and the archaic
sapiens fossils are a better candidates, so their [N'tals] loss is no
big deal.
As for the piths, most scientists accept one or both of afarensis and
africanus as ancestors. Oxnard and maybe Richard Leakey are the only
scientists I can offhand think of who might disagree, and they are a
tiny minority.
>> This leaves only Homo erectus as ancestors which fits well with the
>> 2-Adam model
What about Homo habilis?
>> I agree that the "parapsychology" tag may be unfair. But Gould seems to
>> accept Zuckerman's pupil Oxnard's views re Australopithecines:
Not sure if he accepted this, or was just keeping it under
consideration. Gould wrote this 20 years ago though, so it may be out
of date now.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765 I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel. -- Edmund Blackadder