I'm glad you read the book. In return, why don't you recommend to me your
current favorite book on the subject? Mine right now, as you know, is The
Fossil Trail by Ian Tattersall.
Anyway, I gather you didn't find much good in Goodman ;-). You say it "has no
merit" and is "rubbish." I think this is a bit of rhetorical overkill that
hurts your case. I'll try to demonstrate below how there is more than enough
merit, and also try to get at what I think is the real problem.
On Goodman's claim that modern man's brain is a great leap forward over
Neanderthal, you write:
<<This is news to me. It is true that, for unknown reasons,
Neandertal culture does not display all the refinements of the Cro-
Magnons, but the same is true of many early modern humans and
archaic forms of Homo sapiens. While many have suggested that they
may have differed behaviorally from us, I doubt any modern
scientist claims that the Neandertal brain is visibly any different
from ours.>>
First of all, the complete Goodman quote goes on to relate linguistic capacity
(see page 19) to the debate, because size alone tells us NOTHING. As we'll
see, that's crucial.
But first I want to point to your contention that you doubt any modern
scientist claims the Neanderthal brain is "visibly" any different. That's
really a non-issue. In fact, Goodman doesn't make this claim at all, but the
very opposite, and right in the quotation you used: "[W]hile modern man's
brain is not particularly larger than that of his immediate predecessor,
Neanderthal man..." Goodman then goes on to the cruciality of linguistic
capacity.
Our old friend Ian Tattersall in The Fossil Trail, page 211, goes right along
with Goodman on this: "[N]either size nor the external appearance of the brain
is of much use here: there is simply no way of reading function with adequate
precision from the bumps and fissures on the outside of the brain (and still
less from brain casts)." Tattersall then relates--guess what?--linguistic
capacity!
It would seem that if Goodman's claims here are "without merit" or "rubbish,"
the same would have to be said for Tattersall. But you yourself recognize
Tattersall as an expert. This is one example of why I think you've overstated
the case against Goodman.
<<A similar graph taken from a book by Birdsell is similarly claimed
by Goodman to show separate cranial ranges. Instead, it seems to
be a graph plotting *average* brainsize against time for various
species. The fact that these average values are separate tells us
nothing about widely they were spread about the mean. For example,
the lowest point of Birdsell's line for Homo erectus is about
900cc, even though many H. erectus skulls are known with values
smaller than that.>>
Goodman quotes Birdsell himself, from his college text. Birdsell said,
"Nowhere can it be demonstrated that men of the Homo erectus grade did evolve
into modern populations." [pg. 182] His conclusion on this point is exactly
the same as Goodman's. Is Birdsell "without merit"? Tattersall believes the
same thing [pg. 234]. So there IS merit to this contention.
<< Goodman: "Needless to say, there is no evidence of this transition
[from H.erectus to H.sapiens sapiens] in the fossil record to
date." (p137)
Again, a statement that most scientists would find puzzling.>>
But Birdsell didn't find it puzzling. Nor does Tattersall. I don't know who
"most scientists" refers to, but we certainly can't say these views are
"rubbish."
<<A similar graph taken from a book by Birdsell is similarly claimed
by Goodman to show separate cranial ranges. Instead, it seems to
be a graph plotting *average* brainsize against time for various
species. >>
You may have a point about the graph. I don't think Goodman's argument against
overlap was developed enough. There should be more. Graphs like these are
always open to differing interpretations, so Goodman should have spent more
time on it.
I think the real problem for you, however, is Goodman's mention of
"interventionism." When you first read that, you say you feared a religious
agenda, or that Goodman was a "nut." This is telling. Why should someone who
believes in a supernatural option be, ipso facto, nutty? Why such a reaction?
It may be because the assumption of naturalism is so strong that the
alternative, a supernatural possibility, puts someone automatically in the nut
zone. I think this reaction is ill founded, and ought to be examined.
You write:
<<Even if there was no fossil evidence of the evolution from H.
erectus to H. sapiens, Goodman's theory would be unconvincing.
There is no justification given for his belief that the changes
involved in the origin of H.sapiens could not have been carried out
by natural selection. Even if the gap he claims exists really did
exist, it could be that the transitional forms had not yet been
detected.>>
But this is just a variation on the classic "naturalism of the gaps" argument.
At every gap, a naturalistic alternative is assumed and preferred. All Goodman
is doing is questioning that assumption. So, I might add, have numerous other
scientists, starting with two Goodman names, Wallace and Eccles. These people
aren't nuts. They simply acknowledge there must be something "more." And that
is all Goodman claims for "interventionism."
Objective evolutionary writers, like Gordon R. Taylor, are all the more
convincing for their objectivity. And I would note that Taylor is on Goodman's
side of the fence on this one. I don't think he's another closet nut. I think,
in fact, he is further evidence that Goodman's claims have some merit after
all.
There are some good points you raise about Goodman's conclusions. They can,
and ought, to be debated. But I don't think they are meritless, or "rubbish."
Using such labels undercuts the valid points you are making.
Thanks for taking the time to read the book. At least we can say it got your
blood circulating.
Jim