>> I want to commend Jim Foley for an excellent research job and some
>> very good arguments.
Thanks.
>> I just want to clear up a couple of misunderstandings.
>> <<Following the quote you give here, the rest of the sentence is the
>> quote I give two paras up. How can *anyone* possibly interpret that
>> as saying that modern and Neandertal brains are not different???>>
>> No one is making that argument. I was merely pointing out that SIZE
>> is not the key difference. Capacity is. You originally wrote:
Goodman claims they *are* different, repeatedly and emphatically.
>> <<I doubt any modern scientist claims that the Neandertal brain is
>> visibly any different from ours.>>
>> The word that threw me was "visibly." From your latest post, I don't
>> think you meant that,
I did. (the shape difference I referred to in an aside is really only a
difference in the shape of the container, not a difference in the brain).
>> and that we all (Goodman, you, me, Tattersall, etc.) agree that
>> capacity is the key, not appearance.
Yes. By "visibly", I was referring to the pattern of bumps and fissures
on the surface on the brain. There is no difference between Neandertals
and us in the respect (that I'm aware of), and even if there was its
significance would be difficult to determine. If there's no visible
difference, why is Goodman so certain that our brain is so superior, not
only in speech but in other many other ways)?
>> <<What are these mental and physical abilities? What are the changes in
>> the brain, if, as you say, Goodman agrees that the modern human brain is
>> no different from the modern human brain.>>
>> I'm puzzled by "the modern human brain is no different from the modern human
>> brain."
Oops, I meant the Neandertal brain.
>> <<No, Goodman is talking about all these dramatic differences, and
>> Tattersall is telling us that we can tell *almost nothing* about the
>> capabilities of the brain by looking at the outside of it, or at a
>> cast. As far as I can tell, Tattersall is contradicting Goodman's
>> claims, not supporting them.>>
>> Obviously we have a disagreement over the interpretation of
>> Tattersall. We are reading the same book, but I'm puzzled about how
>> you can reach some of your conclusions. For instance, you write:
I'll accept that Tattersall supports Goodman's claims for a recent
origin of language. (Note, though, that Tattersall's claim was not based
on brain structure) What about all those other differences Goodman
claims exist? Tattersall is saying we have no way of detecting such
differences, so what is Goodman's evidence for them?
>> <<Yes, but unlike Goodman, [Tattersall] doesn't write as if
>> Neandertals were known to be deficient in speech compared to us,
>> which Goodman does.>>
>> That is exactly what Tattersall writes! Read the key passage,
>> pp. 211-212. He points out first how anatomically Neanderthals were
>> "deficient in three of the most basic sounds associated with
>> articulate speech." You say he doesn't believe them to be
>> "deficient," but that's the very word he uses!
He uses the word "deficient", but he is describing Lieberman and
Crelin's claims about Neandertal speech, not necessarily endorsing them
or accepting them. I get the impression later on in that passage that
he accepts that L&C's claims are controversial. I should have
emphasized the word "known" in the above sentence, to emphasize that
these claims about Neandertal speech deficiencies are still uncertain.
Other writers (Trinkaus and Walker, in the books I mentioned in my last
post) make it clear that L&C's original work had *serious* difficulties,
and was not generally accepted. Their work was expanded and improved
upon later by Laitman.
Tattersall says that Laitman showed that Neandertals had less cranial
flexion than fossils like the Rhodesian Man (which is primitive
H.sapiens). That may or may not mean that Neandertals would have
trouble speaking. However Walker says that, according to Laitman,
cranial flexion in Neandertals was full blown; the implication is that
nothing would prevent them from talking. Laitman's work is at the
library, so I will check it out (probably in a few weeks) to try and
resolve this apparent discrepancy.
Even if Lieberman and Crelin's claims that Neandertals couldn't talk
proved to be correct, I object to the way Goodman presents their claims
as though they were universally accepted; there's not so much as a
*hint* that they were very controversial, and largely rejected. That's
like citing a paper by Pons and Fleishmann, and then claiming that cold
fusion exists.
>> And then he concludes by saying, "[I]t's hard to avoid the conclusion
>> that articulate language, as we recognize it today, IS THE SOLE
>> PROVINCE OF FULLY MODERN HUMANS." If that's not recognizing
>> Neanderthal deficiency, then English ain't my language.
>> Now let's leave aside whether you agree with Tattersall or not,
>> vis-a-vis other experts. For our purposes, this is only to show that
>> Tattersall is saying something Goodman is saying. It is support for a
>> key thesis, and enough to demonstrate that Goodman is not pure
>> "rubbish."
Let's assume Tattersall does agree with Goodman that fully modern
language arose about 40,000 yrs ago. That opinion is shared by some
authorities, and is not out of the mainstream.
But Goodman goes much, much further. He claims, as part of his
"startling new theory", that modern man physically evolved from whatever
preceded him in only 5000 years, that these differences are far too
large and far too sudden to be accounted for by naturalistic selection
and that some form of intervention must have occurred, that there are no
fossils intermediate between us and whatever we evolved from, that
modern humans have a whole suite of mental and physical abilities (not
just language) that our predecessors didn't have.
It's these claims that separate Goodman from any experts, and it's these
claims which are lacking in evidence. Showing that language arose
40,000 years ago is a minor part of these claims and doesn't even begin
to show the necessity of intervention; after all, everyone agrees that
it must have arisen at some point. When you read Goodman again, look
for evidence on the points I list in the last paragraph.
>> And that's really all I was responding to. The reason is I'm troubled
>> by some of your stark opinions when someone doesn't agree with
>> you. Goodman becomes "rubbish." And other suffer the same fate. For
>> instance, you write:
>> I happen to know evolutionists who consider Taylor one of the best
>> popular writers on the subject. But to you he's "worthless." Again, I
>> think this kind of overkill ultimately hurts your case. I find Taylor
>> a wonderful writer, and would be negligent to leave him out of any
>> discussions if I think he can help.
My recollection of Taylor was that although he was not a creationist,
many of his criticisms of evolutionary theory seemed to be coming out of
young-earth literature, and Taylor didn't know enough to realize how
wrong they were. (This is from reading The Great Evolution Mystery, the
only book of his I've read.)
>> But you've made your points, I'll consider them, and re-read Goodman
>> in that light. Some of what he wrote years ago obviously needs to be
>> modified. However, looking at the big picture, there is no doubt in
>> my mind that Goodman's main point is correct.
I took my time reviewing Goodman, so feel free to take your time
responding in return. I'll be interested in what you find out. (might
be best if you didn't respond to this message, so we can let the issue
rest a while. Read Goodman, and respond to my arguments in this and
previous posts together)
>> It's the same point Taylor, and Tattersall make.
Again, Tattersall agrees with Goodman on one point. I'm sure he'd be
boggled to find out that humans supposedly evolved in 5000 years and
that there are no intermediates between us and H.erectus, and even more
boggled to find out that he is being used as an authority to support those
claims.
>> So on the big issue, the most important issue, Goodman is not only
>> right on, but in harmony with numerous well known scientists. Chandra
>> Wickramasinghe comes immediately to mind. I hope you don't consider
>> this Oxford don a "nut" too. Your nut bowl will begin to overflow!
This is the Chandra Wickramasinge who has made some extravagant claims
about Archaeopteryx being a forgery that have been thoroughly debunked
(see the talk.origins archive for an excellent article), who, I am told,
says that genetic material disperses through interstellar space, who
suggests that ants are smarter than humans, but aren't letting on (a
passage from one of his books saying this was read at the Arkansas
evolution trial). I'm sure he's a good astronomer, but as a biologist
his dabblings in biology have a poor track record, to say the least.
>> Tim Ikeda said: <<My bowl overfloweth... Please, help yourself to
>> all the Brazil nuts you want but save me a couple pecans. ;^)>>
>> The "nut" mission continues, eh? It's so easy to slap on this label
>> when someone disagrees with a cherished position. But it gets to a
>> point of diminishing returns after awhile. The "nut" allegation rings
>> hollow, leaving only an empty shell.
Jim, you're too touchy here. YOU made a pun about a "nut bowl", Tim
plays along with it (without calling anyone a nut), and suddenly you're
accusing him of ad hominems. Tim has read some of C.W.'s work, and he's
a professional biologist qualified to judge it, so his criticism hardly
falls into the category of "calling him a nut because he disagrees with
a cherished position". Lighten up.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (970) 223-5100 x9765 I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel. -- Edmund Blackadder