<<Tattersall is basing his view on non-existent data. This is a bad way to do
science.>>
He is NOT "basing" his view on this. Read the passage again and you'll see he
does what a good scientist should do. Realzing that the crucial evidence is
missing, he is unwilling to jump to a conclusion on the scanty evidence that
is left. But then he marshalls the OTHER evidence we have about Neanderthal
capacities, and reaches his conclusion.
This is not only a good way of doing science, it is the only good way.
<< Gargett was not well received by his commentators. You
should read the comments after his article.>>
I was waiting for this. Eventually, any expert I cite who disagrees with you
gets the "not well received" treatment. Well, YOU are not well received by
certain commentators. Does that mean I shouldn't take you seriously?
The rest of your post is more of the same, another example of duelling
experts. But once more you start with the denigration. You take the gloves off
on Tattersall, calling him names. Well, that doesn't cut it. He is an expert
in a field you are an amateur in. I'll take his tales over yours anytime. Name
calling is really not helpful or persuasive.
And you say nothing about the passages from Richard Leakey. Are you going to
start calling him names too, just because he doesn't see Neanderthal as human?
How about Allan Wilson? What names do you have for him? (Remember, "de mortuis
nihil nisi bonum")
Chris Stringer? What name is reserved for him in your rogue's gallery? (I
suppose you could play "duckling" to Milford Wolpoff on this one, but Leakey
calls the evidence against Wolpoff "unassailable").
Ezra Zubow? Maybe because he used a computer simulation you can think up a
good, technically based name for him.
James Shreeve--after interviewing expert after expert, he does not believe in
the humanity of Neanderthal. But he's just a writer, so you can probably
dispense with him easily.
Go to it.
Jim