Marc Verha
Tue, Nov-11-03, 05:11
Years ago, JHE rejected my "Apiths: African ape ancestors?"
(it got accepted (a bit changed) in Human Evolution
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html ). An
intelligent PA professor commented: "I note with some
amusement that your reviewer considers that "footprint
evidence" shows that Australopithecines are hominids, period.
I might observe that if one reads the full account of the
"footprint evidence", there are some problems with how it was
recovered, archeollogically-speaking. Even if we can agree
that someone was bipedal, we don't know who was bipedal, or if
all of the related forms at c 3.5 Ma were. That statement by
the reviewer is a good example of stereotyped thinking about
biological populations which quite likely varied in their
adaptive potentials and abilities, over whatever was their
entire range of distribution, which we also do not know. I
might observe that if there were no footprints (archaeological
evidence), the PAs would still arguing vehemently, based upon
fossil bones, about whether anyone could walk upright 3.5 Ma.
There's nothing wrong in real science in pointing-out
alternative hypotheses, when some evidence or lack of evidence
raises questions, but the audience, which has a personal stake
in everything they believe to be true, may not like to hear
that message. These become questions about the philosophy and
sociology of science."
Marc Verhaegen http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
(it got accepted (a bit changed) in Human Evolution
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html ). An
intelligent PA professor commented: "I note with some
amusement that your reviewer considers that "footprint
evidence" shows that Australopithecines are hominids, period.
I might observe that if one reads the full account of the
"footprint evidence", there are some problems with how it was
recovered, archeollogically-speaking. Even if we can agree
that someone was bipedal, we don't know who was bipedal, or if
all of the related forms at c 3.5 Ma were. That statement by
the reviewer is a good example of stereotyped thinking about
biological populations which quite likely varied in their
adaptive potentials and abilities, over whatever was their
entire range of distribution, which we also do not know. I
might observe that if there were no footprints (archaeological
evidence), the PAs would still arguing vehemently, based upon
fossil bones, about whether anyone could walk upright 3.5 Ma.
There's nothing wrong in real science in pointing-out
alternative hypotheses, when some evidence or lack of evidence
raises questions, but the audience, which has a personal stake
in everything they believe to be true, may not like to hear
that message. These become questions about the philosophy and
sociology of science."
Marc Verhaegen http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT