Re: Human skull evolution

John P. McKiness (
Tue, 9 Jun 1998 06:29:56 -0500

At 08:24 PM 6/8/98 -0500, Glenn wrote:

>Hi John,
>Actually I will surprise you here. I don't disagree with you or the need
>for a paleospecies as opposed to a biological species concept. I follow
>Relethford's suggestion,
> "Many researchers modify the species concept to deal with this type of
>situation. Different physical forms along a single lineage (an evolutionary
>line such as that shown in Figure 3.7) are given different species names
>out of convenience, and as a label to represent the types of physcial
>change shown over time. Such forms are referred to as paleospecies and are
>used more as labels than as units representing the spcies concept." ~ John
>H. Relethford, Fundamentals of Biological Anthropology, (Toronto: Mayfield
>Publishing Co., 1994), p. 71
>Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>& lots of creation/evolution information


I know, but I disagree, I believe there were more than one form running
around in the past at any one time, as there are more than one school of
thought in paleoanthropology. At this point I have not seen enough evidence
to suggest that archaic sapiens, and Neanderthals were one species 100,000
years ago.

I believe the push (by some) for one species of Homo through time is simply
pc in the worse sense of the term and not good science.