Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 5133135" data-attributes="member: 4720">Not an anthropologist myself, and I no longer have any interest in following the primary sources in that field.  The skulls I'm referencing I heard about in a report that showed up in mass media.  Specifically, some BBC science podcasts maybe a month or two ago.On a personal note, I continue to expect anthropologists to be wrong about interbreeding because the data is indeterminate, and the history of anthropology is that they will choose to be wrong in the face of hard evidence, so why not be wrong in the face of soft evidence?  My experience with anthropologists is that they are much like psychologists.... firmly rooted in the belief that humans are different, special, separate, and inherently better than everything else in the universe.  As a biologist who has been forced to live and work in cross proximity to both, I'm prepared to call that a giant bias, especially given how amazingly spotty the fossil record remains.I have my own biases about Life, the Universe, and Science, but they tend to be inclusive, rather than exclusive.  So I have the virtue of parsimony, at least.</blockquote>