First of all, Lucy itself is not a clearly accepted common ancestor. =
However,=20
"Lucy's legs were clearly diminutive and more like those of an ape than=20
a human," says Jungers [article in Nature, 1982]. Thus, Lucy probably =
probably swung from trees and did not walk upright say Cherfas, Stern, =
and=20
Susman [New Scientist Journal & American Journal of Physical =
Anthropology, 1983]. Moreover, Lucy co-existed with a more modern =
species according to Tuttle [Science News, 1982], and is a younger woman =
than her proponents claim:
"A geologist and an anthropologist working independently have recently =
challenged the age of the Hadar fossil site in Ethiopia, raising =
questions about the age and significance of the Hadar's most famous =
hominid, Lucy. Lucy's American proprietors, while welcoming the =
geological clarification of the shaky Hadar dates, have rejected the =
anthropological work wholesale, charging their critic with =
methodological clumsiness and intellectual dishonesty."
[Science News, 1983]
Your evidence is far from conclusive as can be seen from these =
specialists even as far back as 10-15 years ago when most scientists =
were accepting Lucy hook line and sinker. In fact, one of the top =
specialists in the field of primate studies is Solly Zuckerman out of =
Britain. Though he accepts the evolution of man from apes, he says that =
much of the fossil evidence for human evolution through primates is =
"poppycock."
TILL
Let's a take a look at Walt's objectivity. When he finds an archaeologist
who says that he hs found a fragmented inscription that contains a reference
to the "house of David," Walt insists that this must be accepted as
conclusive evidence that David was an actual historical character. The fact
that other archaeological-linguistic scholars insist that the inscription
has been translated must be rejected in favor of what Walt's "scholars" say.
The fact that Walt's scholars are maximists is of no consequence. Their
opinions must be accepted and all other conflicting opinions rejected.
Hence, David was an actual historical person.
A fragment was found at Qumran, which a scholar committed to Christianity
says is a fragment from the book of Mark that was written around A. D. 50.
The fact that other scholars point out that the only undisputed letters in
the fragment could also fit other texts doesn't matter to Walt. Neither does
the fact that other scholars question the dating of the fragment. Their
opinion must be rejected in favor of the one who says what Walt wants to
hear. This is objectivity? I do wish that Walt would subscribe to an
Islamic list and just read the postings for a few weeks. He would soon see
that Muslims use the same arguments to prove their religious positions.
I said that I wouldn't comment on an evolutionary thread again, but I will
make a quick observation about the dating of Lucy. Walt's position is the
same as in the situation above. If some scholars question the accuracy of
the dating of Lucy, then Walt insists that their opinion must be accepted as
fact, no matter how many other scientists disagree. I don't recall where I
read it. It was possibly in an article in *Science News* or a couple of
other scientific publications that I read regularly before I retired from
teaching and lost access to them without making special trips out to the
college library. Anyway, a couple of years ago, I read an article in one
of these publications that stated Lucy's fossil remains had been rechecked
with what is considered more accurate dating methods, and the results showed
that the fossil was actually older than the original dating. Does anyone
remember reading this article?
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.