Re: Who Killed the Australopithecines?
BARD (bard@netcom.com)
Fri, 21 Apr 1995 14:28:42 GMT
In article <bardD7Dp05.En2@netcom.com>, BARD <bard@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3n7607$d0e@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>JoeBeaver <joebeaver@aol.com> wrote:
>>BARD writes:
>>
>>> Nicely put....
>>>
>>>
>>> Yet you go brashly on to proclaim that A. species' demise was
>>>caused
>>> by natural extinction...
>>>
>>>
>>> Where is your *EVIDENCE* to support this hypothesis?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BARD
>>
>> Read my post again. You'll find that I did not make any such
>>proclamation. Nonetheless, I do support such a hypothesis. Why? Ever
>>heard of Occam's Razor?
>> To argue by analogy, it is more reasonable to state that homicide is
>>the exception to the rule of "natural" death. It is more reasonable to
>>assume that genocide is the exception to the rule of "natural" extinction.
>> That being the case, we assume that all extinctions are "natural" unless
>>confronted with evidence to the contrary.
>> By the way, you will have noticed my placing of the word natural in
>>quotes. This is because I do not believe that anything can be considered
>>"unnatural." The word has no meaning. I took it as intended, however.
>>
>> Joe Beaver
>
> __________________________________________
>
Whooaaa....!>
Not so fast, Socrates....
Ever hear of fallacious reasoning...?
Your analogy doesn't work at all...
Comparing homocide to genocide reminds
us of the child seeing a Kangaroo and
reporting, "Look, mommy -- a giant mouse!"
You really need to put Occam's Razor down before you cut
yourself with it.
And finally, this question....
Inasmuch as Homo sapiens are responsible for the extinction or
near extinction of several species, why, as you put it, is it
"more reasonable to assume genocide is the exception to the
rule of `natural' extinction"?
BARD
|