Re: Polar Bear Challenge for AAH opponents

13 Dec 1994 21:47:41 GMT

In <rodhagen-1312942202310001@> writes:

` In article <>, wrote:
` >
` > Well, I can suggest a find that would be pretty compelling evidence
` > for the AAH. Suppose that an australopithecus afarensis or similar
` > skeleton is found in the Danakil Alps, and dated to the period when
` > those mountains were an island or islands, a period for which there's
` > a gap in the hominid fossil record. If the skeleton is found in
` > what used to be the seashore, that's icing on the cake.
` >
` > AAH opponents: Would you accept that as strong evidence for the AAH?
` > If not, why not?
` >


` Why would this prove anything? I've found the bones of kangaroos and sheep
` on beaches. I'm sure millions of the things have washed down rivers after
` floods etc. Why should a fossil australopithecus in an old sea shore be
` regarded any differently?

What might come closer, though, would be a succession of fossil types
starting with an arboreal ape, and ending with an australopithecine,
all found on an island. Not that it would be utterly conclusive,
nor that I expect it to be a probable eventuation.

========================================================================== <== faster % Pete Vincent % Disclaimer: all I know I
% learned from reading Usenet.