Re: The Shifting AAT
David L Burkhead (firstname.lastname@example.org)
19 Oct 1995 20:47:56 GMT
In article <email@example.com> Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> email@example.com "chris brochu" writes:
[ 8< How would we know if AAH were wrong >8 ]
>. . . . by the discovery of a series of hominid fossils 5-4mya
>located at some distance from any contemporaneous large body of water.
Since aquatic deposits are the source of the _vast_ majority of
fossils (that's the environment in which almost all fossils are
_formed_), the discovery of a "series" of such fossils is highly
unlikely, indeed virtually impossible, even if AAH is wrong. Thus, it
doesn't make must of a test.
>The AAT is readily falsifiable. It's a scientific hypothesis.
As for being "readily falsifiable," when I consider the
contortions some folk have shown themselves willing to go through here
to preserve the claims and assumptions that go into their "evidence" I
don't think the finding of an isolated fossil or two, which _might_
happen, far from large bodies of water (at the time) will deter the
David L. Burkhead
Spacecub - The Artemis Project - Artemis Magazine
Akron, OH 44309-0831