Re: The Shifting AAT

David L Burkhead (
19 Oct 1995 20:47:56 GMT

In article <> writes:
>In article <463ae6$>
> "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
aquatic proponents.

David L. Burkhead

Spacecub - The Artemis Project - Artemis Magazine

Box 831
Akron, OH 44309-0831