Why Andrew MacRae's opinion LACKS CREDIBILITY

Ed Conrad (edconrad@postoffice.ptd.net)
Fri, 03 Jan 1997 13:48:44 GMT

I've noticed that Andrew Macrae has announced that he is packing
it in -- leaving talk.origins.

I can only wonder why.

Before Andrew vanishes, however, I would like to raise a very
important point:

> Andrew's own admission that he had NEVER
> examined the cell structure of petrified bone
> prior to examining the specimens I had sent him.

About a month ago (in article <58c2p3$jlj@news.ptd.net>, I defended
my position that the majority of my discoveries in Pennsylvania's coal
region are indeed petrified bone based on microscopic examination of
the specimens' cell structure -- the presence of the Haversian canals
(but minus the surrounding structure that had been removed as a result
of the petrification process).

> ``Yet the Haversian canals, a telltale indicator of the cell
> structure of bone, still exist and can be seen under the microscope."
> I wrote. ``But my opponents, the vast majority who have never examined
> *petrified* bone in their life, insist that it must precisely resemble
> the cell structure of bone that has not petrified.''

On Dec. 10, 1996, Andrew posted the following beneath the header --
Re: Welcome to Our World (Ed Conrad's) -- in article

> ``We will have to call the judges in on this one," Andrew wrote. ``Is this
> misrepresentation #16 of my claims? He (Ed Conrad) does not name me
> specifically, but it is pretty obvious it applies to me...

> ``He says, the vast majority who have never examined *petrified*
> bone, so I assume I was included in his "opponents" as an exception
> to that `vast majority.' But you are right. I'll err on the side of caution
> and keep the official misrepresentation count at 15. It isn't as if one
> or two instances are going to make a big difference at this point,
> although some people in the betting pool might be miffed.''

You stand corrected, Andrew.
You see, it DOES make ``a big difference at this point" because it is
the key determining factor whether the specimens you examined -- in
particular, the one which Wilton Krogman called a portion of a tibia
-- are indeed petrified bone.

Since, by your own admission, you totally lacked ANY previous
experience examining petrified bone, you certainly were not qualified
to have stated so adamantly -- as, indeed, you had -- that my
specimens are nothing more than rocks and concretions.

By insisting they are NOT petrified bone, you are not only challenging
but also belittling the expertise and integrity of Jeremy Dahl, a bone
expert at Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, who -- in writing
and bearing his signature -- stated that one of my specimens he had
examined IS petrified bone.

Another thing, Andrew, I don't think you were fair in concealing
the fact -- in all of our dealings, pro or con, over many months --
that you are NOT a full-fledged professor of earth sciences at the
University of Calgary.

I only learned of this when Paul Myers let the cat out of the bag by
mentioning that you are only a grad student, a fact that you confirmed
in a somewhat saracstic follow-up posting.