Re: Morgan and creationists
Phillip Bigelow (bh162@scn.org)
Mon, 01 Jul 1996 18:44:45 -0700
HARRY R. ERWIN wrote:
> The following null hypothesis is
> probably testable:
>
> "The lineage leading to H. sapiens experienced a phase extending over
> three chronospecies during which it was adapted to aquatic foraging
> behavior."
It may be testable if the following criteria are met:
1) That a *rigorous* zoological/ecological definition for "aquatic
foraging" amongst animals (in general) is proposed and is accepted by the
scientific community.
2) That a set of unambiguous character traits, found *only* in undisputed
aquatic-foragers is defined. And after the predicted aquatic traits are
defined in the hypothesis, THEY ARE HELD TO (in other words, no
back-tracking should be allowed).
3) That such predicted unambiguous "aquatic-foraging" character traits
(relating to said behavior) are potentially fossilizable.
If the above three criteria are met, then I would agree that the
hypothesis is testable.
If even *one* of the above criteria is not met, I'm afraid you can
count me out as one who considers your thesis "testable".
Since behavior (sensu stricto) doesn't fossilize (rather, only some of
the morphological ramifications of some behaviors fossilize), I submit
that the testability your thesis is on very thin ice.
<pb>
|