SHIFT DETECTED in MacRae's position
Ed Conrad (edconrad@prolog.net)
Mon, 29 Jul 1996 10:28:19 GMT
Andrew MacRae (macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca) commented thusly
on talk.origins concerning the two microscopic photos now appearing
at http://access.digex.com/~medved/conrad/conmain/htm
>Even if these concentric structures represented bone,
>there is no indication it is human bone . . .
How right you are, Andrew!
Such a determination can not be made by peering into a microscope.
The next step would be to have comparative human anatomists study and
evaluate a particular specimen that has been confirmed -- via
microscopy -- as being mammalian bone.
Their job would be to determine whether a particular specimen bears
sufficient resemblance to a particular human bone, and therefore
indeed IS that particular bone of the human anatomy.
Rest assured that my aresenal of evidence in this regard is rather
substantial. The minor problem would be which of my specimens --
discovered in Carboniferous strata between Pennsylvania's anthracite
veins -- should be examined first.
I suppose the best placefor these comparative human anatomists to
begin would be to examine my human skulls, since man's cranium is
considered the most easily recognizable bone on the face of the
earth..
Then they could examine specimens that resemble human mandibles and
others that resemble unique bones of the human foot; etc., etc.
Perhaps I'll even take them to the site where the human femur,
embedded in shale (or slate), remains precisely where I had discovered
it.
Meanwhile, Andrew, I think they'll be particularly fascinated by the
specimen that I had sent you for the preparation of a thin section
(even though it is now in a couple pieces).
As I had informed you just after mailing it to you via Overnight
Express for what turned out to be a first-class lesson in
unprofessional ``testing," that's the specimen which the late Wilton
Krogman, considered one of the world's foremost authorities on human
anatomy and author of ``The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine" --
carefully examined and called a tibia.
(I was honest, Andrew, and told you I really didn't remember if
Krogman called it a HUMAN tiibia, only that he called it a tibia. The
comparative anatomists studying it ought to be able to tell if it
bears a distinct resemblance to a human tibia.
As for Krogman's credentials, I'm sure sufficient testimony to his
expertise as one of the world's foremost human anatomists is found on
the bookshelf in the office of just about every physician, surgeon and
pathologist in the world.
|