black is white, up is down
Alex Duncan (aduncan@mail.utexas.edu)
28 Nov 1995 03:09:50 GMT
In article <817505163snz@crowleyp.demon.co.uk> Paul Crowley,
Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk writes:
PC> Have you ever tried walking/
PC> running barefoot and naked through the woods? Poison ivy would be
PC> the least of your problems. An animal in that environment would
PC> have rapidly acquired a sensible coat of hair - even if it didn't
PC> have one at the start.
>>
JM> Since in fact anatomically modern humans ("us") did exactly this --
JM> "running barefoot and naked through the woods" -- for tens of
JM> thousands of years, and since earlier hominids did so for hundreds
JM> of thousands and even millions of years before them, we know that
JM> your objection is invalid. Actually, it's foolish, since even a
JM> moment's reflection would be sufficient for even a child to
JM> realise this.
>
PC>I am well aware that children (and paleoanthropologists) are brought
PC>up to believe in "Cave Men". I am suggesting that it is time that
PC>this belief was dropped. It conflicts with the best of observable
PC>data - that of our bodies. You do not "know" that for "tens of
PC>thousands of years or . . . millions of years . . "; you ASSUME.
PC>I acknowledge that nearly all interpretations of fossil data back
PC>up this assumption. Those interpretations lead nowhere. This
PC>should be no surprise; they ignore manifest evidence.
Based on the exchange above, I suggest that in the future, "PC" should be
refered to as "IB Jr".
IB Jr>An animal in that environment would
IB Jr> have rapidly acquired a sensible coat of hair - even if it didn't
IB Jr> have one at the start.
Like elephants, rhinos and pigs?
The "best of observable data" is the way present day "preliterate"
cultures live. For the most part, they're virtually naked. None of them
seem to be rapidly developing hairy bodies. In fact, they seem to be
among the least hairy of humans (e.g., hottentots, pygmys, yanomamo).
IB Jr>I acknowledge that nearly all interpretations of fossil data back
IB Jr>up this assumption. Those interpretations lead nowhere. This
IB Jr>should be no surprise; they ignore manifest evidence.
You mean the evidence of being fossilized with whole bunches of other
terrestrial critters? This is the evidence that doesn't count? How
about the evidence of living miles and miles from any significant body of
water? That doesn't count either?
What exactly does "Those interpretations lead nowhere" mean? They don't
lead where you'd like them to go, obviously. I get the impression from
your recent posts that you'd like to chuck the entire hominid fossil
record. That would be the best thing for your hypothesis.
Unfortunately, it puts you in the same intellectual category as
creationists and astrologers.
Alex Duncan
Dept. of Anthropology
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1086
512-471-4206
aduncan@mail.utexas.edu
|