Re: An alternative to ST and AAT
Thomas Clarke (clarke@acme.ucf.edu)
16 Nov 1996 03:30:54 GMT
In article <896.6893T534T1587@triax.com> rogerdodger@triax.com (Roger Dodger) writes:
>
>Roger Dodger has this to say about that-
>>> I think we would find things like fossil pyramids if they had been
>>> built in the Miocene and Pliocene. Remember it is only a couple
>>> of million years from the Australopithecenes to the pyramids.
>>A delicate vertebrate fossil buried in soft sediment is a lot
>>different in terms of survivability than is a 1,000,000
>>metric-ton pyramid composed of two-ton blocks 2-3 meters on a side.
>>You make the most unusual analogies, sometimes! :-)
>A fossil, Thomas, is the remains of a once living ORGANIC creature. The term
>means literally "dug up". A pyramid is a man-made object, and therefore is
>called an Artifact, not a fossil, since a pyramid has never lived and is not
>organic in nature.
I just checked my dictionary. It says that the adjectival form of "fossil"
means "petrified in the earth and recongizable as the remains of animals or
plants". Then it goes on to say that the noun form means a fossilized _thing_.
So its a bit ambiguous.
So substitute the word "artifact" for "fossil" in my statement, I think
the meaning was clear.
If some primates had developed bipedalism 10 or 20 million years ago,
bipedalism like that practiced by Australopithecenes and Hominids, then
the did not evolve very far along an evolutionary trajectory similar
to A/H or else we would come across ancient artifacts (fossil artifacts?).
Tom Clarke
>Roger Dodger
>from the City-State of the Invincible Overlord
>Do not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance. -- Hanlon
>
|