Re: Moving target? NO target... was re:Aquatic elephants.
jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk
19 Oct 1995 15:08:54 GMT
bbur@wpo.nerc.ac.uk (Bill Burnett) wrote:
>
>Right, that's it, I quit.
Well you quit without having falsified the AAT.
I refuted the only pro-marine elephant hypothesis I
>could find but it wasn't enough. I refuse to waste my time further until you
>show me some evidence and give me something to shoot at. And give me
>something GOOD.
I don't have all day to play around looking for references for you. I will get around to it.You
don't seem to realise that I'm not on this newsgroup to convince you of AAT. I'm here to justify
my belief in it and to refute those who claim it is unfalsifiable. So the onus is on you to
convince me that AAT is crap. And I have helped you by suggesting that you look for a purely
terrestrial animal that sheds tears when emotionally upset. Reliable anecdotal evidence will do
for this.
As for elephants. They have naked hides, subcutaneous fat,convoluted vaginal pathwways and the
ability to swim over great distances. A reference of an elephant that went for a 200 mile island
hopping trip in the Bay Of Bengal is given in Richard Carrington's 'Elephants A Short Account Of
Their Natural History, Evolution And Influence On Mankind' Londond, Chatto & Windus 1958.How do
you explain these features? I know this isn't proof, But you haven't proven that elephants don't
have a marine ancestor,just that they don't share one with sea-cows.
James Borrett.
|