|
|
Re: An alternative to ST and AAT
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Sun, 20 Oct 96 16:41:04 GMT
In article <326a24da.2567037@news.digiworldinc.com>
pnich@digiworldinc.com "Phil Nicholls" writes:
> Well now, isn't that special. "Gee, I would have evidence, it's just
> 100 meters under water now so, sorry, you'll just have to take my word
> for it."
Sorry for the bad news, Phil, but as it happens, I'm not
responsible for sea-water levels over the past 10 million years.
It's often the case in science that a vital fact is not known,
or is ignored, while the discipline goes down some blind alley.
Try to put yourself back 100 years and ask: "If the sea-level
data had been fully known, how would that have altered the
science?".
Take Neanderthals, for example. I live close to the sea in
North Wales, but most of the hinterland here is 100+ metres
higher. In winter, it's very much warmer at sea-level than it
is up in the hills. Neanderthals lived around here 220 kya
(Pontnywdd is up the road). Now, where did they live in winter
time? At sea level or up in the hills? If they lived at sea
level, not just in winter but in summer as well, then nearly all
the fossil record is unavailable or destroyed.
How often how you seen a consideration of this factor in learned
articles?
Paul.
|