Missing link found.

Missing link found.

[Dave Korn]

From the department of we-told-you-so:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8609192.stm

  Everyone who didn't believe it existed: Now shut up.

    cheers,
      DaveK

Re: Missing link found.

[Charles Wilson]

On 4/8/2010 5:55 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> 
> From the department of we-told-you-so:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8609192.stm
> 
>   Everyone who didn't believe it existed: Now shut up.

Don't oversell it. It's two fossils, that a substantial fraction of
scientists (presumably not religiously motivated) believe are actually
of g. homo, not australopithecine, extraction.  The only thing that
might make them "missing link" material is the reduced cranial capacity
-- everything else is pure g. homo material.  However, Homo floresiensis
(the "Hobbit") is g. homo, but has even smaller cranial capacity.

So...maybe you're right, but the ground under your feet isn't firm
enough to start a round of "Shut up, he explained".

--
Chuck

Re: Missing link found.

[Dave Korn]

On 08/04/2010 23:45, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 4/8/2010 5:55 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> From the department of we-told-you-so:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8609192.stm
>>
>>   Everyone who didn't believe it existed: Now shut up.
> 
> Don't oversell it. It's two fossils, that a substantial fraction of
> scientists (presumably not religiously motivated) believe are actually
> of g. homo, not australopithecine, extraction.  The only thing that
> might make them "missing link" material is the reduced cranial capacity
> -- everything else is pure g. homo material.  However, Homo floresiensis
> (the "Hobbit") is g. homo, but has even smaller cranial capacity.
> 
> So...maybe you're right, but the ground under your feet isn't firm
> enough to start a round of "Shut up, he explained".

  Well, indeed, but then again the whole argument is pretty silly in the first
place.  No matter how complete the fossil record, someone will always point at
the largest gap between data points and say "Look, a missing link".  Now we
have a data point right in the middle of their favourite largest gap.  Perhaps
I should have said "Shut up, or choose one of the now-reduced gaps on either
side to focus on next".

    cheers,
      DaveK