From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13042 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2010 01:13:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 13032 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Apr 2010 01:13:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com (HELO mail-bw0-f227.google.com) (209.85.218.227) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 01:13:20 +0000 Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so2255091bwz.18 for ; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.140.212 with SMTP id j20mr1017162bku.119.1270775597280; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.99] (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l1sm5037709bkl.8.2010.04.08.18.13.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:13:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BBE8393.3030106@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 01:13:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Isn't this about where we came in?" Subject: Re: Missing link found. References: <4BBE50D4.3080805@gmail.com> <4BBE5C6C.8080500@cwilson.fastmail.fm> In-Reply-To: <4BBE5C6C.8080500@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2010-q2/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 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