* Missing link found.
@ 2010-04-08 21:36 Dave Korn
2010-04-08 22:45 ` Charles Wilson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dave Korn @ 2010-04-08 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: So, that settles it then.
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: Missing link found.
2010-04-08 21:36 Missing link found Dave Korn
@ 2010-04-08 22:45 ` Charles Wilson
2010-04-09 1:13 ` Dave Korn
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Charles Wilson @ 2010-04-08 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing link found.
2010-04-08 22:45 ` Charles Wilson
@ 2010-04-09 1:13 ` Dave Korn
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dave Korn @ 2010-04-09 1:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Isn't this about where we came in?
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-04-09 1:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-04-08 21:36 Missing link found Dave Korn
2010-04-08 22:45 ` Charles Wilson
2010-04-09 1:13 ` Dave Korn
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).