Message 9

Previous Next

To: Steve Rudd
Subject: Re: Patton Quotes 
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 16:38:02 -0500
From: Andrew Arensburger

[Preliminary response. Second response coming later.]

On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 14:56:05 EST, Steve Rudd wrote:
> >         And how is that? What predictions were creationists making 200
> >years ago that were borne out?
> [Omitted at author's request]

	What's a "kind"? How can I tell whether two animals are of the
same kind? How can I tell whether two animals are _not_ of the same

> [Omitted at author's request]

	There seems to be a word missing in the above sentence. I
can't quite parse it. (Also, I assume you're not asking me to type in
a transitional fossil.)

> [Omitted at author's request]
> >: The taxonomic status of KNM-ER 1805, whose estimated cranial
> >: capacity is 582 cm3 (9, 14) is uncertain and workers have questioned
> >: whether its affinities are with Homo or Australopithecus (15). The
> >: evidence presented above shows that KNM-ER 1805 [Patton inserts the
> >: words "Homo habilis"] should not be attributed to Homo. In keeping
> >: with this, Fig. 4 shows that the shape of the endocast from KNM-ER
> >: 1805 (basal view) is similar to that from an African pongid, whereas
> >: the endocast of KNM-ER 1470 is shaped like that of a modern human.
> >: As noted by Radinsky (6), shape differences may be the result of a
> >: packaging phenomenon that reflect size differences.
> >: -- Dean Falk, ``Cerebral Cortices of East African Early Hominids,''
> >: Science, Vol. 221, p. 1073, 1983
[Omitted at author's request]

	[BTW, have you considered switching to decaf?]

	The insertion of the words "Homo habilis" is what transforms
that quotation from being merely misleading, to being intentionally
deceptive, yes.

Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy		Center for Automation Research			University of Maryland
	     I have seen the truth and it makes no sense.
Previous Next