Message 26

Previous Next

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:28:03 -0500
To: Andrew Arensburger
From: Don Patton (by way of Steve Rudd)
Subject: Re: Andrew

Steve, please review and forward this to Andrew.




I believe I finally understand our problem and it is that you have missed the
point. However, I must acknowledge that it is not entirely your fault.

I use these quotes in my lectures. They are from handouts used to provide
documentation for what has been said in the lecture. They were not intended
to stand alone as arguments by themselves but Steve thought it would be good
to post the documentation on his web site and I agreed. I commented at the
time that some of them would not make sense without the lecture. You have no
doubt observed this.

It seems you have perceived that I was using the disputed quote to make a
point about Homo habilis, particularly, Dean Falk's view of Homo habilis.
This is simply not the case. I was talking about 1470 and pointing out that
this skull is different which is exactly what Falk was saying. The bold
heading (HUMAN BRAIN) in my handout clearly indicates this. The quote is
introduced with a dramatic picture of 1470.  I was talking about the fact
that the brain case of 1470 "is shaped like that of a modern human."

However, the sentence that makes this point includes a contrasting reference
to 1805, which I had not discussed, nor had I discussed Homo habilis. An
unexplained reference to 1805 would only confuse a general audience and so I
provided the standard, typical interpretation.  The point I was making had
nothing whatsoever to do with what Dean Falk thought about 1805, rather, it
was that Dean Falk said 1470 had a human brain. When 1470 is dated at
approximately 2 to 3 million years old, this is a problem for evolutionists.
That was my point and it is a good one.

Actually, the fact that Falk says 1805 (which is typically designated Homo
habilis) is different from 1470 only emphases my point. Unlike other apes,
1470 is human. But I do not have time in these lectures to cover all these
points or all the fossil men. Consequently Homo habilis gets left out. I wish
I had time to talk about him, especially Donald Johanson's find of a more
complete specimen with post cranial material. It demonstrated he was shorter
than Lucy with very long ape like arms, rather than more advanced, halfway
toward man, as sometimes claimed. But, time constraints have pushed that

I will cut you some slack in view of the fact that you didn't hear the
lecture. However, you need to keep that in mind. You didn't hear the lecture
for which these quotes provide documentation. I will expect a more
restrained, fair response. Please don't disappoint me.


Dr. Don R. Patton
Previous Next