To: Don Patton
Cc: Steve Rudd
Subject: Re: Andrew
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 06:17:50 -0500
From: Andrew Arensburger
On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:28:03 EST, Don Patton wrote:
> Steve, please review and forward this to Andrew.
First of all, if you like, you can send mail to me directly.
Secondly, I'd like to put your response (the message I'm
responding to), in its entirety, on my web page.
> 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
So, ironically enough, you're saying that I've taken you out
of context? :-)
> 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.
I'll leave it up to you and Steve to decide how to set up your
web page. I'll just suggest that a web page is not bound by the same
limitations as a handout at a lecture, so it could be more complete
(e.g., you could add the photos that you refer to below,
cross-references to other sources, etc.).
> 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, in ``Cerebral Cortices of East African Early
Hominids,'' Science, Vol. 221, p. 1073, 1983, Falk says that KNM-ER
1805 is _not_ a Homo. Your web page implies that he said that it is a
Homo habilis. Furthermore, until recently, that page did not include
any indication that the words "Homo habilis" were your addition, and
not Falk's words.
If Falk disagrees with the conventional classification, or has
changed his mind since the paper was published, this should be
mentioned outside of the quotation.
> 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
> 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.
Be that as it may, we seem to have gotten stuck on one
particular quotation. However, the point of my web page is that the
quotations at http://www.bible.ca/dp-index-quote.htm show a distinct
pattern of misrepresenting the people who are being quoted.
For instance, the very next quotation says,
The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5
million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo
This gives the impression that McHenry was talking about an entire
body. In fact, he is only talking about the distal humerus.
Likewise, in ``The Science of Evolution,'' Stansfield talks
not only about dating methods, but also about their problems. Your
quotations omit the problems. The web page therefore misrepresents
what people have said, much as if I had said,
we have no sin
-- 1 John 1:8
If you would care to read the full text of
[The document has moved. This text reflects the new location. --AA, May 24, 2000]
I would be interested in reading any comments you may have; I would be
particularly interested in your opinion of my commentary on the
section about Noah's Ark. Also, if you do write back, please let me
know if you object to me putting your response on the web.
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy Center for Automation Research
email@example.com University of Maryland
Blue-shifted: the only way to travel.