Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / May 2004

>   From: "tinroad66" <tinroad66>
>Subject: Valid Interpretations was Re: Leon aunt's

>> >> And you could not determined I was talking about
>> the
>> >> subject at hand? If I was looking at the fossil
>> >> record, why would I add oceanography?
>> >>
>> >> this an anolog to your aunt leg illustration.
>> >
>> >Leon: No it's not, and my criticism was aimed at

>> >assertion on
>> >its face. "ANYthing" CANNOT be inferred from
>> >observation!"
>>
>> that is incorrect, within reason. the anology of

>> aunts leg would make me a fortune teller. in

>> it would make me a kook. in science it seems you

>> make certain inferrence on little data, such as it

>> done in evolution. But is it correct?
>> of course not, It would cease to be an inferrence

>> speculation, and it would become a fact which can

>> proven by a body of peers.
>
>Tin:  It is very common for anti-evos too simply

>one of many "interpretations" of the evidence, that

>equally valid.  But when challenged to provide the

>the evidence, they are strangely silent.  A couple of

>1) explain why the fossil record starts with one

>nothing but bacteria;
>
>2) explain the sorting of the hominid fossils
>
>Hominid Evolution:
>Sahelanthropus tchadensis (320?380cc), ca. 6-7mya.
>Ardipithecus ramidus (dental and postcranial

>Orrorin turgenesis (postcranial), ca. 5mya.
>Australopithecus anamensis (cranial capacity

>A. afarensis (mean of 470cc, range 375-540cc), ca.

>A. bahrelghazali (cranial capacity unknown), ca.

>A. africanus (440-480cc), ca. 2.2-2.6mya.
>A. garhi (c. 450cc), ca. 2.3-2.6mya.
>A. robustus (c. 475cc), ca. 1.4-1.8mya.
>A. boisei (c. 450cc), ca. 1.2-1.8mya.
>A. aethiopicus (c. 410cc), ca. 2-2.4mya.
>H. habilis (c. 500-800cc), ca. 1.8-2.1mya.
>H. ergaster (c. 1100-1434), ca. 1.3-1.8mya.
>H. erectus (c. 725-1250cc), ca.250kya. - 1.3mya.
>H. heidelbergensis (c. 1300cc), ca. 300-170kya
>H. neanderthalensis (c. 1350-1600cc), ca. 200-35kya.
>H. sapiens (c.1300-1500cc), ca. 170kya-present
>
>3)  explain why:
>   flowering plants are sorted above non-flowering

>   bees with pollen baskets aren't found until after

>   fish with jaws are sorted above jawless fish
>   virtually all dinosaurs are found at or below the

>4)  why life is organized into a nested hierarchy;
>
>5) why there are so many examples of dumb biological

>putting the retina in backwards).
>
>   If you are like Laurie you will respond with raw

>NOT!".