ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (04/04/85)
[]
I've just been rereading my last message. It's amazing how
pedantic I sound when I'm trying to be precise. Oh well.
There was one other comment I wanted to make to Ken. It concerns
the question of evidence and the Paluxey footprints. Ken quoted
someone (sorry, don't remember who) as saying that human-like
footprints in ancient sediments would not persuade him of the case
for creationism, but only of the existence of a previously unknown
kind of animal. Ken took this as an illustration of the ambiguity
of all evidence.
Ken, this is a bit silly. Fossil footprints *are* ambiguous. There
is comparatively little information contained in them and even that
is frequently distorted by erosion. Find me a genuine fossilized human
skull in ancient sediments (granting the usual bit about making sure
it isn't an intrusion from a recent epoch) and I'll promise not to make
noises about "previously unknown prehistoric species". The point is
that the footprints would be doubtful even if they were untainted by
indications that the excavator has a few screws loose and that there
has been tampering with some of the footprints. There are *no* large
mammal bones from those sediments. There are *lots* of bones which
are appropriate to that epoch.
Enough said.
"Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac
Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texas