Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: AndrewC
Darwininian paleontologists often use similar techniques to classify bones.

Gee, I must have missed those classes during my undergraduate...darned shame too, for I could have dispensed with my microscope and rock hammer. Goodness! I never would have had to do field work, if what you suggest is true. I think I'll trot right down to the university and get the student-version paleontologist crystal ball.

929 posted on 10/20/2002 9:29:02 PM PDT by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 928 | View Replies ]


To: Piltdown_Woman
Goodness! I never would have had to do field work, if what you suggest is true

Yes, that would save a lot of wear and tear on the ole shin bones. From the nice comfort of your easy chair you too can select the mesonychus as the whale ancestor, and ignore DNA evidence until someone finds another bone. Then you can announce that the caldron stirrers were somewhat correct and reject the mesonychus as the whale ancestor and an also-ran in the game of Darwininian evolution. Using the same crystal ball cousin, or the real thing if you prefer, you can crown the Pakicetus as the whale ancestor, even though the DNA evidence shows the Hippo and the whale belong deep in the artiodactyl tree, and have the Paki lying outside the artiodactyl tree with the ambulocetus as a close parallel relative. But you wisely keep your mouth shut lest anyone point out that all the fossil layouts using these two fossil animals show them as Pakicetus leading to ambulocetus. Well anyway that is what the other channel on the Dawininian crystal ball shows.

930 posted on 10/20/2002 11:42:29 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 929 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson