This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: Missing link found.
- From: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>
- To: "Isn't this about where we came in?" <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 02:32:03 +0100
- Subject: Re: Missing link found.
- References: <4BBE50D4.email@example.com> <4BBE5C6C.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
On 08/04/2010 23:45, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 4/8/2010 5:55 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> From the department of we-told-you-so:
>> Everyone who didn't believe it existed: Now shut up.
> Don't oversell it. It's two fossils, that a substantial fraction of
> scientists (presumably not religiously motivated) believe are actually
> of g. homo, not australopithecine, extraction. The only thing that
> might make them "missing link" material is the reduced cranial capacity
> -- everything else is pure g. homo material. However, Homo floresiensis
> (the "Hobbit") is g. homo, but has even smaller cranial capacity.
> So...maybe you're right, but the ground under your feet isn't firm
> enough to start a round of "Shut up, he explained".
Well, indeed, but then again the whole argument is pretty silly in the first
place. No matter how complete the fossil record, someone will always point at
the largest gap between data points and say "Look, a missing link". Now we
have a data point right in the middle of their favourite largest gap. Perhaps
I should have said "Shut up, or choose one of the now-reduced gaps on either
side to focus on next".