Thursday, April 07, 2005

Ah, more fossils

CNN has the story too.

I'm very curious about how a lot of this science takes place. First, it says that the skull, and the teeth were found in "the same geographical location." What does that even mean? Where they found right next to each other? Ten feet apart? Ten miles? I mean, goodness, if they weren't right next to each other, how can they even be sure the teeth and skull belong together?

Next, they seem to make (and I say seem because what actually takes place and what is said in the article can often differ greatly) the connection between things appearing similar and their evolutionary connection. Now, I can understand this in some part. If two things are built similarly, then it makes perfect sense to say that they may have had similar purposes. I mean, if it looks like a duck . . . but an evolutionary connection? I have a hard time making the leap from "This skull looks similar to a human skull" to "This skull belonged to a human's evolutionary predecessor." Is there no room for things just looking similar? Ignoring all other alternative theories to evolution, if you were giving a dissenting voice to evolutionary theory, wouldn't your first question be, "Why does two things looking similar mean they are necessarily linked? Why can't it be a coincidence?"

Why indeed. Some of these scientists are just willing to go too far with only half a skull and a few questionable teeth.

No comments: