>> I do not disagree that Lucy may be a "transitional form". If it is
>> ultimately proved that man has a common genetic ancestry with apes,
>> Australopithecines, and Homo erectus, then I would see that as the
>> process by which "God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Gn 2:7).
We'll make an evolutionist out of you yet, Steve!
>> My real point was the tentative nature of paleoanthropological
>> interpretations. Zuckerman has compared much of it to
>> "parapsychology" and pointed out that *every* fossil remotely
>> resembling humans has been claimed as a human ancestor, thus
>> guaranteeing instant fame, and perhaps fortune.
(sigh) Certainly a valid complaint. It's worth pointing out however
that the finders of fossils are the worst culprits in this regard, and
that other scientists have usually been more than willing to cast a
skeptical eye. Also, not all of these claimed ancestors were debunked;
many of them have survived scrutiny, and are still considered probable
ancestors. So although scientists have often been less than objective,
particularly about their own finds, I think the comparison with
parapsychology is unfair. (I think Zuckerman had a bit of sour
grapes about the fact that his interpretation of the australopithecines
was almost universally debunked)
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765 I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel. -- Edmund Blackadder