PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Keith Thomas <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:47:47 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:48 Day, Wally wrote:

>I think William is the "devil's advocate's devil's advocate".
>
>Just out of curiosity, William, are you expecting the "missing link" 
>to look like the Geico cavemen? Or something else?
>
Those who call for evidence for the "missing link" are
forever rewarded, because as soon as a species is
discovered that fills one "missing link" space, it immediately
creates TWO missing link spaces, one on each side of
the newly discovered one.

For each new piece of fossil evidence discovered for 
evolution by way of fossil remains, twice the number of
points are revealed for which "links" are missing. 

In fact, it's just journalists and stirrers who continue to use
the term "missing link". It's no longer used in serious 
palaeological discourse. It's a "pop-journalism" term and 
seeking a "missing link" is a futile quest because those who 
call for the revelation of this or that missing link are NEVER 
going to be satisfied with ANY discovery as evidence for
evolution (or, for some people, human evolution).

Keith

ATOM RSS1 RSS2