re: Lucy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060920/sc_afp/ethiopiascience_060920143923;_ylt=AhdcifqRUE9yNgkEkMS67.MTO7gF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGVna3NhBHNlYwNzc3JlbA--
I try to keep an open mind with the evolution issue, and there's some fascinating stuff to it. But when we are talking about one skull from a supposed 3.2 million years ago, isn't is, I dunno, a little unsafe for the scientists to just openly state "...she is the origin of mankind"?
I mean, we're talking about a really old skull, that might be a human descendent.... or might just be a monkey's skull. Isn't there a LOT of theorizing and guesswork here, a lot of which could be very wrong? (considering the huge gap in time?)
I'm just not sold, but I'm not weighing in one way or the other. Reading this article, and isn't it somewhat dangerous to just accept that "this is how it happened" and not just leave it in the realm of conjecture? (e.g. "what if...")?
2006-09-21
03:35:32
·
14 answers
·
asked by
Rob
5
in
Other - Science