These are only a few of the assumptions they quite happily, even proudly, state:
1) All living apes and humans have a set of characteristics in common --- no tail, an appendix etc --- and it is a reasonable ASSUMPTION that their common ancestors also had them.
2) It is an ASSUMPTION that similarity in characters is based on common inheritance.
3) It is possible to make ASSUMPTIONS about the behaviour of fossil apes by studying the behaviour of living apes.
4) Olduvai: Bed I contains fossils of early hominins (Homo habilis and Paranthropus boisei) which are ASSUMED to be the same age as Bed I.
5) The fossil animals in Bed I of Olduvai are similar to some found in beds which contain fossils of Paranthropus boisei in northern Kenya. These fossil animals of northern Kenya are therefore ASSUMED to be the same age as those at Olduvai.
6) The use of carbon-14 to date fossils is based on the ASSUMPTION of a constant rate of production of carbon-14 in the past.
7) Palaeo-ecology: The principles of ecology are ASSUMED to apply to palaeo-ecology i.e. it is ASSUMED the principles that apply to modern environments also apply to “fossil” environments.
8) Of the two species of hominins found in Beds I and II (Olduvai), the later species was ASSUMED to be the toolmaker (referring to tools found in both beds along with the fossil hominins).
9) The ASSUMPTION that the last common ancestor of apes and humans did not have a tail is based on the fact that all living apes and humans lack a tail.
…………………………..etc. There are so many "assumptions" that one could almost believe this to be a religion: the House of the Assumption.
Palaeontologists clearly see no problem with the fact that their discipline is based entirely on ASSUMPTIONS. Its very foundations are dangerously unstable, riddled with rot, yet palaeontologists carry on regardless --- the Sid James, Kenneth Williams, Charles Hawtrey and Joan Sims school of palaeoanthropology.
Edited by pantodragon, 27 April 2013 - 02:04 PM.