Thursday, 15 March 2007

Jurassic Yard: An Archeological Dig

You may have seen this around the net before, and I dont know how 'genuine' it is (very un I would suggest).
It may not be VSF, but I think its absolutely brilliant!


Dear Sir:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled '211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull’. We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents ‘conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago’.

Rather, if appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the ‘Malibu Barbie’. It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings.

However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to its modern origin: The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids. The dentition pattern evident on the ‘skull’ is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the ‘ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams’ you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that: A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on. B. Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings ringed with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating’s notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results.

Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation’s Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name ‘Australopithecus spiff-arino’. Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species’s name you selected was hyphenated, and didn’t really sound like it might be Latin. However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum.

While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard.

We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation’s capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the ‘trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix’ that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,
Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities


Zophiel said...

Happenstance has brought this story to my attention twice this week. While there is no mechansim by which we can confirm this report as fact or consign it completely to legend, my own experience with similar "scientific" endeavors does prove it plausible.

When employed by an esteemed American university's physics department, I saw many letters from the laity that represented some unusual views about the cosmos and our place in it.

Observation is a valuable tool, certainly — but for many would-be scientists this is the only implement seemingly employed in the construction of a theory.

The desire to make sense of the world(s) around us is part of human nature. To question may be a universal act. What is not so broadly distributed is sense itself — not in the pedestrian "common" variety but rather in the "scientist's" view of a complete theoretical construct.

The archeological dig — true or not — is a perfect illustration of why we see extinction. We can only take comfort in the fact that poor thinking leaves no fossils.

Tas said...

Well "seeing is believing" I guess.

Remember too that, "Everything we hear is an opinion; Everything we see is a perception" (Marcus Aurelius)

An exploration of debauchery, vice and other reasons to be a man!

An exploration of debauchery, vice and other reasons to be a man!