Joined: Nov. 2006
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 28 2007,10:37)|
According Dawkins it is not easy to tell them apart.
According to the quote, Dawkins says that the "easiest" way is to notice the two holes in the palate. He doesn't say a word in the quote about "not easy".
You catch up my words. Maybe it is easy for professor Dawkins and folks here to tell those skulls apart. But obviously it is not easy for Oxford students. Otherwise professor Dawkins wouldn't mentioned it. What he wrote is also this:
They are easy to tell from a true dog because of the stripes on the back but the skeleton is harder to distinguish.
Maybe "not easy to tell them apart" is totally different from "harder to distinguish", I don't know.
It reminds me to other example professor Dawkins wrote criticising Behe. He wrote about St.Bernardin this:
Or a heavyset, thick-coated wolf, strong enough to carry a cask of brandy, that thrives in Alpine passes and might be named after one of them, the St. Bernard?
When I pointed out that the whole story with cask of brandy is nonsesse folks here criticised me that professor Dawkins didn't say that the dog has done it, but only that St.Bernard is "able to do it". Obviously professor Dawkins cannot be sure if the dog is able to carry a cask of brandy unless he tried it. He cannot induce from a painting of a St.Bernard having a cask of brandy on his neck that the dog "is strong enough to carry a cask" long journey (or 5 meters only?).
I don't see a point why to adhere so strong to exact professor Dawkins wording. Professor Dawkins (strictly speaking) is not a scientist but more a writer and columnist. It is no need to quote him exactly I suppose. Or is he really so important like Vladimir Iljic Lenin or Karol Marx whose sentences were studied so carrefuly by marxistic exegesists once?
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-