Quoting James Farlow <farlow@ipfw.edu>:
But it seems to me that whenever vertebrate paleontologists can't
figure out an obvious function for a structure, the default explanation is
that it had something to do with sex.
There are certain default explanations in various scientific fields that
are taken for granted:
* If you don't know what a biological structure was for, then it was a 'display
structure'
* If you don't know what a human artefact was used for, then it was a 'ritual
object'
* If you don't know what a gene does, then it's 'junk DNA' (at least this one is falling by the
wayside these days)
* If you can't reconcile real observations with the theories of physics, then there must be some
unknown particle/energy at work that has yet to be discovered (because long-accepted theories
*can't* be wrong).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.0/1679 - Release Date: 9/18/2008 5:03 PM