Re: A Simple and Direct Question for Evolutionists

Yep...The evidence is everywhere we look!!


Paleonanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Corinthian:

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, it 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 it's modern origin:

1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically
fossilized bone.

2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic
centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified
proto-hominids.

3. 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 that 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 tinged 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 name
you selected was hyphenated, and did not really sound like it might be
Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of the 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
3/8 inch Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,
Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities