@edgarblythe,
Although ed, it could be said to mean that those who derive conclusions about life from the study of fossils, in which the electrical impulse circuits have ceased to exist and left no trace, are talking out of their arse.
Maybe Darwin became aware of this flaw in his theory. What can one learn about the Duke of Wellinton by dissecting his corpse compared to reading his writings and other records of his actions.
Towards the end Darwin became pretty obsessed with animal behaviour and not so much with their constitutions. As have been the great fiction writers concerning human behaviour. He studied monkey's faces expressing various emotions, some of which he provoked. An early example of the observer being a component of the observed. Like when the bankers became a component in the banking.
John Aspinall, professional gambler and theme park zoo owner, now deceased, said that if lions could talk we would not know what they were talking about.
What did Lucy talk about? Had she good legs? Did she exploit them? Have you ever seen a real skeleton? What was he all about? Telling us that his toe bone is connected to his foot bone and his foot bone is . . . . is not a great deal of use in answering such a question.
Alas, poor Yorick.
