From: J de Lyser (gd33463@glo.be)
Date: Mon Jan 27 1997 - 11:09:21 MST
John K Clark <johnkc@well.com> wrote:
>besides
>3.9 millions years is usually too short a time to change things very
>dramatically, the Hominid line a very important exception.
ever heared of 'dog-bears' ? (that means no dogs and no bears in this
period)
John, you don't seem very perceptive of the examples we've presented you
with. So far you have come up with none yourself in defense, just theory.
I fully agree that early hominids don't live up to the 'fierce hunter' image
that has always been projected on them, but turning it completely around
seems more than a little unreasonable as well.
I'm also open to aquatic ape theory, it's the main alternative theory, and
therefore the main source of critical analasys of hominids early history.
It's a shame AAT-ers seem to be just as stuck in their dogmas as established
science.
I had to go back on my words several times in this discussion, and i had no
problems with that. I had hoped you would come up with new angles/
alternatives for looking at the examples some of us have presented you with.
Instead you just repeat your words, ignoring our examples as incidental
exceptions.
I can go on repeating my words as well, or look for more similar examples,
but something tells me you're going to ignore them just the same, so i won't.
J. de Lyser
Brussels
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:04 MST