Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo.....

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: H. M. Hubey: "Re: Darwin a has-been?"
• Previous message: H. M. Hubey: "Re: Tears and 'salt excretion'. Was Re: tears"

pnich@globalone.net (Phil Nicholls) writes:

>association argument. Again, why can't you just tell us SPECIFICALLY
>what you object to? How are the conclusions NOT supported by the

Sorry, I don't have time for this. I resembles the usual
stuff we've been going through. Trust me, I went to the library
and made xeroxes of some articles from Am.J. of Phys. Anth.,
Folia Primatology, etc. Stuff on Hadar fossils, etc.

I have them right here at home. I read them and I don't see
anything to even discuss.If I had casts of these bones and
zillions of other bones and sat around a round table
listening to others talk about why X looks more like
Y than Z, all I can say is that it's still bone-gazing.

I already said too much on the topic.

-- 



				Regards, Mark

				http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey

• Next message: H. M. Hubey: "Re: Darwin a has-been?"
• Previous message: H. M. Hubey: "Re: Tears and 'salt excretion'. Was Re: tears"