Susan S. Chin (
Sun, 28 Jul 1996 04:28:24 GMT

Bryant ( wrote:
: In article <4t9eal$>, Ed Conrad <> wrote:
: >
: >The latest edition of ``Nature," the so-called respected journal,

: You don't build tremendous credability for your subsequent rants by
: attacking the most respected, peer reviewed scientific journal in the
: world in your opening swipe. Bad tactics.

: >The article describes the discovery in Turkey of ``a fossil ape face"
: >by a team of anthropologists and researchers who call it
: >ankarapithecus meteai, a 60-pound, fruit-eating ape.
: >
: >Without any basis in fact, they refer to it as ``a cousin" of man

: "Cousin" is sufficiently vague a term that any taxonomist could
: comfortably refer to any large primate as a "cousin" (or, if lemuroid,
: perhaps "a distant cousin") to humankind. What's your beef, exactly?

This is what my local paper had to say about Ankarapithecus meteai's
relationship to man:

"Ankarapithecus currently is ranked as a distant ancestor of orangutans.
They, in turn, are believed to be distant relatives of gorillas, chimps
and humans." Maybe that's where the "cousin" allegations come in?

However, the article goes on to say the Nature article's authors "argue
that features of the new skull's face show that it should be reclassified
as a closer relative of gorillas, chimps and humans" (than orangutans).
I'm not sure what these features are exactly, but this sure sounds like
something that will come up for some heated debate.

: >The article even quoted bullshit artist David Pilbeam of Harvard
: >University as saying, ``There are so few specimens that are as
: >complete as this," adding that the discovery makes ``a significant
: >increment in our knowledge."

Aside from your comments about Pilbeam, I see nothing here that remotely
resembles b.s.