Re: Are we "special"?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: chessonp@aol.com: "Re: An alternative to ST and AAT"
• Previous message: Jim Foley: "Re: Request for a.afarensis info"
• Maybe in reply to: Paul Crowley: "Are we "special"?"
• Next in thread: Thomas Clarke: "Re: Are we "special"?"

In article <01bbe39a$f1fbcb60$LocalHost@dan-pc>, "Rohinton Collins"
<rohinton@collins.prestel.co.uk> writes:

>
>chessonp@aol.com wrote in article
><19961206143600.JAA21070@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>> In article <01bbe1cb$83a8a960$062470c2@jdwaters.dircon.co.uk>, "John
>> Waters" <jdwaters@dircon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> >However, please notice that I am not saying that humans are
>> >special in anyway. They are different in many ways. They
>> >are the only bipedal mammal.
>>
>> Somehow every once in a while people forget that kangaroos are mamals
>too.
>>
>
>They're not mammals, they're marsupials.
>
>Roh
>
>

This is too much!

• Next message: chessonp@aol.com: "Re: An alternative to ST and AAT"
• Previous message: Jim Foley: "Re: Request for a.afarensis info"
• Maybe in reply to: Paul Crowley: "Are we "special"?"
• Next in thread: Thomas Clarke: "Re: Are we "special"?"