Re: AAT, Round 2

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: NICHOLLS PHILIP A: "Re: Immature type specimens"
• Previous message: 5121 Student 09: "Re: A stronger will than"
• Maybe in reply to: Andrew Francis Grichting: "AAT, Round 2"

Andrew Francis Grichting <agrichti@lawson.its.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>[rock-climbing and underground ape theories deleted]
>
>Note that I am >NOT< supporting either of these theories, I just put them
>forward to show the difficulty of proposing ancient life-styles and the
>evolutionary causes for physical traits. It seems to me that there is more
>evidence for the savvanah theory than any other,

Which theory is that again? The savannah theory. How does that one go.
According to P.Nicholls _there is no savannah theory of hominid
evolution_. Maybe you could spell it out here as briefly as you
did with the other two theories.

It's *so* simple it should only take you 5 or 6 lines.

My [just wanna make sure we're talkin about the same thing] 2 cents
David Greene
cm315c09@nova.umd.edu

• Next message: NICHOLLS PHILIP A: "Re: Immature type specimens"
• Previous message: 5121 Student 09: "Re: A stronger will than"
• Maybe in reply to: Andrew Francis Grichting: "AAT, Round 2"