Re: Refs, please... was... Re: AAT Theory

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: H. M. Hubey: "Re: Body Hair Loss in Aquatic Mammals"
• Previous message: Mark Winston Lowe: "Paper Topics please. help"
• Maybe in reply to: J. Moore: "Refs, please... was... Re: AAT Theory"
• Next in thread: J. Moore: "Re: Refs, please... was... Re: AAT Theory"

j#d#.moore@canrem.com (J. Moore) writes:

>of suggestion). If you're going to argue the case for the AAT,
>you have to deal with the problems it brings with it. I see a
>whole lotta side-stepping whenever these problems are brought up,
>not just from you but from every AATer around. If you're arguing
>the case, you have to deal with these issues.

The same problem occurs when there's the alleged shift from
trees to the ground.

so there's nothing new or different except the habitat's\
specifications. AAT holds up on all counts at least as well
and better. AAT'ers are no worse than SST'ers or MST'ers.

it's the MST/SST that's been simply assuming that it happened
that way since the possibility that some other process
intervened never occurred to them in the first place.

-- 



				Regards, Mark

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

• Next message: H. M. Hubey: "Re: Body Hair Loss in Aquatic Mammals"
• Previous message: Mark Winston Lowe: "Paper Topics please. help"
• Maybe in reply to: J. Moore: "Refs, please... was... Re: AAT Theory"
• Next in thread: J. Moore: "Re: Refs, please... was... Re: AAT Theory"