|
|
"Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42ede55e$0$17158$ba620e4c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Rick Wagler" <taxidea3@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:bS6He.72514$%K2.41229@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>> One paper (B.G. Richmond and D.S. Strait, Nature 404, 23 Mar 2000, vol.
>>> 382.) claims that Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus
>>> afarensis walked in their knuckles.
>
>> This is absolutely false. Did you read the paper or are you relying on
>> some wet apers hatchet job of an interpretation of what R / S actually
>> wrote? To be brief they claim evidence that anamensis is descended from a
>> knuckle walker based on the vestigial presence of features found in
>> kw'ers. Rick Wagler
>
> Why don't you use your brain, Wagler, instead of blindly following just-so
> interpretations of the facts??
>
IIRC the phrase I used was "some wet apers hatchet job
of an interpretation of what R / S actually wrote" You don't
disappoint, Marc. You crawl under the bar no matter how
low I set it.
> - facts: Lucy & anamensis showed KWing features,
> - R+S interpretation: KWingin apiths is vestigial.
>
> There's no the slightest indication that these KWing features in Lucy &
> anamensis were vestigial. All we know is that they had them!
Oh sure. I have the choice between two competent
specialists in the field who have examined the material
first hand and some alleged MD who hasn't been
within a thousand miles of them.
Now, there are
> no indications of KWing early hominids. Some *extant* hominids OTOH (Pan
> & Gorilla) are KWers. IOW, everythging suggests KWing features were
> evolving in Lucy & anamensis. And there nothing that contradicts this!
> Okidoki? Or too difficult for you??
>
Yes. Flights of fancy founded on illogic and ignorance
are entirely too difficult for me to accept at face value.
Try this over on your Yahoo group. Calling a sow's ear
a silk purse is an attribute much in evidence over there.
Rick Wagler
|
|