"Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> "Rick Wagler" <taxidea3@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> 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.