Replies

To: PatrickHenry; VadeRetro

8 posted on 05/31/2006 8:41:16 PM PDT by NonLinear (He's dead, Jim)

To: NonLinear; Junior; blam

Thanks, but this isn't going to be a science thread. Maybe blam wants it.

21 posted on 06/01/2006 4:55:01 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)

When "Futz" Rana says "not related," he means "separately created." That is, no common ancestor at all.

A mainstream scientist will say "not related" about this finding and only mean "not as related as some people were claiming." In particular, not a direct contributor to the gene pool of modern humans.

To ignore the two "not related"s being vastly different historical and physical conditions is to fall into a fallacy of equivocation. Evidence for the latter "not related"-ness is in no wise evidence for the former.

27 posted on 06/01/2006 7:35:19 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794