[Aric2000]

What they are doing here is putting out a scientific hypothesis, their study has drawn them to this possible conclusion.

They have put their hypothesis out into the public light in order to be peer reviewed.

This hypothesis is NOT set in stone, but they will catch the interest of other scientists who will try to falsify it, or the other scientists will come to the same conclusion, and verify the findings.

It is fun to discuss these different hypothesis, but do not mistake those of us who discuss it as adherents to this particular hypothesis, it is fascinating to discuss the implications and what they might mean.

I think that you are making the mistake of assuming that since it is out there for public consumption that these scientists are somehow claiming that it is fact, when in fact, they are not.

[Mamzelle]

re: I think that you are making the mistake of assuming that since it is out there for public consumption that these scientists are somehow claiming that it is fact, when in fact, they are not. )))

Could be. Not that the assertion does not intrigue--it does. But you don't have to read very far to encounter that old passive voice sentence structure--"It is thought that we split off from chimps 5-6- or eight hundred million years ago..." used to disguise a no-fact fact. It is thought-- By whom? Sez who?

So what you have is an entertaining theory--but there ought to be more skepticism written in to be called science.