Often articles in Science News can be seen only by subscription, but this one is available to all.
To: PatrickHenry
2 posted on
04/19/2006 11:20:21 AM PDT by
furball4paws
(Awful Offal)
To: furball4paws
To prove that Au. anamensis branched from an earlier, as-yet-unknown population would require evidence that the Australopithecus species lived at the same time as Ar. ramidus, the Berkeley scientist notes. No such evidence exists.
That's a rather large leap of logic.
5 posted on
04/19/2006 11:52:21 AM PDT by
The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
To: furball4paws
Damn that evidence, it just keeps on coming
8 posted on
04/19/2006 12:02:24 PM PDT by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: furball4paws
Doesn't look like any of my relatives....
20 posted on
04/19/2006 1:33:06 PM PDT by
bpjam
(Now accepting liberal apologies.....)
To: furball4paws
Seems like a heap of extrapolation built on the shaky foundation of a qualitatively poor sample of one.
37 posted on
04/19/2006 1:53:58 PM PDT by
Busywhiskers
(Democrats est delinda.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson