Re: apiths: not incipient KWers
- From: Rich Travsky <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com>
- Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 21:33:31 -0600
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> "Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:43409B37.E2290427@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4338A5C6.F54EA177@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:432CDAFA.2A34E3E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Marc Verhaegen ran away again wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > No, my boy, it's you who are running away from the fact that you
> have no
> > > > > arguments that contradict a waterside past.
> > > >
> > > > Except for archaeological evidence.
> > >
> > > They don't my boy, they don't.
> >
> > Don't what, Dwaas?
> >
> > > What argument do yoy have that Homo did not disperse along shorelines
> > > (river/sea/lake)??
> > > Zero.
> >
> > What evidence do you have? Zero.
>
> The comparative evidence, my boy:
And yet, no physical evidence. Why is that?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: apiths: not incipient KWers
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: apiths: not incipient KWers
- Prev by Date: Re: butchering sites at the intersection of river channels (Re: AAT is based on comparative data (Re: Algis ranting about AAH
- Next by Date: Re: Otters Keep Warm With Hair, Not Fat
- Previous by thread: Re: apith pelvis (Re: A *Dry* Discussion About The Origin Of Bipedalism
- Next by thread: Re: apiths: not incipient KWers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|