Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin
From: Mikey Brass (mike_at_nospam.antiquityofman.com)
Date: 09/05/04
- Next message: darth_versive: "Re: Atheists dying"
- Previous message: MrD: "Re: Atheists dying"
- In reply to: Archimedes Plutonium: "Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- Next in thread: Bob: "Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:51:06 +0100
Archimedes Plutonium <a_plutonium@iw.net> wrote in news:413ABDCF.EBE01646
@iw.net:
> I had seen this information on a PBS TV program some years ago.
That's because similar analyses was published in a French journal.
> So I was
> confused as to why Reuters or SCIENCE magazine bothered to publish it
Science is a JOURNAL, not a magazine. An article would have been
submitted to them, gone through the peer-review process and accepted. In
all likelihood, this would have been a different form of analyses from
previously published which arrived at similar conclusions.
> since the story is 2 years old and told better on the TV. Is it because
> SCIENCE belatedly realized it was one of the finest stories of modern
> anthropology and am now trying to patch their missing holes. Better
late
> than never?
Er, Science is one of the top two journals in the world...It simply does
not operate like the common magazine perception you are trying to tarnish
it with above.
> The creature known as Oreopithecus, who is much older than Orrorin at
> about 8 to 10 million years ago, I claim was also biped
So what if you claim that. Real scientific analyses published in the last
couple of years on that fossil results in the conclusion it was a
habitual biped (as opposed to an obligate biped - us, the australopiths,
possibly Ardipithecus ramidus)
> The dig site of both Oreopithecus and
> Orrorin were so sloppily done that they removed the rocks and stones
> that could have indicated Orrorin and Oreopithecus were Throwers.
You cannot tell that by rocks, idiot.
> That is why anatomy and medical scientists are needed to find a
telltale
> bone structure that proves whether a apelike creature Threw rocks and
> stones
You cannot tell that from mere anatomy, idiot.
0/6 on knowledge of the discipline, congratulations.
- Next message: darth_versive: "Re: Atheists dying"
- Previous message: MrD: "Re: Atheists dying"
- In reply to: Archimedes Plutonium: "Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- Next in thread: Bob: "Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
