[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Response to Gould?



On 2 December, HP Jaime A. Headden wrote:

> in the early
> decades of the last century [I can't wait till the year turns so that
> it _will_ be the new millenium]

Hm. The idea that there was a year 0 is quite old. Take old emperor
Augustus: His year of birth is known, his year of death is known, and how
old he was at death is known, all from Roman sources. (Unfortunately, I've
forgotten all three. He died in 14 AD, I think.) If you calculate his age
from the first 2 dates, you arrive at one year less than the literature if
you don't include a year 0. (I've read this in a newspaper... maybe I can
dig it up... :-] )

> <People are primates but are not australopithecine's, for
> australopithecines are from a specific time only and are all gone.>
>
>   Ask Tim White, or Philip Tobias, or Clark: 1) ausrtalopithecines are
> a whole different kettle of hominid from us hominines. Or at least
> that's the prevalent theory. Of course, there's always a contender who
> says that 2) australopithecines were polyphyletic and we stem from
> _within_ one specific species or another, and so "australopithecines"
> would be an antiquated idea that should be used only as a paraphyletic
> term for ancient hominids that are ancestral to _Homo_ itself. Guess
> which one is receiving more attention....

Isn't 2) the prevalent hypothesis?