Re: Humans as apes on Wikipedia
- From: Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:34:10 GMT
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:34:51 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.not.to@xxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:06:05 -0500, GCPAXSZJIGKY@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote
(in article
<937603c0-429c-47ac-a697-85181063986f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
On 26 dec, 20:24, Gene <g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> rote in news:26948eb2-64ed-4638-b68c-
8f1f9a778...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
You might have some insignificant point, but it is insignificant.
In other words, who cares what I actually said, you want to rant about
creationists. My point was that not everyone agreed that humans should be
called apes or classed with a cladistic taxonomy. It isn't even that I make
this claim, but that I claim the claim is made. Is that too hard to grasp?
No. not at all, but the claim is not accepted and not even
deemed interesting. You accept that it is not accepted.
Why then mention it?
'cause he's UC under a new name, that's why.
That would explain a lot.
--
Bob.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Desertphile's Definitive Creationism Challenge
- Next by Date: Re: My poor misguided/misinformed friends
- Previous by thread: Re: Humans as apes on Wikipedia
- Next by thread: Re: Humans as apes on Wikipedia
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
