... (Little Foot stumbles into the crossfire). ... claiming it must be bipedal from a square bone in its heel. ... im sure evolutionist will have no problem inventing some hypothetical missing link that made the laetoli foot tracks.
Yet your source says:
quote: ... And while the arguments over the creatures apelike characteristics are certain to rage on, Tobias argues that the bones will help solve the mystery of Leakey's Tanzanian imprints. "Little Foot could certainly have made the Laetoli footprints," he says ...
Which would make the owner clearly a preferential bipedal species by definition (no knuckle dragging and clear heel-toe depressions similar to those caused by weight shifts in modern footprints).
quote:"What is particularly interesting is just how primitive the specimen is," says Clarke, noting the flexibility of the joints in the skeleton's feet. "While we know that australopithecines were bipedal by this date," he adds, "the architecture of StW-573's feet suggests that this individual was also capable of grasping limbs and climbing trees like a chimpanzee."
Intermediate in form with chimps and still able to climb trees, while being adapted for bipedal locomotion, (a form of locomotion that is not inhibited in any way by either the toe or the hand structure of this specimen) ... just as would be expected in an intermediate form. The article goes on to say:
quote:While taxonomic identification must await the full excavation of the skeleton,... the skeleton may be of the species Australopithecus afarensis, the same as the 3.2 million-year-old Lucy, ... and suggests it may have played a greater role in early hominid evolution than if it were geographically restricted.
If, on the other hand, the specimen belongs to Australopithecus africanus, ... like the 2.3-million-year-old Taung child and a 2.5-million-year-old male from a later stratum at Sterkfontein, it will be the oldest example found to date. A. africanus has been thought to have thrived between 2.5 and 3.0 million years ago.
The age of the specimen appears to be between 2.2 and 4.1 million years, and an accurate date is difficult due to the nature of the deposit.
quote:There has been a considerable degree of debate surrounding locomotor affinities inferred from fossil hominin foot bones. It is well known that geologically more 'recent' hominin species, such as Homo antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis and anatomically modern H. sapiens were fully bipedal (Trinkaus, 1983; Aiello & Dean, 1990; Lorenzo et al. 1999) (Fig. 1). Their feet reflect this bipedalism, although certain aspects of the pedal morphology of H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis differ from that of modern humans (Aiello & Dean, 1990; Lorenzo et al. 1999). The functional implications of these differences are currently unknown. Although there are no associated foot bones for one of the earliest members of the genus Homo, H. ergaster (c. 1.8 Ma) we do know from the rest of the postcranial skeleton that this taxon was also fully bipedal (Ruff & Walker, 1993). For other hominins, there is still a large degree of disagreement. The OH 8 H. habilis foot (at 1.8 Ma) was originally suggested to reflect a fully developed bipedal adaptation (Day & Napier, 1964; Leakey et al. 1964) but others have argued that it still retains evidence of an arboreal adaptation (Lewis, 1980b; Oxnard & Lisowski, 1980; Kidd et al. 1996; McHenry & Berger, 1998a; Wood & Collard, 1999). This is consistent with some recent interpretations of other aspects of H. habilis skeletal morphology (e.g. Hartwig-Scherer & Martin, 1991; McHenry & Berger, 1998a; Wood & Collard, 1999).
Similar controversy surrounds the Australopithecus afarensis foot bones from Hadar, Ethiopia (c. 3.0-3.4 Ma) that are described by some as being compliant with full bipedal locomotion (Latimer & Lovejoy, 1982, 1989, 1990a, 1990b; Latimer et al. 1987), whereas others have suggested that the same fossils show traits that indicate a mosaic of terrestrial and arboreal locomotion (Susman & Stern, 1982, 1991;, 1983, 1991;, 1983; Susman et al. 1985; Duncan et al. 1994; Berillon, 1998 Berillon, 1999 Berillon, 2000). Both sides of this controversy can also be supported by the analysis of other aspects of postcranial anatomy (e.g. Stern & Susman, 1983; Lovejoy et al. 2002).
The issue is further complicated by the suggestion that the foot of the important 'Little Foot' specimen (Stw 573), currently assigned to A. africanus, and possibly as old as 3.6 Ma, reflects mosaic locomotor affinities (Clarke & Tobias, 1995), however, there is no agreement as to the nature of this mosaic locomotor adaptation (e.g. Berillon, 1999 Berillon, 2000; Harcourt-Smith, 2002).
Again, a plethora of intermediate forms from ancient species to modern human type feet.
But if you think "little foot" was an unexpected find, then compare this 1935 prediction with "little foot" (same article):
quote:
A find that matches a prediction based on evolution.
Enjoy.
The clearest pictures of the Laetoli footprints that I could find are:
Another article on matching footprints to fossils is
quote:Human ancestors, or hominins, have been bipedal for at least four and a half million years. The feet of Ardipithecus already show adaptation for a toe-off mechanism that can have little function in other than terrestrial bipedalism.
When humans walk normally, the forces they exert against the ground show a characteristic double-humped pattern, ... This is associated with pressure propagating from under the heel, down the lateral side of the foot, and, as the foot everts and pronates, across the ball of the foot to the big toe for push-off. In chimpanzees, the flexed knees and hips characteristic of their bipedal walking lead to a flat force curve, ... This is associated with peak pressure in the midfoot and no push-off from the big toe.
Do the 3.6-3.8 mya Laetoli footprints then represent a functionally modern foot, with a fully developed medial arch and eversion/pronation at midstance? ...
Others suggest that this footprint is a good match for a reconstruction of a female Australopithecus afarensis foot skeleton.
Some interesting pictures there too, one with a Australopithecus afarensis skeleton superimposed but not reconstructed like "little foot" although it would better fit the single print above. There seems to be some variation in the footprints, and this leads me to wonder how mobile the toe position was - maybe both are valid?
quote:The first report on the discovery of the foot of the Stw 573 skeleton emphasized the apparent transitional nature of its great toe [Clarke, R.J., Tobias, P.V., 1995. Sterkfontein Member 2 foot bones of the oldest South African hominid. Science 269, pp. 521e524]. The hallux appeared to be intermediate in its divergence between human-like adduction and ape-like abduction. A major part of this evidence is the medial encroachment of the metatarsal I facet on the medial cuneiform. This study quantifies the variability of this feature in extant hominoids and fossil hominids. The results are consistent with the view that all currently known hominids were specialized for bipedality and lacked the ape-like ability to oppose the great toe.
A key primitive feature stressed by Clarke and Tobias (1995) is the partially abducted hallux of Stw 573. Several features of the fossil appear to indicate a divergent great toe, but of particular significance is the extent to which the facet for the first metatarsal extends proximally over the medial surface of the medial cuneiform.
The original description reported this as proximal encroachment of the metatarsal one facet on the medial cuneiform that extended 33% (projected distance) of the proximodistal surface diameter. In a small sample of gorillas, the value was 35% to 40% and nearly 50% in Pan. Clarke and Tobias (1995) note that "OH 8 and humans show virtually no such encroachment" (p. 524).
That puts Stw 573 between gorilla and human, again fitting in with Dudley Morton's 1935 prediction. More:
quote:At this writing, its limbs and skull await preparation and analysis (Clarke, 1998, 1999). There is no exact match among extant humans of its foot morphology. The results of this study are consistent with the view that it does share with all known hominids the convergent great toe specialized for bipedal striding that lacks the ability to abduct and grasp like apes.
The (12 year old) article on "little foot" (stw 573) also says that more bones were found (including the rest of the foot? with the skull and forearm still in the rock but exposed) but I can't find anything more about any recent results of excavations..
Other foot bones for Australopithecus afarensis that I know of include heel and toe bones from the "first family" group:
quote:First Family: heel bones The broad heels of this creature could withstand the pressure of walking upright. Like human heels, they are filled with shock-absorbing "spongy" bone, rather than the more solid bone found in the heels of other apes.
First Family: toe bones Toe bones found among the First Family are long compared to those of humans, but they don't curve forward toward the heel as they do in modern tree-climbing primates.
Thank you RAZD.I appreciate your interest in discussion.The only hominid that is left open to debate (sort of) is A.Africanus.And i say that because T.C. Partridge gave a date using geomorphological dating of less than 870 k.y. and that was supported by a date of about 1 m.y.a. by thermoluminescence analysis of calcite and uranium-series dates of 942,000 y.a. and 764,000 y.a. on limestone.We certainly know that Homo Erectus was around well before that.The evolutionist in need of a human ancestor reject those dates and gave the taung child a date that fits in with evolution.I call that fraud myself,circular reasoning with a vengance may be a better term.KP 271 is allegedly A.Africanus but all the analysis show it to be anatomicaly indifferent from modern humans,Yet they claim it cant be because of its date of around 4.4 m.y.a..You likely know all of this already,just thought i would share just in case you dont.
Thanks Jason777
The only hominid that is left open to debate (sort of) is A.Africanus.
The proper form is A. africanus - genus (Australopithecus) capitalized, species lowercase, usually with both italicized. Same with Homo erectus etc.
For archaeologists, paleontologist and biologist, etc., all fossils are open for debate. New information is always possible that will refine our understanding of the natural history of life on earth. What is critical is that the whole pattern of life is understood properly, and one of the persistent questions is whether the fossil is a uncle or parent species. An uncle species would still be a descendant from a common ancestor and it would share many hereditary traits, but not be necessarily from the direct lineage of Homo sapiens.
And i say that because T.C. Partridge gave a date using geomorphological dating of less than 870 k.y. and that was supported by a date of about 1 m.y.a. by thermoluminescence analysis of calcite and uranium-series dates of 942,000 y.a. and 764,000 y.a. on limestone.
It's hard to validate what you are saying when you don't provide references to show where this information comes from. Even the fossil ID would help. I did a google on
quote:Cosmogenic aluminum-26 and beryllium-10 burial dates of low-lying fossiliferous breccia in the caves at Sterkfontein, South Africa, show that associated hominid fossils accumulated in the Lower Pliocene. These dates indicate that the skeleton StW 573 and newly discovered specimens from Jacovec Cavern have much the same age: approximately 4 million years. These specimens are thus of an age similar to Australopithecus anamensis from East Africa.
StW 573 is also known as "little foot" (see Message 20).
quote:In 1973, a geologist from South Africa, T.C. Partridge, used thermoluminescence analysis of calcite, as well as uranium dating methods, to date the cave from which the Taung skull had come (1973, 246:75-79; see also Tattersall, et al., 1988, p. 571; Klein, 1989, p. 113). Whereas the Taung child had been dated at somewhere between two and three millions years old, Dr. Partridge’s data indicated that the cave could not have been any older than about 0.87 million years old”which meant that the age of the Taung discovery would have to be decreased to no older than 0.87 million years. And therein is the controversy.
As anatomist Phillip Tobias (also of the University of Witwatersrand at the time) admitted: " . [T]he fact remains that less than one million years is a discrepant age for a supposed gracile australopithecine in the gradually emerging picture of African hominid evolution" (see Butzer, 1974, 15[4]:411). That is to say, if Australopithecus africanus was the direct ancestor of humans, and was dated at only 0.87 million years, that became problematic, since no one would believe that it was possible to go africanus from Australopithecus africanus to modern humans in the "short" time span of just a little over three-quarters of a million years.
Further compounding the problem was the fact that modern humans already had been documented as being on the scene in Africa 0.75 million years ago. Karl W. Butzer of the University of Chicago recognized the problem immediately, and wrote in Current Anthropology:
If the Taung specimen is indeed no older than the youngest robust australopithecines of the Transvaal, then such a late, local survival of the gracile (a term used to describe Australopithecus africanus”BH/BT) lineage would seem to pose new evolutionary . problems (1974, 15[4]:382).
If this is your source then you should know that it is just plain wrong on several counts. (1) "Gracile" refers to several species of australopithecines and distinguishes them from the robust ones, not just A. africanus. (2) The problem in question would be connecting the late appearing fossil with the other existing old ones, yet all it would have done would be to extend the existence of A. africanus, not move the whole lineage up in time. (3) It certainly would not limit evolution of other branches of hominids from the earlier 3 and 4 million year old australopithecines (4) Thus hominid ancestry back to early A. africanus would still be just as possible as it is without this fossil date (just as apes and monkeys still exist), and finally, (5) this information is 30+ years old and they have found out many things in the interim, especially about the age of this fossil and the cave. The age of this fossil is now listed as 2.5 million years, with additional information showing the original dates were in error, and the problem of anomalous age is rectified.
quote:Tobias: As far as Taung is concerned, it is still a very difficult problem. Professor Cooke said its dating is uncertain. Partridge, on the one hand, by one set of techniques, and Butzer, from Chicago, on the other hand, by another set of techniques, have both come up with a very young age which may be one and a half million years or less. If that is so, the problem is that we have no other example of Australopithecus africanus, as such surviving SO late. This is a problem which isn't yet resolved. Some years ago, I stuck my neck out, and said that if it is really only one million years old, then it couldn't be the same thing as Sterkfontein and Makapansgat. Or at least it was doubtful whether it would have grown up to be a "Mr. Ples." It could well have to be considered as a possible youngster of the robust lineage, without our worrying about the name for a minute. That's another complication. We will have a Diamond Jubilee of Taung in early 1985 and I hope by that stage our total restudy of the Taung child and its dating will have been completed, and that we may be able to answer it then. I can't give a final answer on that one, at the moment.
So the problem was not one for hominid lineage from older hominids, but for how to explain the late appearance of a fossil where the rest are significantly older and there are no intermediates.
Let me quote the following particular statement again, as it is a fabrication, a falsehood, and it does not logically follow from the evidence:
quote: ... since no one would believe that it was possible to go africanus from Australopithecus africanus to modern humans in the "short" time span of just a little over three-quarters of a million years.
If this is your source of information, I suggest you get a different one -- they are not telling you the truth and they have several misconceptions of how science works and tests ideas against reality. If this is not your source of information, but this is what you source is saying, then I still suggest you get a different one.
One fossil does not represent the whole species.
We certainly know that Homo Erectus was around well before that.The evolutionist in need of a human ancestor reject those dates and gave the taung child a date that fits in with evolution.I call that fraud myself,circular reasoning with a vengance may be a better term.
As pointed out above, it would not matter to human ancestry in the slightest, if the Tuang child date was as late as the initial dates suggested, as there were still plenty of hominids from 3 and 4 million years ago, for ancestors of Homo sapiens. Even suggesting this is a problem shows a misunderstanding of how the biological tree of life works.
KP 271 is allegedly A.Africanus but all the analysis show it to be anatomicaly indifferent from modern humans, ...
quote:Even a humerus from a chimpanzee looks similar to a human humerus; it should not be surprising that the humerus from a closer relative would look even more similar. However, the anatomical evidence strongly indicates that the specimen is not human and is a good match with Australopithecus anamensis (Lague and Jungers 1996).
quote: ... Multivariate analysis of distal humerus metrics, corrected for the within-groups distortion of shape by size, was used to compare a broad sample of 22 modern anthropoid taxa with 15 fossils from the Fayum, Rusinga Island, Ft. Ternan, Neudorf an der March, Kanapoi, Kromdraai, Lake Turkana, and Hadar. ... Specifically, the distal humeri of the large hominoids are very distinct from those of other anthropoids; ... The Kanapoi distal humerus (KP 271), far from being more human-like than Australopithecus, clearly associates with the hyperrobust Australopithecines from Lake Turkana. ...
Conclusion: Australopithecus, not Homo. Conclusion: features intermediate between ape and man. As should be expected.
quote:This species was initially discovered (but not identified) in 1965, by a Harvard expedition led by B. Patterson. A distal end of a humerus (KNM-KP 271) was recovered from a site on the west side of Lake Turkana in Kenya, a site called Kanapoi. For years the specimen's species was debated by those who saw it as Australopithecus, due to its age of approximately 4 myr, and those who saw it as Homo. Fieldwork was not conducted at the site for nearly 30 years, until work began by Meave Leakey et al. The renewed work provided dates, faunal remains, environmental reconstruction, and nine new hominid specimens. The material was given the name Australopithecus anamensis, because of several important differences with A. afarensis that seem to distinguish it as a separate species.
An additional twelve fossil specimens from Allia Bay, on the eastern shores of Lake Turkana, has also been placed within the species anamensis along with the Kanapoi material.
When they went back to the site and excavated for more fossils ... all (21) of Australopithecus anamensis and none (0) of Homo.
... anatomicaly indifferent from modern humans,Yet they claim it cant be because of its date of around 4.4 m.y.a..You likely know all of this already,just thought i would share just in case you dont.
It is rather indifferent, I agree ... but I don't think that's what you meant. The usual creationist literature uses the word "indistinct" ... but we know from Marc Feldesman that there are differences between the fossil and human bones, while we know from Meave Leakey that the fossil was associated in time and place with 21 Australopithecus anamensis hominids.
It looks to me like your "evidence" is more just misrepresented reality by creationists than real problems.
Hi razd.Great information.Actually i got this info from a book i just finished reading by Marvin L. Lubenow (Bones Of Contention P.52).He is a well respected paleoanthropoligst and isnt known to be a liar or to make up nonsense.Here is a quote from Howells"The humeral fragment from kanapoi,with a date of about 4.4 million,could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens Morphologically or by multivariate analysis by patterson and myself in 1967(or by much more searching analysis by others since then).We suggested that it might represent Australopithicus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous,although it would be the correct one without the time element.P.57".Basicaly their saying its human and certainly not apelike.The theory of evolution is what decided what it is assigned to.Thank you for sharing info and if you have any cites to check out any actual A.africanus fossils please share.Have a great day.
Actually i got this info from a book i just finished reading by Marvin L. Lubenow (Bones Of Contention P.52).He is a well respected paleoanthropoligst and isnt known to be a liar or to make up nonsense.
Yet he is listed as the source of the PRATT (Point Refuted a Thousand Times) in my previous post:
quote:Source: Lubenow, Marvin L. 1992. Bones of Contention: A creationist assessment of the human fossils. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, pp. 54-58.
They also have a link to this site with more information about it.
Notice that in 1965 (and in 1992) they did not have the fossils that they had in 1996 that show "that the specimen is not human and is a good match with Australopithecus anamensis" (see previous post). Thus he is quoting old information that has now been superseded, but superseded after his book was published. I wonder if he has changed his opinion since (certainly I see it still being published on creationist sites).
Basicaly their saying its human and certainly not apelike.The theory of evolution is what decided what it is assigned to.Thank you for sharing info and if you have any cites to check out any actual A.africanus fossils please share.Have a great day.
They are ... were ... saying that it was closer to human than what was known for ape and hominid at the time. We now have additional information of 21 fossil hominids from the same site that show it was Australopithecus anamensis.
Also see this chart of hominid relationships (revised and updated recently) and this chart for an alternate view. Notice that on both of them the dotted lines representing hypothetical relationships don't always start at the end of one species.
Hi razd.I may be wrong,but all of those A.anamensis fossils are all comprised of upper and lower jaws,cranial fragments,and the upper and lower parts of a single leg.Your source says KP-271 is a good match for A.anamensis,yet they dont have a complete A.anamensis(correct me if im wrong)fossil to compare it to.I recently found out Marvin L. Lubenow has a revised and updated version out(2004).I may keep an eye on ebay to see if i can pick up a cheap copy(HaHaHa).Anyway have a great weekend.
quote:
Your source says KP-271 is a good match for A.anamensis,yet they dont have a complete A.anamensis(correct me if im wrong)fossil to compare it to
You've not got it quite right. The site states that KP-271 is attributable to A.anamesis.
The evidence is that the bone is probably from a robust australopithicine (as the analysis shows) and the A.anamesis name was coined to refer to the Australopithicine remains from that site and of the same age. There's no mention of any direct comparison between KP-271 and a humerus from A.anamesis.
Obviously it makes sense to conclude that KP-271 is of the same species as the other remains, rather than assume that it is from a different australopithecine.
I may be wrong,but all of those A.anamensis fossils are all comprised of upper and lower jaws,cranial fragments,and the upper and lower parts of a single leg.Your source says KP-271 is a good match for A.anamensis,yet they dont have a complete A.anamensis(correct me if im wrong)fossil to compare it to.
They don't need a complete fossil for comparison, just another humerus.
quote: ... Multivariate analysis of distal humerus metrics, corrected for the within-groups distortion of shape by size, was used to compare a broad sample of 22 modern anthropoid taxa with 15 fossils from the Fayum, Rusinga Island, Ft. Ternan, Neudorf an der March, Kanapoi, Kromdraai, Lake Turkana, and Hadar. ... Specifically, the distal humeri of the large hominoids are very distinct from those of other anthropoids; ... The Kanapoi distal humerus (KP 271), far from being more human-like than Australopithecus, clearly associates with the hyperrobust Australopithecines from Lake Turkana. ...
Conclusion: Australopithecus, not Homo. Conclusion: features intermediate between ape and man. As should be expected.
quote:This species was initially discovered (but not identified) in 1965, by a Harvard expedition led by B. Patterson. A distal end of a humerus (KNM-KP 271) was recovered from a site on the west side of Lake Turkana in Kenya, a site called Kanapoi. For years the specimen's species was debated by those who saw it as Australopithecus, due to its age of approximately 4 myr, and those who saw it as Homo. Fieldwork was not conducted at the site for nearly 30 years, until work began by Meave Leakey et al. The renewed work provided dates, faunal remains, environmental reconstruction, and nine new hominid specimens. The material was given the name Australopithecus anamensis, because of several important differences with A. afarensis that seem to distinguish it as a separate species.
An additional twelve fossil specimens from Allia Bay, on the eastern shores of Lake Turkana, has also been placed within the species anamensis along with the Kanapoi material.
When they went back to the site and excavated for more fossils ... all (21) of Australopithecus anamensis and none (0) of Homo.
The first reference says that they compared humeri with other samples from Lake Turkana, and the second reference says that all Lake Turkana samples are all classed Australopithecus anamensis, so that seems fairly cut and dried (as much as one can get in science) - there were other humeri from Lake Turkana used in the comparison.
I recently found out Marvin L. Lubenow has a revised and updated version out(2004).I may keep an eye on ebay to see if i can pick up a cheap copy(HaHaHa).
You also might want to try the library before investing. If he hasn't updated the information then I wouldn't buy the book.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : word change
Edited by RAZD, : humeris me
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
quote:The famous skeleton Lucy has had a makeover, thanks to newly discovered fossils. A reconstruction of the 3.2-million-year-old hominin emerged Friday with a trimmer figure, showing off a distinct neck, a narrower waistline, and arched foot. Earlier reconstructions, relying on scanty fossil rib bones and living African apes such as chimpanzees and gorillas, had given her a cone-shaped thorax and potbelly. That implied that her species, Australopithecus afarensis, had retained adaptations for moving in the trees a lot like chimps. But in the past few years, researchers have found additional ribs and a new foot bone of A. afarensis. The ribs are curved, which translates to a barrel-shaped thorax like modern humans, paleoanthropologist Carol Ward of the University of Missouri, Columbia, showed in a symposium on Friday. And the foot bone shows a distinct arch. This suggests that Lucy and her kin spent plenty of time on the ground, although they probably still climbed and slept in trees. ...
Note that the writer confuses one set of fossils with the composite view of Australopithecus afarensis -- the Lucy fossil set is not updated, the composite concept of the species is updated.
quote: ... The reconstruction, overseen by paleoanthropologist Yohannes Haile-Selassie of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History and created by artist John Gurche, was unveiled Friday as part of an exhibit on human evolution at the museum.
Please ignore the artistic (fanciful) "reconstruction" shown -- what they should show is an updated composite skeleton.
Other than knowing when hominids were first bipedal, the question of bipedalism in Australopithecines is rather irrelevant to the question of human evolution. Australopithecines had adaptations for bipedalism seen in modern humans, whether they used them all of the time, some of the time, or only rarely. That's what matters in the larger discussion.
In your second picture, the differences in pelvis morphology is very striking. If you group them into two groups by shape you must group the chimp pelvis by itself and the other two together.
In fact, the first time I taught Introduction to Physical Anthropology I was warned about possible creationists in the class. On the first day I brought in a human innominate (half the pelvis), an Australopithecus innominate, and a chimp innominate. I asked the class to arrange them into two groups, and they all agreed that the chimp was the odd "man" out. I had no problems with creationists after that. Of course, this was a few years back.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
