Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (17985)	12/4/2007 5:24:33 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36923

How about the Ainu

To: Brumar89 who wrote (17985)	12/4/2007 9:33:36 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36923

For all I know the Beagles cabin boy or Wallace's porter were the real scientific minds behind evolution theory and the field work involved, and Darwin just grabbed all the limelight and glory. The history books don't suggest that though, and such an idea doesn't mean all the science is any way less meaningful. Dismissing the voluminous field work of phenology takes some laziness and imagination, but without some fieldwork to back it up, such interpretation of science is meaningless. wrt the clovis people. re the link... University of New Mexico anthropologist Lawrence G. Straus, a primary critic of the Solutrean hypothesis, points to the theoretical difficulty of the ocean crossing Yeah, I expect Captain Cook thought the same thing when he discovered Australia, of course god must have put the natives there, as they didn't know how to build boats. DNA studies will probably put the Clovis people issue to rest.