<<This is stated in two declarative sentences which imply that this is the way
things happened. The problem is that Mesopotamia and Turkey have been studied
archaeologically for 150 years. Current evidence from this well studied area
say this is not what happened. If Ross wanted to say that his view predicts
that farming started 35,000 years ago, then he should say that. That would be
fine, as, that is a prediction. He states it like it is fact.
This is the difference between what I hope I am doing vs. what Hugh did.>>
But you do the same thing, Glenn. Awhile back I presented evidence of trading
between Neanderthal and Moderns, and you said: "You can't trade with a chimp."
Declarative. You went on to expostulate:
<<Let us suppose that you are correct. Neanderthal traded for the flute.
Can you name the last successful negotiation carried out by a chimpanzee, a
baboon or a gorilla? To paraphrase Hugh, are successful negotiating and
trading techniques now one of the traits we share with the soulish bird and
mammal species? Is this objection of yours for real? This is a joke,
right?>>
Not just declarative, but rhetorical and dismissive. Yet we now know of a
brand new book by a respected primatologist who records evidence of
negotiation and reciprocation among apes.
Now I'm not against a strong opinion. I've been known, on rare occasions, to
offer a few. I just don't think you should take off on Hugh if he does the
same thing.
Jim