kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
I'm smart enough to remember when you said:Now for the genius who questioned the frequency with which fossils of ancient primates and homids are found these days go here another one just came in.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_sc/spain_ancient_jawbone
We have a fossil record that shows many, many types of pre/semihuman creatures. New specimens are discovered fairly often these days. So there's more of a case for a Sasquatch like creature to have existed than there is for it never to have existed.
I'm smart enough to know that a story about a new possible Homo antecessor jaw bone or even possibly ancestor to that species does nothing to validate the frequency claim. I should also make it clear that since we were talking about the possibility of finding the fossil remains of a sasquatch-like species that when you said specimens you were talking about finding new species of hominids and other primates.
FYI - Recent Developments in Paleoanthropology:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/recent.html
Most importantly, I'm smart enough to know that making new fossil finds in areas where we know early hominids existed does nothing to increase the likelihood of finding sasquatch remains in North America.
