>>Darwininian? Sure.
All the rest? Not so much.<<
Huh? That makes no sense and your post is also jumbled. By definition “our cousins” ARE our distant relatives. Your post supports the facts of these findings — the interpretations are still being formed, obviously.
Either you understand TToE or you don’t. I can’t tell which.
Freedumb2003: “Huh?
That makes no sense and your post is also jumbled.
By definition “our cousins” ARE our distant relatives.”
Of course, it makes perfect sense, unless you try to read something into it which just isn’t there.
And I can’t tell from your words what that might be.
I am simply agreeing that the article’s analysis is “Darwinian” (whatever exactly that might mean), while denying anyone is “blowing smoke,” ahem, anywhere.
How can that possibly be hard to “get”?