|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total) |
| |
FossilDiscovery | |
Percy | |
Total: 893,107 Year: 4,219/6,534 Month: 433/900 Week: 139/150 Day: 9/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Greyseal, let's not make it harder to focus on one issue at a time please.
We'll stick to the Orce findings for now. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 636 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I've requested that attention be focused on whether Orce man is a fraud, and I'll be hiding all significant content on this and subsequent pages that doesn't deal with that topic. When discussion about Orce man completes we will move on to the Coelacanth. --Admin
Hi Archangel, As you keep adding new material before finishing with the previous examples, this is going to be long. You complained about being ganged up on before, well now you will find that the evidence gangs up on you, demonstrating that your thesis is false. You still have not substantiated any fraud here on any single example brought up thus far as being promulgated BY science - which is your claim. Remember fraud is: You need to demonstrate (a) that it is a deception, ie not based on reality, (b) deliberately practiced, specifically by the person accused of the fraud, which in your case is evolution scientists, and (c) that it results in an unfair or unlawful gain for the perpetrator, and not anyone else.
What you have been shown is that the scientists are presenting what they currently consider the best explanation of the evidence. There is no intent to deceive or perpeturate a fraud. Pictures created for and published in the media do NOT constitute intentional deceit by scientists.
Curiously, I gave you the information and told you how you could verify the validity of it.
And I'm going to answer you in three parts. PART 1: current cases of asserted fraudOkay let's look at what you provide for the requirements of fraud for just the last few items discussed here, between you and I from Message 271 to your current post (Message 296): A. FIRST CRITERIA: Intentional Deceit; intentionally inaccurate, intentionally false.
You are correct that the reconstruction and the picture are based on actual skulls of children, and the actual skulls of the children did not have brow ridges. Are you aware that chimpanzee and gorilla children ALSO have no brow ridges? http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/newborn-peep.../offbeat-news
Let me get this straight: to meet your standard of not being fraudulent, the reconstructions and pictures need to show false information? Sadly your criteria of "common sense" just means that it does not comply with your uninformed opinion, which as we have seen for many posts now is a poor criteria of truth and reality. Your opinion is completely incompetent at changing reality to comply with it. Instead what we see are people meticulously showing what the evidence shows to the best of their knowledge of reality.
Let's look at what the media news article says again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1469607.stm quote: No mention of any "empty space" inside the skulls or even that the brain is part of the discussion, rather we see they are talking about the physical evidence - the skull BONES. When you look at the reconstructed skull, where parts are mirrored to fill in missing areas as much as possible with actual evidence, we see that what you probably think is "empty space" is really the areas where the bone is missing. Thus, what you are seeing as missing brain, is really missing bone structure, and certainly not intentional deceit.
Curiously, my "common sense bells" go off whenever someone asserts that their uninformed opinion is more valid than evidence, and that actual evidence should be ignored.
So you think the rendition of neanderthal children, based on the actual fossil skulls of neanderthal children, are fraudulent because they are not based on neanderthal adult skulls? Is this how you derive "alternative explanations" of the evidence so that it matches your preconceptions? No evidence for the first criteria, so your claim fails. B. SECOND CRITERIA: Deliberately Practiced; specifically by the person accused of the fraud, which in your case is evolution scientists,
Correct: artist, NOT evolutionary scientist. Thus anything you demonstrate about the artist reconstruction of a neanderthal child, no matter how well informed and based on current knowledge of forensic science to create possible facial appearances from bare skulls, etc, ... you have already conceded that this is not done by any evolutionary biologist scientist.
Correct: a drawing. Generated by a computer program. Lets see what it says in the article again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1469607.stm quote: Again these images are not made by evolutionary biological scientists. No evidence for the second criteria, so your claim fails. C. THIRD CRITERIA: To Scure Unfair or Unlawful Gain; to profit in some way from the deception, specifically by the party responsible for the fraud.
Yes, produced by media people to use in media articles about what science is doing, not produced by scientists. Published in order to sell magazines.
Curiously, scientists aren't responsible for the average education and level of understanding reality of the general public. Fascinatingly, I agree that the general level of education in science is rather pathetic, especially in public schools science courses that have been hog-tied by religious concerns rather than scientific ones.
A point that you have absolutely failed to show any kind of substantiation for. Once again what we have is your opinion, and your opinion has been demonstrated as an extremely fallible measure of validity.
Yes, media people sell media products. Last time I checked this was a completely legal and fair procedure. People making the reproductions are hired for a purpose and are paid for their effort. The information they use is provided by science, but the scientists don't control the media product or the media outlets in producing and selling their products, especially when it is a legal thing to do, and the productions are fair representations of current knowledge.
Which, amazingly, it IS, but not because these images and reconstructions make it so, rather it is because it is good science. It is repeatable, it is testable, it is subject to falsification, and it has been validated time after time after time. The fact that you don't accept this as science doesn't mean that the average person has to reject it based on your opinion. If you want to show people that evolution is false you need to provide the evidence that this is so, not just claim that we can't provide information that you don't like. Your claim that evolution is not science needs to be substantiated before you can then use this as proof of fraud. You have failed to show that the makers of the pictures and reconstructions have benefited in an unfair or illegal way. There is no Bernie Madoff here. No evidence for the third criteria, so your claim fails. Conclusion: Does the argument of Archangel meet the criteria for fraud?
So you are asserting that people using the most up-to-date and accurate information of reality, the solid and validated evidence of evolution and the natural history from fossils and science in a fair and legal manner to sell magazines is fraud committed by scientists. quote: You failed to establish a single one of the three criteria that ALL need to be present to constitute fraud. Thus you have failed to support your thesis in the OP in regard to these particular cases. PART 2: previous cases of asserted fraudNow a little history of this thread: You have failed to establish:
Each of these are just assertions, unsupported by evidence of actual fraud, and they have each been responded to, responses that have sometime been ignored by you, such as my posts: Message 64 regarding your four original claims That's all the unsubstantiated claims you have made prior to Message 274, and this doesn't even touch your fantastic claims that using false information from creationist websites and that you consider to be false is any kind of reasonable evidence that what the website says is true. I post this to show that you cannot claim that any of your points have not been addressed, or that you have even "answered the mail" in responding to the refutations to provide a rebuttal. You claim that you are outnumbered - you are, but that just means you need to focus on the topic and make your point with substantiation, not introduce new topics to the discussion and throw around a bad attitude. Most of your posts are wasted bandwidth devoid of information related to YOUR OP topic. PART 3: NEW cases of asserted fraudThe ink isn't dry on your undefended previous assertions of fraud, and now you are adding more to the list.
Curiously, it appears that the reconstruction does in fact match the fossil, it shows the same degree of brow ridges, consistent with a young neanderthal, the forward jutting jaw, the sloped forehead and the elongated skull typical of neanderthals that the fossil shows. You claim that there are "massive assumptions" but you don't detail a single one. For reference, this is what the article says: quote: The evidence for the thesis in the article (that neanderthals were violent and sometime attacked other neanderthals) is supported by the fact that this skull has a healed bone scar. This evidence is shown by an unbroken part of the skull, where new bone material was deposited over the cut, which only occurs if the individual is living. There is no assumption here: this is what the evidence says. The picture is just used to show the location and depth of the wound that would result in the bone scar found on the skull.
Curiously, the scientist is quoted by the media article as saying that the evidence suggests that violence was a part of neanderthal life. The article discusses the evidence in a clear and straightforward way and concludes quote: There is no quote of the scientists stating that anything other than the evidence of the wound and the healing of the wound, was fact. No intent to deceive is shown by this new example.
Nor can you have it both ways and assert that evolution is trying to deceive ill-informed general public people by providing evidence that shows the most current thinking and demonstrating how it is supported by the facts. Fascinatingly, your repeated assertion of fraud does not make it so.
Why am I not surprised that you just bring up another example of a reconstruction that is based on numerous fossils, not just the famous Lucy, but others from the same time and location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis quote: Other finds that are related to Lucy in include: The well known Hadar knee joint (found before Lucy, NOT part of the Lucy fossil)
... and ... http://www.cmnh.org/site/AtTheMuseum/OnExhibit/.../Afar.aspx quote: ... and more ... http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/afar.html quote: Putting these many parts all together and mirroring ones missing from one side we obtain this composite Australopithecus afarensis
Notice how few places are not taken by brown (indicates Lucy fossil bones) and white (from other fossils and mirrored parts), and that this shows how complete the composite skeleton is. This then becomes the frame on which a 3-D Full size fleshed out reconstruction is made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis quote: Note that this museum display puts the reconstruction with the Laetoli footprints, more fossil evidence of bipedal walking: http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/laetoli.htm quote: The gait and length of stride match the fossil reconstruction, the footprint pattern matches the foot bones of A. afarensis.
Nope. Evidence does not lie. Multiple bits of evidence makes mistaken interpretations less and less likely. You are the one who is kidding yourself if you think this reconstruction is a gross misrepresentation of reality, when the validity is demonstrated by many multiple and overlapping fossils from many individuals that have already been uncovered. More evidence will only serve to "flesh-out" the skeleton further. End ConclusionsIn the end we can conclude that not a single instance of fraud by evolutionary scientists for the planned purpose of deceiving the public with false information has been demonstrated on this thread. In Message 81 you said (regarding neanderthals)
Too bad. Enjoy Edited by Admin, : Remove off-topic content. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3092 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
In light of RAZD's overwhelmingly complete rebuttal of every single point that Archangel has made, not only is my post not needed but nobody else's is either.
RAZD for post of the month!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12788 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Some are paying attention to moderator requests, some aren't. Today I will begin more stringent enforcement. I will not only be hiding off-topic content, I will also begin issuing suspensions for repeated off-topic discussion.
I'm also going to begin issuing suspensions for incivility. Each side should regard the other as the esteemed opposition, not the scum of the earth, at least in your public expressions. If you post in violation of these requests before reading this, fix it quick before I see it. Please, no replies to this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 588 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
I've requested that attention be focused on whether Orce man is a fraud, and I'll be hiding all significant content on this and subsequent pages that doesn't deal with that topic. When discussion about Orce man completes we will move on to the Coelacanth. --Admin
God, how simple it is to overwhelm you with empty and frivolous content. RAZD is famous for long and expansive posts which do nothing more than bombard me with minutia which of course impresses you sheeple, but is no more true, scientifically verifiable or factual than the last stuff I refuted. Let me give you just one example of how incredibly juvenile and simple it is to deceive you cultists who lack the powers of critical thinking to objectively judge anything a proponent of your pseudo science says since you have already drank all of the kool-aid. Here is his newest example of evidence for Lucy. An alleged cast of the remains of "Lucy" as he puts it.
Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3092 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Archangel, can you please either back down or do as the mod says rather than muddying the waters further (and thanks mod for doing your tireless, oft thankless job)
I'd like to get past Orce man because, quite frankly, the post by RAZD was exhaustive and his work to rebut you deserves to see the light of day. If you've evidence Orce Man is a fraud (remember, you know what that means now - deliberate malfeasance) then post it. If not, say "Orce man isn't a fraud, I was wrong" and then concentrate on RAZD's quote which Master Percy will (at that point and no earlier) uncover so you can say "and for my next trick..." and blow evolution out the water. I think coelacanth is right out until after that. This is your chance. Don't blow it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 588 days) Posts: 134 Joined:
|
I have said all I have to say on Orce Man. Posts 277 and 278 made clear that if evolution science had any confidence in it as true evidence, it would be front and center in their lineup of transitional fossil evidence since it evidently comes from such a sparsely represented era of the so called evolutionary journey. Even the abstract that Coyote posted as some alleged evidence says, and I quote:
The Orce skull fragment from southern Spain, dated at 1.6 Myr, has been a subject of heated controversy since it was first discovered in 1982. If it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, AND ALSO: Both teams obtained reactions "characteristic" of human albumin in the Orce skullSo by what standard of genetic evidence does anyone here claim that this proves anything when it makes no attempt to claim the Orce fragment is definitely of hominid descent even though it is publishing the results of the ELISA OR RIA tests which only allow for the characteristics, but nothing that allows them to come to any absolute conclusions? Here once again is the abstract of the article Coyote linked to: The relevant issue for the sake of this debate is that even though the scientific community has no confidence in the Orce Man bone fragment as it stands, it was still used as evidence originally of a transitional fossil before any actual evidence either way obviously existed. And that deduction is obvious since red flags have surrounded it since 2 years after its discovery and release for public consumption. What happened with the peer review process with this and every other questionable discovery which has been thrown out into the public domain via world wide press releases? And where are the well documented retractions which reverse those original press releases with the same volume and verve which the announcements received? And one more thing, how long must I respond to issues just because evolutionists will continue to reject anything I say? Since when do moderators determine for me when I have defended a position enough before moving on to another subject? My posts to RAZD on this page have been in direct response to issues he raised and vice versa. My technique is to point out in any evidentiary direction we go in that these unsupported by evidence claims of human evolution receive world wide promotion when nothing they claim is absolutely proven in any way, shape or form. This is evidence of organized indoctrination and validation of claims which cannot be held up as actual proven evidence at all, but that doesn't stop this pseudo science from promoting it anyway. NUFF SAID!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12788 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
I'm just focusing current discussion on Orce man as per your request in Message 278. You're more than welcome to move on to the Coelacanth if that is your wish. The off-topic discussion focused mostly on Neanderthals as fraud, so if you'd like to discuss that next instead then that would be fine (use the peek or edit buttons and copy/paste to reuse your text in new messages). I'm just here to bring some structure to the discussion, and to ensure that incivility doesn't cause the thread to spin out control. I'm not taking sides. I admire your passion, but if frauds have advanced acceptance of evolution among the public then evidence and rational argument is all you need. Acting antagonistically by doing things like questioning the honesty of the people you're discussing with isn't a very effective method of persuasion (e.g., "You people are so dishonest..." in Message 103 and so forth), plus it's against the Forum Guidelines, see rule 10.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 4426 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Archangel,
Could you please highlight the part of your post where a deliberate deception has been committed. For the life of me, I cannot see where fraud has occurred, or where you have pointed it out. You aren't here to show that Orce man wasn't a transitional, you are here to show where scientists deliberately misled everyone. This has been pointed out so many times now that I'm growing suspicious you are being deliberately myopic. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 65 days) Posts: 2384 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Angel,
You then proceed to talk about Orce Man.
That sounds a lot like an admission that Orce Man is not used as an argument for evolution. So your argument that it was used to promote evolution is false then?
Please try to understand before one of us dies of old age. No-one on this board is saying that Orce Man is definitely human. You seem to keep wanting to pigeon hole us into this position, but it is not my position. No-one here has claimed to know either way about this fossil except you. You claim that it is definitely a donkey skull. How do you know? You don't. You admit that you have not examined the science. You have not read the papers on it. The only reason you have to suppose the Orce fossil is a donkey is because a creationist site told you so and you simply believed it, without any attempt to examine the evidence. Now for the Nth time, I do not have an opinion either way on Orce Man. It may be human, it may be donkey. From what little I have seen of the evidence, there is no way to be sure. Anyone making definitive statements about this fossil is wrong to do so. Now if you were to criticise the original team leader who announced Orce Man as having been guilty of over-egging his discovery, fine. From the sound of it, you could make a case for that. He seems to have been premature in claiming that his find was human. This in itself though, does not constitute fraud. For that, you need to demonstrate both knowledge that the claim was false and deliberate intention to deceive. You have shown neither, nor have you shown any interest in doing so.
They are trying to build up a body of evidence. Sadly, evidence is rarely conclusive. If you have a more effective testing procedure in mind, one which might provide more conclusive results, please do share it with us. I'm sure that the worldwide palaeontological community would be grateful for your insight.
I thought you said "if evolution science had any confidence in it as true evidence, it would be front and center in their lineup of transitional fossil evidence"? You can't have it both ways Angel. Was Orce Man used as evidence of evolution or not? If so, where, when and by whom? That is the relevant issue for this debate. It is the issue you chose and now seem unwilling or unable to defend.
If this were genuinely your complaint I would sympathise. Peer review is an imperfect system, leaving much to be desired. Science reporting is shockingly bad and the problem of retractions and negative findings going under-reported is a serious one. This however is not your real complaint. Your complaint is that a deliberate fraud has been perpetrated, but you simply can't be bothered to argue your own case. Demonstrate fraud or admit that your claim is unfounded Angel.
Gee, I dunno. Until you back up your claims or withdraw them I suspect. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The abstract that I linked to is quite clear, but you are (deliberately?) misreading it. That's probably the only way you can get it to come out your way. Lets go through it line by line (not that this will do any good):
Abstract: The Orce skull fragment from southern Spain, dated at 1.6 Myr, has been a subject of heated controversy since it was first discovered in 1982. An introductory statement, providing a little background to the forthcoming article. If it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, it is by far the oldest fossil hominid yet found in western Europe and implies that human populations settled this region much earlier than was previously realized. This is a statement of a problem, and an introductory statement. This is not a conclusion! This sentence clearly sets up the problem that is to be addressed. Numerous stone artifacts found at the Orce sites provide evidence that hominids were indeed present there in the Lower Pleistocene. Additional data, providing some background. Summary to date: There are stone tools of an early age and a skull fragment has been found. There is controversy over that fragment. Some paleontologists maintain that the 8 cm diameter occipital fragment is from a horse, not a hominid. A direct statement of the problem that is being investigated in this article. Two independent investigations of the residual proteins in the skull were undertaken, one at the University of Granada in Spain, the other at the University of California, San Francisco. Two immunological methods of comparable sensitivity were employed for detection and species attribution of protein extracted from fossil bone: the Granada team used an enzyme-linked-immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the UCSF team used a radioimmunoassay (RIA). A statement of the methods used. Both teams obtained reactions characteristic of human albumin in the Orce skull and horse albumin in some of the horse fossils. A summary of the findings, that the skull fragment has biological materials matching humans, not equines. These results support the lithic evidence that hominids were living in Andalusia 1.6 million years ago. A conclusion: this finding supports the human nature of the skull fragment, which, as well, is supported by the presence of early stone tools. In no case does this article support your position that the skull fragment is a donkey. And in nothing that you have posted have you supported your contention that this skull fragment or its treatment was fraudulent. The initial estimate was that it was human and that is what this current article found. It looks like those paleontologists claiming it might be a donkey were wrong, along with all of the creationists who gleefully jumped on that claim and ran with it. And who won't admit they were wrong. I've noticed that many creationists act as if their arguments, even those picked up from creationist websites of dubious honesty, are inerrant. Many of those creationists are reluctant to ever admit an error, no matter how much evidence is presented to them that they are wrong. I hope you aren't among that group. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Arch-
Before we (hopefully!) put Orce Man to rest, I wanted to mention something important about this find. I could be misunderstanding you (or your sources, but the following:
Makes me think that you have inflated belief in the significance of this find to evolutionary biology. If validated, the significance of the find is that an early wave of hominids settled Western Europe earlier than than the confirmed dates (780 kya, iirc). In terms of intermediates, the find is not very important at all. We already know that Homo erectus (using the term as an organizational grade more than as a taxon) spread out from Africa at or around this time. The point is that the ~1.6 my period is not devoid of hominids. What was happening in Spain at that time, while interesting, is likely to be more of a side note. The real 'movers and shakers' in the human story were in Africa at this time (although it seems likely that wave after wave migrated out of Africa to spread far and wide). I thought this might help your understanding of the Orce issue better. When I read Gish and other creationist descriptions or Orce I see that it is implied that somehow Orce represents some crucial link in human evolution, which is certainly untrue. Edited by Lithodid-Man, : added 'be' to 'to be more of a side..." Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12788 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
There have been no posts to this forum in a week, so it's summation time!
Please post your summations or final arguments over the next couple days, after that I will close the thread. Please, no replies to other people's summations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 282 days) Posts: 16112 Joined: |
With the exception of Piltdown Man, a fraud by an unknown hand that was debunked by scientists (i.e. "evolutionists") no example of fraud has been offered on this thread.
Ironically, then, the repeated claims of "fraud" made by creationist liars are themselves fraudulent and dishonest. It is curious that whenever anyone becomes really passionate about Biblical literalism, the first thing they do is to break the commandment against bearing false witness. But such, it seems, is the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 636 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Percy,
My summary is supported by evidence presented in Message 64, Message 96, Message 205. Message 288, Message 294 and Message 302. These show, not only that the original posts do not meet the standard of fraud committed by "evolutionists" and that evolution has not benefited from these cases in any way, but that none of the additional "examples" have met the standard of fraud. What we have is the continued scientific process of refining information as more evidence becomes available. In every case - even Piltdown - the original stance was that the evidence could be possible, and that more information should confirm or invalidate this position. In Piltdown and Nebraska Man we see that further evidence showed the original information to be false - Pildown because it was a fraud perpetuated by someone outside of science, Nebraska because it was a pig and not human. In Orce Man we see that the jury is still out, but that evidence seems to point towards the skull fragment being human. In Java Man we see that this was the beginning of finding many similar specimens of this species of hominid, that is also classified in the Homo genus.. In Neanderthals we see that these are also evidence of another hominid in the Homo genus and that they show evidence of "human-like" behavior. The sheer number of fossil specimens for Java Man and Neanderthal are all that are necessary to show that these hominids are not frauds nor hoaxes. These are all discussed in Message 64 and the points made have not been refuted with contradictory evidence, only with denial. Enjoy. ps - Can I ask that the hidden messages be made visible? You can leave a message at the top that they were hidden while the Orce Man debate was focused on. Thanks. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022