RufusAtticus

LOL. If that's true, talk about craptastic scholarship. At least pigs and humans have somewhat similar teeth, omnivorous placental mammals that they are. But fish and humans, that's just
.

-RvFvS

MrDarwin

It shows how little they have to go on when creationists keep bringing up Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man. Randman, I will eat my own underwear if you can provide me with a single citation of an evolutionary biology text that teaches either of these as valid human fossils "decades" after they were exposed (overlooking for the moment the fact that Nebraska Man was not a fraud or hoax in the first place).

Meanwhile, I wonder if you have any comment about the validity of Harun Yahya's claims about Pakicetus, and whether they constituted "fraud" when you cited them?

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000421" target="_blank">Randman, "walking whales", and dishonest creationists
</a>

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

MrDarwin

If anybody cares (and I'm sure randman does not), <a href="http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html" target="_blank">here</a> is the complete story of Nebraska Man, so often cited as an evolutionary "fraud" or "hoax" by creationists.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Kosh

Er, just watching out for ya, Mr. D. You meant
to say "up to date biology text", right?

Pandora

What was the "fossilised" miners hat that they found?

Ergaster

...yadda yadda...

Not known to be Homo sapiens sapiens, however, and its being another species of human still does not prevent it from being an ancestor of our species of human; why should it?

So what? What about all the fossils discovered since 1912?

Bzzzzt! Thank you for playing! The calvarium is *not* an ape's, the femur may or may not belong to the calvarium (but so what, it doesn't change the calvarium any), and Dubois did *not* "disavow" the Java fossils. Besides, it is irrelevant what Dubois thought, given all the *other* fossils from Java that exist, and all the knowledge we've gained in the intervening century or so....

Wrong again. The Taung skull is not an "infant ape's". Of course, it is not an infant human, either--it is an infant australopithecine, and it *looks* like an infant australopithecine. We know this because we have lots of *other* fossils of A. africanus and other australos, and some of these are juveniles and infants.

So what? "Nebraska Man" died almost before it was born. Almost nobody took it seriously.

I think it is obvious that YECs have no evidence that human evolution is false. The fact that the best they can do is dredge up controversies that date back over 80 years and more is all the demonstration we need. Even the most recent so-called "evidence" usually surrounds "Lucy", a fossil find that's 30 years old, now. Almost total silence (dare I say--ignorance--?) on the huge numbers and remarkable variety of fossils found since then.....

Deb

<a href="http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-scopes-trial-inherit-wind.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-scopes-trial-inherit-wind.htm</a>[/QB][/QUOTE]

Kosh

It had an inscription which read "F. Flintstone"
on the inside...

MrDarwin

Thanks for the concern Kosh, but was there ever any doubt that my underwear was in danger?