Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Take a break from the boards, and another one gets in. Pity I missed all the other golden opportunities to respond.

For staters:
I have never, and never will, EVER refer to any species, past or present, as an ape-man. Ever. Why? A few reasons, one being that man is essentially a hairless ape, and another, more important reason, is that it basically sets an arbitrary point at dividing humans from animals where I deem it convienient. I'd have likely stated, "Oh, look. A human ancestor of some sort." and then waited to see what else turned up on it. But that isn't really the whole point of your post at all.

Your main point is that we don't try and "discover the truth"--which means your version of creaationism. You claim that we would have been searching for something to strengthen our argument. Actually, I really don't do that, and I really see no reason why to do it every time some creationists pulls something out of his rear end and tries feeding it to me. Do I really need to come up with new reasons not to eat that steaming mound, as opposed to a nice, wholseome orange? If I needed to, I probably should be checking myself into a mental institution. There comes a point at which "strengthening your arguments" is more like using a sledgehammer to smash an ant. Why bother when a small rock does just as well?

I probably ought to stop here before I begin to rant. I don't want to end up looking in the mirror.

randman

Well, at least one of you actually admitted that the description of Neanderthal which was taught as late as the early 70s. I know because I remember the textbooks then, was indeed a major error.
I had not heard it was due to anti-creationists. I will try sometime to verify that. What I had heard from evolutionist sites is that the research for Neanderthal was not flawed but based on too few specimens, and once the characterization was made, it was very hard to get the evolutionist community to change.
Of course, deliberate hoaxes like Piltdown man were put forward as well.
Neanderthals to my mind are simply a tribe of homo sapiens. I do know that there is debate as to whether they are ancestors to us today, and that it is considered that they could procreate with homo sapiens of other tribes.
If the DNA proves, it is still fairly new, that they died out, it still does not change the fact we are most likely dealing with just another tribe of humanity, and in no way, another species altogether.

Viti

Who here is disagreeing? As I stated, there is some debate...there are enough genetic differences to say "Neanderthals were not homo sapiens sapiens" but the trouble is determining whether they were a distinct yet parallel species of "human" or a subspecies.

An example from the ape world:

Chimpanzees (troglodytes) and Bonobos (paniscus) are separate species in the same Genus (Pan)...but Chimpanzees have 3 subspecies based on regional differences.

Nobody has ever stated that they are not all apes...and I don't recall hearing that Neanderthals were some sort of "missing" link or transition.

Mr. Darwin is right, you are arguing against yourself