Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Find raises doubts on key theory of human evolution
The Scotsman ^ | April 3, 2007 | JOHN VON RADOWITZ

Posted on 04/02/2007 7:10:57 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last
To: metmom
What's that again about a small group of individuals couldn't possibly contain enough genetic variety to result in a healthy population?

WHAT!?You tryin' to say that when EVOLUTION makes a 'mutation' that it's wonderfulness does NOT progate to ALL of the mutatee's offspring - a 'small population'?

--EvoDude

51 posted on 04/03/2007 4:52:13 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Taglines 'R' Us...


(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
 
HMmmm...
 
 
Job 38
 
 1.  Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:
 2.  "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?
 3.  Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.
 4.  "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
 5.  Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?
 6.  On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone--
 7.  while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?
 8.  "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,
 9.  when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness,
 10.  when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place,
 11.  when I said, `This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'?
 12.  "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place,
 13.  that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?
 14.  The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.
 15.  The wicked are denied their light, and their upraised arm is broken.
 16.  "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?
 17.  Have the gates of death been shown to you? Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death ?
 18.  Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this.
 19.  "What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside?
 20.  Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
 21.  Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years!
 22.  "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail,
 23.  which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle?
 24.  What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
 25.  Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm,
 26.  to water a land where no man lives, a desert with no one in it,
 27.  to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass?
 28.  Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew?
 29.  From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
 30.  when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen?
 31.  "Can you bind the beautiful  Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?
 32.  Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear  with its cubs?
 33.  Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up [God's ] dominion over the earth?
 34.  "Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water?
 35.  Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, `Here we are'?
 36.  Who endowed the heart  with wisdom or gave understanding to the mind ?
 37.  Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
 38.  when the dust becomes hard and the clods of earth stick together?
 39.  "Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions
 40.  when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? 
 41.  Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?
 

52 posted on 04/03/2007 4:55:41 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

“It’s right here in front of me!”


53 posted on 04/03/2007 4:57:07 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
 
I'm surprised the editor didn't prefix a "Darwin proved true" to the headline.
 
Poor ol' Charlie...

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."

( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )


Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )


 
 
 
 
 

NIV 1 Timothy 1:20-21
 20.  Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,
 21.  which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.   Grace be with you.

 
NIV Proverbs 4:13
   Hold on to instruction, do not let it go; guard it well, for it is your life.
 

NIV Hebrews 3:6
   But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.
 

NIV Hebrews 3:14
   We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.
 

NIV Hebrews 6:11
   We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure.
 
 
NIV Hebrews 12:3
   Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
 
 
NIV 2 Timothy 2:11-13
 11.  Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him;
 12.  if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;
 13.  if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.
 

NIV 2 Peter 2:20-21
 20.  If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
 21.  It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.
 
 
 
NIV 2 John 1:8
  Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.
 

NIV Jude 1:21
   Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.
 

NIV Revelation 2:25
   Only hold on to what you have until I come.
 

NIV Revelation 3:11
   I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.


54 posted on 04/03/2007 4:58:32 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Second, do you believe that everything in the Universe can be understood by man?

Why sure!

Given enough time...

--EvoDude

55 posted on 04/03/2007 4:59:23 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Roughly the same percentage of the population believe in ghosts as those who believe in evolution.


56 posted on 04/03/2007 5:03:35 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

China? Isn’t that where they make fake fossils for people to examine and put on display around the world in museums and schools?


57 posted on 04/03/2007 5:23:53 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Maybe it propagates to none. Could be it dies out with the individual.

Even if it did pass on, evos are constantly telling us that starting a population with two or six individuals would not have enough genetic variety to support a healthy population so that the whole human race could not have possibly sprung from just Adam and Eve or Noah and his family.

However, when a mutation occurs in an individual in evoland, and is spread to a small population which then migrates off somewhere else to evolve further, then it IS feasible that a small population has enough variety to maintain a healthy population and produce a wide variety of genetic characteristics.

It just depends on which side of the argument you’re on. You know, heads I win, tails you lose...


58 posted on 04/03/2007 5:30:56 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
My theory?
The one you're advocating.
Debating the out-of-Africa theory (160,000 years ago) vs. the more recent China data (multiregional, probably both 160,000 and 40,000 years ago) does not contradict a 6000 years ago earth?
You think every find over 6,000 years contradicts young-earth. These scientists already had the assumptions of old ages in their heads, so it's not surprising that their conclusion was congruent with their assumption, as far as dates went.
You really need to read some science.
You are cruising the internet looking for articles which, in your limited understanding, may serve to cast some doubt--any doubt--on evolution. That does not amount to an understanding of science.
Wait, so you don't want me reading scientific journals? Or do you want me reading them only with YOUR bias, not mine?
Not interested in Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. They don't post here. You do.
YOU are the one that brought Answers in Genesis up, my friend. Out of the blue.
And you post anti-science nonsense, which you have admitted you get from AnswersinGenesis.
Not anti-science, and who has to "admit" something when the URL is as plain as day? You keep acting as if that's something to be ashamed of. And anyway, I didn't post anything from AiG on this page, and remind me again why MY behavior is superceding the substance of this article?
Post in the Religion Forum and you won't get any challenges from me as long as what you are posting is religious belief and does not pretend to be science. That's where you and I tangle.
I'm sorry; I don't let opponents determine the battlefield.
59 posted on 04/03/2007 6:11:56 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob

There are cave paintings in France, Italy and Africa that old.


60 posted on 04/03/2007 8:05:51 AM PDT by RightWhale (3 May '07 3:14 PM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Actually, this find and the question it raises doesn’t effect the theory of evolution one way or the other. All it suggests is that the “out of Africa” story may be a simplification that needs to be modified.

The difficulties with a purely material and chance-driven theory of evolution lie elsewhere.


61 posted on 04/03/2007 8:25:18 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; Coyoteman
I'm sorry; I don't let opponents determine the battlefield.

Juat a word of advice Dave.

First you have to figure out what the battlefield is. Arguing from ignorance does not even put you on the same playing field as coyoteman.

62 posted on 04/03/2007 9:47:39 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

I know, I know, next to his scientific acumen, I’m a worm. I’ve got that talking point down pat, can we move on?


63 posted on 04/03/2007 9:59:14 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob
They had to use paper plates?

Nah. They used Melmac. Alf brought a whole space ship load with him.

64 posted on 04/03/2007 9:59:41 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

It’s a key component of human evolution, according to the article.


65 posted on 04/03/2007 9:59:53 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor

Sure it’s plenty of time, but this find forces a complete rewrite of human origins theory. Did you read the article?


66 posted on 04/03/2007 10:04:00 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
It’s a key component of human evolution, according to the article.

Try this article on Wiki: Multiregional_hypothesis.

67 posted on 04/03/2007 10:10:32 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I know, I know, next to his scientific acumen, I’m a worm. I’ve got that talking point down pat, can we move on?

I did not couch it in those terms. However, you do need to really look at both sides. K?

Not a criticism, just good advice.

68 posted on 04/03/2007 10:12:39 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

You’re always so caring. Ever since you told me to F off.

Tell me how, when I’ve had a year of college biology, when I’m exposed to daily doses in the media and online, and when I’m discussing the issue with the great luminaries of Darwinism here on Free Republic, how I’m NOT getting both sides?


69 posted on 04/03/2007 10:23:09 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
(From the Wikipedia article)
The term "multiregional hypothesis" was first coined in the early 1980's by Milford H. Wolpoff and a group of associates as an explanation for the apparent similarities of the remains from the Homo erectus and Homo sapiens inhabiting the same region.
So much for the strength of evolutionary predictions. That sounds a lot more like having to alter the theory to account for the evidence. Behold, the great strength of evolution: It has SO many practical predictions...except the ones that don't fit. Those we just accomodate by changing the theory.
70 posted on 04/03/2007 10:27:39 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I do hope you realize that this article reflects part of a longstanding fight between two different schools of anthropologists.

Both schools completely accept the theory of evolution, as well as the theory of gravitation, the theory of relativity, electromagnetic theory, and the rest of modern science.

To pretend that this discovery is evidence for creationism or against science is to flirt with dishonesty.

71 posted on 04/03/2007 10:29:23 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
So much for the strength of evolutionary predictions. That sounds a lot more like having to alter the theory to account for the evidence.

I'm not sure I understand your point. The theory of evolution isn't being debated, what's being debated is the mechanism by which humans evolved.

Whether humans evolved in Africa or in Africa and China, all of the scientists in question agree that humans evolved somewhere and all agree on the basic mechanisms by which human beings did so.

72 posted on 04/03/2007 10:31:17 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
You’re always so caring.

Actually I do care.

Ever since you told me to F off.

For that single post, it was an approrpiate response.

Tell me how, when I’ve had a year of college biology, when I’m exposed to daily doses in the media and online, and when I’m discussing the issue with the great luminaries of Darwinism here on Free Republic, how I’m NOT getting both sides?

You are kidding I hope. How does one year of basic biology stack up to years of grad school? And the public media - we all know how much scientific acumen is found there.

73 posted on 04/03/2007 10:43:18 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
"Roughly the same percentage of the population believe in ghosts as those who believe in evolution."

Are you seriously trying to draw a correlation between the belief in Ghosts and the acceptance of evolution based on the number of people belonging to those two groups rather than by comparing the content of the ideas, associated physical evidence, and the methodology used to draw conclusions ?

That is funny.

74 posted on 04/03/2007 12:17:20 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimizer, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"China? Isn’t that where they make fake fossils for people to examine and put on display around the world in museums and schools?"

Which fake fossils might those be?

75 posted on 04/03/2007 12:18:54 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimizer, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Maybe it propagates to none. Could be it dies out with the individual.

That is indeed what happens most frequently. Each of us has mutations not existing in our parents. Most of those are not subject to selection so depend on drift to propagate through a population.

"Even if it did pass on, evos are constantly telling us that starting a population with two or six individuals would not have enough genetic variety to support a healthy population so that the whole human race could not have possibly sprung from just Adam and Eve or Noah and his family.

Why do you find this so hard to understand?

There are sequences in the genome that change very slowly, there are others that change at a consistent rate. When the rates of those sequences are taken into account, the number of current alleles is too high to be from a population of 6 people from only 6000 - 10000 years in our past.

Small populations tend to suffer from 'founder effect' (severe population bottleneck) where, because of inbreeding, recessive genes become homozygous and tend make the population die off.

"However, when a mutation occurs in an individual in evoland, and is spread to a small population which then migrates off somewhere else to evolve further, then it IS feasible that a small population has enough variety to maintain a healthy population and produce a wide variety of genetic characteristics.

Did you see where they claimed the small population consisted of only 6 individuals? I didn't. Did you see where they claimed that only that small group contributed to the variation in our genome? I didn't.

76 posted on 04/03/2007 1:04:49 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimizer, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

The ones that another evo told me I could order to examine if I wanted to check out a fossil and analyze it. THe casts made of the real things.


77 posted on 04/03/2007 4:08:07 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

So what is the minimum sized population needed to prevent inbreeding? How big was a *small group* that migrated?


78 posted on 04/03/2007 4:10:48 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Add UFOs and you will pick up the rest of the population.


79 posted on 04/03/2007 4:11:12 PM PDT by RightWhale (3 May '07 3:14 PM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"The ones that another evo told me I could order to examine if I wanted to check out a fossil and analyze it. THe casts made of the real things."

Casts are made all over the world and are accurate impressions of the original fossil. Why would you single out China, and why would you call them 'fake', with the implication that they have been in some way dishonestly modified from the original?

80 posted on 04/03/2007 4:40:21 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimizer, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"So what is the minimum sized population needed to prevent inbreeding?

That is difficult to tell unless the number of harmful homozygous alleles are known for the population. However we do know that the populations on Pitcairn Island, Easter Island and the Amish in the US have a higher than average incidence of homozygous alleles. With 2 people the number of alleles at a given locus is only 4 which means that the third generation would start experiencing homozygous alleles.

"How big was a *small group* that migrated?"

Small populations would probably be in the thousands. It would also not be a single group that left Africa, it would be multiple groups which interbred. The idea that we all descended from a small group does not imply that they were the only humans alive in the area. It just means that all the descendants of those outside that group have died out.

81 posted on 04/03/2007 5:15:12 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimizer, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
So much for the strength of evolutionary predictions. That sounds a lot more like having to alter the theory to account for the evidence. Behold, the great strength of evolution: It has SO many practical predictions...except the ones that don't fit. Those we just accomodate by changing the theory.

While this theory may have been named in the '80s, it was something I was exposed to in evolution classes in the '70s.

What is at issue is how certain traits came to be in different world groups. One theory is that there was some continuity of traits from Homo erectus to modern man, even though the main impetus of the evolution to modern human took place in Africa and spread from there. The other theory is that there was no such continuity of traits from Homo erectus to modern man, and the spread from Africa was responsible for all subsequent groups.

You really should try to understand an issue before you jump all over it.

82 posted on 04/03/2007 5:39:33 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
You are jumping back and forth between arguments, and taking a response to one argument as a response to another. Newsflash: When you put my words in an entirely different context, they won't make any sense. That's why you have to put them IN context.
How does one year of basic biology stack up to years of grad school?
It doesn't. You said I needed to look at both sides. I explained that I do, have and am. Now are you just having trouble keeping track of the responses to different accusations, or are you trying to twist my words?
83 posted on 04/03/2007 6:11:17 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Fester Chugabrew
China? Isn’t that where they make fake fossils for people to examine and put on display around the world in museums and schools?

Yes, that's the place.

Zhoukoudian is where Davidson Black and Teilhard de Chardin found "Peking Man". In 1921 Black found two teeth. Upon studying the upper molar carefully, he concluded that it obviously belonged to a new species of tarzan, Sinanthropus pekinensis, a knuckle-dragging ape man or something like that. Wouldn't you? Anyway, others were not so easily convinced. Maybe three teeth would have clinched it for Davidson.

Chardin got involved in the late 1920's, along with C. C. Young and Wengzhong Pei. Upon investigating ash-pits in what may be some kind of ancient lime-quarry, other stuff turned up. The New York Times (ha ha) reported that "ten skeletons unearthed simultaneously with an unbroken skull", and even Nature reported something equally silly, but it turned out that all that was merely a slight misreading of Chardin's comment: "My impression is that the fissure containing Sinanthropus (Black estimates that there are traces of at least 10 individuals) is..." What they actually found was one (1) piece of skull-cap.

Lots of other fragments and teeth were supposedly found subsequently, casts were made, drawings, grainy photos, reconstructions. There was some controversy concerning the reconstructions, as bits and pieces of anything were joined together to make complete skulls. But G. Elliot Smith denied this, and claimed the reconstructions were solid, because they lined up with Piltdown man. There was some evidence that "Peking Man" was chomped on by modern man, but theories about cannibalism and hyenas made that go away. The reports about exactly what was found are grossly inconsistent, but it doesn't matter anyway, because all of it disappeared, as is well known.

If you go to Zhoukoudian today, all you will see, indeed all you will ever see of "Peking Man" - and that on a lucky day - is a fragment of skull-cap, supposedly discovered in 1966. What you will also see are many top-knotch bronze casts like this one

and this one

and some nice art:

And a good pic of Dr Pei:

Which is proof enough. What more could one want?

84 posted on 04/04/2007 1:12:00 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Your post is long on polemic and short on fact.

Try this link: Peking Man for additional details.

You might also try reading what is at The Peking Man World Heritage Site at Zhoukoudian rather than just lifting a few pictures in a silly effort to present the findings in a bad light.

85 posted on 04/04/2007 6:09:34 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

I like Chinese thought,
the wisdom that Confucious taught,
if Darwin has anything to shout about,
the Chinese will survive us all
without any doubt!


86 posted on 04/05/2007 6:02:32 AM PDT by jalopeura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo ·
· History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


87 posted on 08/15/2008 9:21:18 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile hasn't been updated since Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson