Posted on 08/21/2004 7:25:32 PM PDT by blam
Where is the science? BTW, Newton sent over 100 to the gallows for faking.
Have to confess, I actually used Yahoo! I'm getting in the habit of saying "Google" because that's becoming the term of choice.
No models were questioned after Archaeoraptor except maybe the model of buying from Chinese fossil merchants. No more was appropriate. A tiny fraction of a percent of the data changed, and the Luddites on FR were shrieking (in delight) that all of science since 1859 had collapsed, a serious overstatement of the situation. Why is THAT hard to understand?
This IS what happens if Mom dresses you funny, right??
Like 99.93% of politicians and their pollsters do!
Kinda like kleenex has devolved into the common lexicon.
They merely gave you what you expected to see.
Now if GERMAN fossilateers were to dig up something in China...........
;^)
Thank you. That is all we can ask of anyone.
"Isn't it obvious? In the future mankind has discovered how to travel backward in time and they have used that technique to seed the ancient earth with life."
thats more realistic than randomly applying statistical mathematics.
and regardless of when Rome was built, it seems quite a simple procedure considering the materials involved. carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and even silicone SHOULD provide life when presented with adequate energy and in the right combinations. at least according to "its all chemicals" theories. we've done all that. beyond that would require designing it, which would still prove life cant exist without intellegent design.
Yeah. I've had some of those.
Sez who?
Um...I know you guys are busy and all, but...uh....do you think that maybe when all this blows over, that...uh...maybe little Muttly could have the 280 monkey skulls....?.....Pleeeeeeeeease..(twiddling claw in dimple, and scuffing the ground...)
BTW...is Twaddle edible ?
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
That's one of the problems with dating an older woman.
The Future of the Past:
Archaeology in the 21st Century
by Eberhard Zangger
[W]hen the headteacher Johann Karl Fuhlrott discovered the bones of a Neanderthal in a cave near Dusseldorf in 1856... Rudolf Virchow, President of the Deutsche Gessellschaft fur Anthropologie... who personally promoted the principle 'always practise honesty and stand by the facts whatever happens' -- endorsed the interpretation that the Neanderthal was a bow-legged, Mongolian Cossack with rickets, who had been lucky enough to survive multiple head injuries, but who, during a campaign b Russian forces against France in 1814, had been wounded, and (stark naked) had crawled into a cave, where he had died. Thirty years passed before the specialists recognised their mistake.[pp 288-289]
They'll be fine, as long as they are not the fossilized kind. Those are much too crunchy...but I try !
(...so they're still talking about poor Yuri in the cave, and how he lost the strip-poker game with the Neanderthals. I told him that tying rocks to his head was no replacement for a helmet, and that it would get him into trouble some say. 'Never thought it would damage his card playing abilities...so you see...you just never know.)
Recent studies of neanderthal DNA turned up the result that neanderthal DNA is "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee", and that there is no way we could interbreed with them or be descended from them via any process resembling evolution.those mtDNA studies tend to be GIGO, and that one in particular was heinous. :')
Oops is right! Or is it: "oog"? :)
This 'Fraud' is one of the biggest names in paleoanthropology; for what it's worth. At least his webpage is offline. http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/weeurope.htm
"The current form of the modern human origins debate in paleoanthropology originated with Reiner Protschs (1975) contention that modern humans could be identified as a distinct entity and were of African origin." Source: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wolpoff/Papers/aa-hawks.pdf
Here are a few of his papers that I found with a quick websearch. Many of his papers are used as references by government and educational websites and textbooks. As far as I am concerned, anything he's done is suspect.
====================================
1992 Craniofacial Evidence for theOrigin of Modern Humans in China.Yearbook of PhysicalAnthropology 35:243298. Protsch, Reiner
Protsch, R. 1975. "The absolute dating of Upper Pleistocene sub-Saharan fossil hominids and their place in human evolution." In Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 4, pp. 297-322.
Bada, Jeffrey L. and Reiner Protsch. 1973. Racemization reaction of aspartic acid and its use in dating fossil bones. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 70:1331-1334.
Bada, Jeffrey L., Reiner Protsch, and Roy A. Schroeder. 1973. The racemization reaction of isoleucine used as a paleotemperature indicator. Nature 241:394-395.
Protsch, Reiner R. R. Catalog of fossil hominids of North America. New York, G. Fischer, 1978. 86 p. E71.P76 Includes bibliographical references
Bada, JL, Schroeder, R, Protsch, R, & Berger, R 1974. Concordance of collagen-based radiocarbon and aspartic acid racemization ages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 71:914-917.
Berger, R. and R. Protsch, 1989. UCLA Radiocarbon Dates XI. Radiology. Vol.31, No. 1. pp. 55-67.
MacNeish, R.S., R. Berger, and R. Protsch (1970) Megafauna and Man from Ayacucho, Highland Peru. Science 168:975-977.
Protsch R. R. R., 1981. Die archäologischen und anthropologischen Ergebnisse der Kolh-Larsen-Expeditionen in Nord-Tanzania 1933-1939. Band 4, 3., Tübinger Monographien zur Urgeschichte. Universität Tübingen, Tübingen.
Reiner Protsch, "The Age and Stratigraphic Position of Olduvai Hominid I," Journal of Human Evolution, Vol. 3 (1974), pp: 379--385.
Berger, R., Protsch, R.R., Reynolds, R., Rozaire, C., and Sackett, J.R. (1971) New radiocarbon dates based on bone collagen of California paleoindians. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 12:43-49.
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.