Man or Gorilla? Scientist Questions Skull Theory

Reuters ^ | Fri Jul 12,10:29 AM ET | John Chalmers

[Junior]

Ah, the self-correcting nature of science...

[Junior]

Bump.

[pabianice]

Neither is correct. It is actually from an early member of the DNC...

[Oldeconomybuyer]

[Blood of Tyrants]

Hush! The evolutionists will believe nothing that doesn't support their theory.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Probably still on the active voter rolls in Palm Beach County, too.

[Clara Lou]

Hee hee! Jumping to conclustions is so frequently embarrassing! And then we have the press who are so eager to follow right along.

[far sider]

That was fast. Usually it takes months for these new "hominids" to be revealed as bogus. The Ramapithicus/Sivapithicus debacle of the 80s comes to mind. A new "human ancestor" was found (so-called Sivapithicus) which a year later was conclusively shown to be an extinct species of orangutan (ramapithicus).

Evolutionists are such sheeple.

[whattajoke]

What the hell are you talking about? If anything, this story shows that evolutionists (ONCE AGAIN) test their theories, publish them in peer reviewed journals, and are subject to questions and more testing! That would make them the opposite of "sheeple."

Unlike your (I'm supposing here, but fairly so) childish creationism fairy tale which has yet to have a single theory tested, published in a peer review journal, or subjected to questions or more testing.

this "debate" is an embarrassment to me as a conservative American. I'd like to know when being a Conservative meant abandoning science. Ugh.

sorry for my anger, but these threads always fire me up.

[r9etb]

Ah, the self-correcting nature of science...

The fact that he didn't recognize it as a female gorilla merely suggests that Mr. Brunet is more likely a breast or leg man, and not a face man....

[mercy]

It doesn't matter. Within a few years they will have constructed an entire skeleton to go with this skull and it will appear on the inside flap foldout of your kid's sixth grade science book on a timeline chart with twelve other immaginary creatures PROOVING man came from monkeys.

[JediGirl]

Hush! The evolutionists will believe nothing that doesn't support their theory.

What in the article doesn't support evolution? If anything, it supports evolution by showing that it corrects itself (as does any theory) when evidence demands it.

[dead]

Man or Gorilla?

I thought this thread was going to solve the ongoing confusion regarding Janet Reno.

[Junior]

I'm an evolutionist.

[JediGirl]

heehee, i was laughing to myself about that....

[r9etb]

That was fast. Usually it takes months for these new "hominids" to be revealed as bogus.

It depends on whose ox is being gored. In this case Mr. Brunet was challenging the status quo. In the case of Sivapithicus, it served the status quo IIRC, and was thus accepted without much question.

[RightWhale]

French media have reported extensively on the skull

That raised my suspicions just a notch. A lot of French science is very good, very advanced. But now and then they discover N-rays. Of course, we have our cold fusion to point to with pride.

[onedoug]

Then, given stratigraphic superposition, and cross-cutting relationships, with no human fossils detected as early, these hominids preceded Man's appearence.

[gdani]

Of course it's not a human ancestor. The tip-off was that they talk about it being millions of years old when we all know that the Earth is only approx 6,000 years old.

The nerve of some people...

(/sarcasm off)

[Taliesan]

Ah, of course. "When we're right, we're right. When we're wrong, we're right."