[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.

[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.

[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.

[dead]

Man or Gorilla?

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

[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.

[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."

[Gladwin]

Female gorilla skull

[lews]

This just proves that much of anthropology is more art than science. The way these "scientists" determine whether something is an ape or a hominid is about like identifying shapes in the clouds.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Told ya so. :)

[Lost Highway]

Science is not guess work or opinion. Science is fact!<\sarcasm>

[Hunble]

"Even if it is a big monkey, it's even more interesting," Coppens said. "Because until now, in the genealogy of monkeys, there is a big missing link stretching over millions of years."

Why of course it would be difficult to classify this 6 million old skull as Human or Gorilla. At that early date, the two species were very closely related, and would share most features.

This is not and argument about which scientist is correct, but more of a demonstration of why humans become more simular to other great apes, the further back in time you go.

[scouse]

Should you wish to know to which species this skull belongs, the answer is simple. Show the skull to Jane Goodall and watch her reaction. If her eyes turn smokey and her breathing starts to get heavier and heavier, you have a member of some ape family.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Yes,I knew someone who was alive at the beginning of time and can attest to the fact this skull is the real thing!

[VRWC_minion]

I guess I asked the right questions on the other thread. While it went unanswered to my satisfaction, my intial thoughts may prove to be correct

---

Maybe I can better state my questions. Apparently in the last 4 million years man has gone through 6 or 7 major species changes while the modern ape has none. Assuming that both us and the apes are experiencing the same environment changes I wonder what factors yield a species that doesn't change much while a similar species changes at least 6 or 7 times that warrants a special name.

If there is a "stability" factor that some species have, what determines it and why doesn't man have the same ? What makes our time line so volatile ? Why didn't one of our types settle down for the long haul like the ape ?

The skeptic in me says that one of the reasons is that professors looking for funding might not be so interested in following ape species and may be more willing to see differences in human species. But skepticism aside these are my honest questions not coming from someone who is best described as an agnostic as far as evolution goes and not one who believes that the world has to be 6,000 years old. (In fact I believe the bible literally says the universe is about 5 1/2 days old but thats another thread. )

94 posted on 7/11/02 5:28 PM Eastern by VRWC_minion