Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's how they 'debate'. They think the winner is the one who spews the most insults.
......and how do you debate? By conveniently ignoring the posts that prove you wrong? I see you handily ignored my post about the fish fossil you said didn't exist.
Dubois found skullcap, three teeth and a thighbone, which he concluded came from the same creature, and he claimed it was the missing link, the Java-man. These findings were made in Java, SE Asia. He 'forgot' to mention he also found three modern human skulls in the same pit, which would have meant his Java-man and modern man lived at the same time. The Java-man bone fragments were human.
Same thing happened with the Peking man. In that case too, the scientists concealed the fact they also found modern human skulls in the same pit. Why do they hide evidence? Because they are so eager to prove they have found the missing link everyone has been looking for. The Peking man was smaller human, much like the pygmies of Kalahari today.
Richard Leakey found "skull 1470", which he claimed was the missing link. He helped science by modifying the skull to make it look older than it was. lol.
Lucy was found in Ethiopia, and she was the missing link until scientists agreed it was just a chimp.
Ramapithecus was the missing link until scientists agreed it was just an ape.
The best for last, the Nebraska man. Someone found a tooth, and built the missing link creature around the tooth, and the result looked like something the between an ape and a man, THE MISSING LINK. It was a tooth of a pig. lol
People are so eager to prove the evolution theory, that they will invent the missing links, and sometimes they are so eager to believe it, they believe in poor science. The public will believe ANYTHING the scientists tell them, which has been the case with every new missing link, invented ones, and the ones which have been honest mistakes.
Well, NONE of that was correct. Oh, and if you are going to copy and past someone else's work, you are required, by the rules of this forum, to cite the source. Otherwise, it is considered plagiarism.
Oh, and just for future reference, if you are going to argue from such an obviously deceptive position, just keep in mind that there are a lot of people on CD forums who aren't as stupid, as gullible, and as scientifically illiterate as you are.
Not...exactly. A species that never splits and goes extinct can't really be called transitional.
Yes it can. Extinction is certainly a transition, and certainly is an important part of the theory of evolution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
