Posted by Thermus aquaticus on Jul 20, 2002 at 04:09
(128.250.250.145)
Re: more monkey business...or...gorilla gal (anyman)
Scientific reactions to this find have been mixed. Some believe it is an ancient hominid. Some believe it is an ancient chimpanzee. Some believe it is an ancient ape. Some believe it is none of these, but rather is a member of an evolutionary line that died out.
But from the copious expertise you have undoubtedly gained from reading creationist websites, I am sure you have the knowledge and experience in anthropology, fossils, geology, physiology, zoology and skeletal reconstruction to pronounce which is correct.
Despite your fantasies, one thing is obvious: different scientists may have made up their minds, but science has not made up its mind on this skull. But you have, of course. You have already made up your mind, and then have the nerve to suggest it’s the scientists who have blind faith. Hah! What hypocrisy.
Of course, you could help to reverse my opinion of you if you pointed out the specific evidence that you think has been misinterpreted. The discoverer of the fossil thinks it’s a hominid. Why don’t you impress us all with your analysis of the data? Here is the reference...
Brunet, M. et al. A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa. Nature, 418, 145 - 151, (2002).
http://www.nature.com/nlink/v418/n6894/abs/nature00879_fs.html
I have printed myself out a copy of the paper. Go for it.
(but I’ll wager you won’t, or can’t as the case may be.)
Re: more monkey business...or...gorilla gal anyman 22/7 18:27
(2)