[RobRoy]

" Which evidence do you consider fake?"
Piltcown man, Lucy, Spotted moth, Kennewick man, etc.

[RobRoy]

Actually, Lucy isn't technically "fake". What she is is some "bones and stuff" surrounded by a huge pile of "speculation" about what she was. It is the speculation that is fake.

[Boxen]

I take it then that you reject the whole of fossil evidence based on a small number of fakes.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Piltcown man,"

Hasn't been accepted for MANY decades, and never was fully accepted. Has nothing to do with the ToE.

"Lucy"

Perfectly good multiple specimens.

"Spotted moth"

Excellent study of natural selections ability to work on population distributions.

"Kennewick man"

Different subject, not related to human evolution. It was a controversy about Indian rights and Indian creationism.

[Coyoteman]

" Which evidence do you consider fake?"

Piltcown man, Lucy, Spotted moth, Kennewick man, etc.

Kennewick man? You're kidding! That is a standard 9000 year old human (not fossil) from the banks of the Columbia River.

I challenge you to name one thing about Kennewick that is fake.

[freedumb2003]

Piltcown man, Lucy, Spotted moth, Kennewick man, etc.

Piltdown is a wonderful example of a scientific success. Unlike religion, including Christianity, science has methods and structures to detect fraud. Since fraudulent data have already been excluded from the scientific body, it is no longer at issue. Therefore it is not "fake."

[Doctor Stochastic]

What's fake about Kennewick man? Was the skeleton placed in order to deny the Indians some sort of claim over the area?