[chuck_the_tv_out]

"Probably it’s a drawing “from” a minute fragment, which is usually the case"

like Nebraska Man, for which the "evidence" was a pig's tooth, so you'll excuse me if I'm not impressed by drawings !

[ToGodBeTheGlory]

And Nebraska Man was the centerpiece of their hopes, like Piltdown Man. Both were in textbooks for many decades and taught as our ancestors! Nebraska Man was even used in the Scopes trial by the evo-cultists as an example of the missing link. And it was all a deliberate fraud.

[whattajoke]

like Nebraska Man, for which the "evidence" was a pig's tooth, so you'll excuse me if I'm not impressed by drawings !

That's perfectly fair. And neither were (or are) scientists. There's much more to the Nebraska Man story than your creationist website told you. (Surprise.)

Some facts:
That infamous drawing of the supposed Nebraska Man appeared in a British weekly tabloid - never in a scientific publication.

The scientific establishment never accepted the tooth as anything more than an unidentified tooth.

Any time the tooth was referenced by scientists, even those believing it could be a human ancestor was ALWAYS tempered with caution - though not as much as there should have been.

Books and papers published at the time (1920's) never used the tooth as evidence of a human ancestor.

And, most importantly, it was SCIENCE and SCIENTISTS who ultimately discarded the whole hominid or ape-like notion through the scientific process.

Let's review: Farmer finds a tooth, scientists says maybe it's a human ancestor, British magazine makes a fanciful drawing, scientists debate the validity of the tooth, science discards the notion of the tooth belonging to a human ancestor, creationists use this minor error from 90 years ago against the whole body of evolution to this day.