By the way, the only thing that makes it an ancestor, is the theory of evolution, There is no evidence it is an ancestor, only the theory of evolution makes it an ancestor, and a discredited one since it is not australopithecine!
All it is is a SKULL cap and 3 teeth found in 1891, with a femur that was dug up 46 feet down stream and a year later in 1892.
There is NO EVIDENCE the two are even related!! All you have is the skull of an ape!!
The only 'evidence' of this being an ancestor is a theory that does not even apply!!
There is ZERO EVIDENCE of this creature ever becoming man. There is ZERO EVIDENCE of the femur being related to the Skulcap!! In fact, many think the femur is from a dead human.
DuBois also found 2 fully human skulls in the same strata on this expedition but never exhibited them becaue his JAVA MAN link would have been discredited. He later released these two human skulls in 1920, 30 years later!!
Eugene Dubois, "The proto-Australian Fossil man of Wadjuk, Java", Koninklijke Akadamie van Wetenschappan, proceedings, Vol 13, Koninklijke Akadamie , 1920), p. 131
Not heresy, just an honest error. First of all, we didn't know about australopithecines in the 1890's. Second, not everyone (for example, the honored Leakeys) accepts that australopithecines were human ancestors. Disagreement is common in science; in fact, it's a sign of health.
All it is is a SKULL cap and 3 teeth found in 1891, with a femur that was dug up 46 feet down stream and a year later in 1892.
That's as may be, but we have much better examples of Java man--homo erectus--that have been found since. That species was almost certainly ancestral to modern man; that conclusion rests on much firmer footing than that one fossil.
Is anyone else as amused by this straw man as I am?
If you don't understand the point of the webpage, I can explain it to you at a later date...