Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
You have yet to show where I misquoted Gould as you earlier claimed. There is no inconsistency in Gould's writings. Punk-Eek is a Darwinian theory.
Please source the following claims which you have made recently:You have attempted to attack my characterization of some of these, but only with sound and fury signifying nothing. Post 1311 explains my understanding of your posts.1) There is a gap in hominid species after 4mya.
2) Hippos have been eliminated by DNA evidence as a nearest-relative of cetaceans.
3) Gould actually meant to say that creationists quote him correctly.
4) Evolutionists believe that humans descended from one of the modern primate species (all those apes and monkeys are really the same thing anyway) and simultaneously have known for thirty years that this is false.
You have ignored hippo-whale DNA. If you aren't going to defend it, you should admit you made a mistake. This would lend credibility to your claims that you are attempting to have an intelligent discussion and are not some self-imaged foaming-at-the-mouth berserker Holy Warrior who can make no concessions, not even the most obvious, to the dreaded Enemy. You've been hiding from facing your error for hundreds of posts, now. You're a coward.
When I showed that Gould accuses creationists (you and medved, e.g.) of distorting his views beyond all recognition, you accused me of distorting Gould's views. That means that you should be able to go to Gould's article and show where he really meant to say other than what my quotes would indicate. You can't do this and it's time to admit it.
You seek to disown my honest understanding of your claims vis-a-vis the evolutionary ancestry of Homo sapiens. That is, you now say you didn't allege a gap where the ancestor species needs to be. That looks hopelessly wrong. You have your work cut out.
You have also failed to defend your reliance upon the "even evolutionists have shown that man did not come from monkeys" as a catch-all mantra against overwhelming evidence. I have explained at many junctures that 1) apes are not monkeys, 2) evolutionists indeed know modern man did not come from modern monkeys or even any given particular extant ape species but we did diverge from the chimpanzee branch of the tree maybe 5 mya.
In other words, you're 0 for 4 on cleaning up your mess.
When I make a mistake, I admit it.
Oh? Show me where.
Complicating the picture is the fact that, in at least one area of Southeast Asia, a few Homo erectus remained until around at least 60,000 years ago.
No I am not being dense, you are being insulting and dishonest. In post 1278 I said:
"Swisher said the Erectus have never been shown to have developed water transportation. But the more advanced Sapien built boats and probably arrived in Java about 40,000 years ago.
This means that Sapien and Erectus hominids shared that island for hundreds of generations, said Anton, and suggests that the arrival of modern humans led to the demise of the primitive forms." -your article-
How this man has not been kicked out of the scientific community is something to be wondered at. Clearly, the only reason he even keeps his job is because he is a whore of evolution.
How could homo sapiens have been the descendant of homo erectus when the two species met only after homo sapiens was around? Did you read this through Junior? Did you bother to analyze what was being said here? Or do you just throw stuff out hoping that no one will notice how silly it is?
1278 posted on 3/1/02 11:25 PM Pacific by gore3000
If homo sapiens first met erectus after homo sapiens was already around as your phony "proof" states then Erectus could not have been the ancestor of homo sapiens. If you wish to deny this you will clearly prove yourself too stupid and too dishonest to engage in rational discussion (which may be since you posted such an imbecility as proof of man descending from Erectus).
"First met?" Is that the gimmick?
You are making a painful point of being stupid here. You've been on these threads for some months, perhaps a year. Models of speciation have been explained to you. Punk Eek has been explained to you. Turn off the machine and go think about what you're doing.
Nobody's going to change the school currriculum based upon the mixture of illogic and dishonesty you're using above.
I would consider that observation as militating against the reasonableness of the other conclusions. Unless there is other indication of the H. erectus age apart from the dating of ox teeth, I seriously doubt the time being mentioned. Thus, any other conclusions being made I presume are made on similar data.
Clarification to preclude a fugue of postings
Agreed.
This is not the first time that hypothesis has been offered.....
;-)
Yes "first met". Read Junior's moronic proof on post#1098. We have been discussing this for many posts and now you are going to tell us you do not understand it? You are being completely dishonest - as usual.
As usual when your back is against the wall you start denying what even evolutionists have been admitting to for decades (and what you have accepted as a true statement throughtout this thread) - that man did not descend from any of the monkey species - chimps, orangs or whatever. For decades they have been stating that man and monkey "branched out" more than 5 million years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.