[RunningWolf]

Vade, this demented character on your side (who wont even post to me directly) has a pretty obscure and bizarre notion of what lie and lying is, especially as to the subject of toe.

It seems in her world she simply declares a statement false and then if one repeats it after that now they are a liar because she has already ‘shown them the truth’ I think I got that right but it is such a tight circular distorted logic that she operates hidden behind a screen of inference and demands that it is hard to pin her down on it. And when she does see that she is being caught out she will simply abandon the thread to repeat her attacks on a new target.

The gal lives in a dream world if she believes that 'people have been shown other wise' on most everything she asserts, which is very little when you get down to it.

Also for some reason it seems his obsession to make everyone 'a liar' that she senses does not buy into her beliefs.

Now if we go back to that thread where ever it is, as far as I can recall I was ready to deliver the evidence as long as I got the evos to put themselves out there with statements they could be held accountable to, and that is when all the hedging, back pedaling, and discounting of whole the PiltDown Man thesis issue began.

If nothing else the demented tag team of evo weasels are very adept at making relentless demands, twisting and distorting the argument and/or the other persons words, and being very difficult to pin them down in a direct manner.

When Pilt Down Man hit the world of evolutionary theory, it rocked their world, it was hailed as the missing link of Ape to Man, and the biggest names of TOE in England Europe and the USA bought into to it. It was in the Encyclopedia Britannica up to the year 1953, all the text books had to be re written after it was finally debunked.

If this character is going to call me a liar on this though, I would at least like to see evidence from her as why no doctoral thesis at all would have been written on such a earth shattering (at the time) find.

W.

[ml1954]

Clueless As Usual Placemarker

[VadeRetro]

You are inconsistent in your use of pronoun gender. Perhaps you intend some veiled insult?

I am unimpressed by the studied amnesia trick employed by creationists and IDers to avoid dealing with the evidence for evolution. No one has ever shown you any evidence?

Here. Let me be the first.

[eleni121]

OOOOH...now the Big bad lupus has gotten into the "fray"

I'm scared Mommy...the 'oids are coming out in full force.

[Stultis]

When Pilt Down Man hit the world of evolutionary theory, it rocked their world, it was hailed as the missing link of Ape to Man, and the biggest names of TOE in England Europe and the USA bought into to it.

Yeah. Not quite. From this webpage:

The hoax was swallowed uncritically

This is a half truth; almost no one publicly raised the possibility of a deliberate hoax. There were rumors circulating, however. William Gregory, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History wrote in Natural History in May of 1914:

"It has been suspected by some that geologically [the bones] are not that old at all; that they may even represent a deliberate hoax, a negro or Australian skull and a broken ape jaw, artificially fossilized and planted in the grave bed, to fool scientists."

He went on, however, to vigorously deny the charge, concluding

"None of the experts who have scrutinized the specimens and the gravel pit and its surroundings has doubted the genuineness of the discovery."

In general, however, the finds were accepted as being genuine fossils but were not accepted uncritically as being from an ancient human ancestor. There was an early and recurring doubt that the jaw and the skull were from two different animals, that the jaw was from an archaic chimpanzee and that the skull was from a relatively modern human being. Notable critics include Dr. David Waterston of King's College, the French paleontologists Marcellin Boule and Ernest Robert Lenoir, Gerrit Miller, curator of mammals at the Smithsonian, and Professor Ales Hrdlicka.

Initially there were many more critics, e.g. Osborn. However the finding of the second skull converted many of the critics. Finding a jaw from one animal near the skull of another might be an accident of juxtaposition -- two such finds is quite unlikely to be an accident. Some critics, e.g. Lenoir and Hrdlicka remained unconvinced none-the-less.

The following quote comes from a "The Evolution of Man", a 1927 book by Grafton Elliot Smith:

"Yet it [the skullcap] was found in association with the fragment of a jaw presenting so close a resemblance to the type hitherto known only in Apes that for more than twelve years many competent biologists have been claiming it to be the remains of a Chimpanzee."

Franz Weidenreich in 1946, in his book "Apes, Giants, and Men" (Note that Weidenreich was an extremely respected scientist, having done most of the work on the Peking Man skulls):

In this connection, another fact should be considered. We know of a lower jaw from the Lower Pleistocene of southern England which is anatomically, without any doubt, the jaw of an anthropoid. The trouble is that this jaw, although generally acknowledged as a simian jaw, has been attributed to man because it was found mixed with fragments of an undoubtedly human brain case. I am referring to the famous Piltdown finds and to Eoanthropus, as the reconstructed human type has been called by the English authors... Therefore, both skeletal elements cannot belong to the same skull.

It should also be mentioned that in 1950 Ashley Montagu and Alvan T. Marston mounted major attacks on the interpretation of the Piltdown fossils as being from a single animal.

[Quark2005]

When Pilt Down Man hit the world of evolutionary theory, it rocked their world, it was hailed as the missing link of Ape to Man, and the biggest names of TOE in England Europe and the USA bought into to it. It was in the Encyclopedia Britannica up to the year 1953, all the text books had to be re written after it was finally debunked.

If only they had had the eminent Running Wolf, amateur paleontologist around, the hoax of Piltdown Man would have been discovered instantly, and saved those clueless scientists decades of trouble! :

[Coyoteman]

When Pilt Down Man hit the world of evolutionary theory, it rocked their world, it was hailed as the missing link of Ape to Man, and the biggest names of TOE in England Europe and the USA bought into to it. It was in the Encyclopedia Britannica up to the year 1953, all the text books had to be re written after it was finally debunked.

Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting (correctly) that the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang (E.A. Hooton, Up from the Ape, revised edition; The MacMillan Co., 1946).

This is what a 1946 textbook shows, several years before the claims for Piltdown were completely falsified. Your statement is inaccurate.