On Mar 10, 11:15=A0am, "Harry Dope" <LiberalsAreV...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Why are their monkeys today?
Darwin's theories and modern evolutionary theory say that a species
will go extinct when it is no longer able to survive in it's
environment.
Monkeys evolved from earlier species to survive in the various
climates that monkeys currently occupy.
Humans evolved from a shared ancestor to the monkeys, not from
monkey's themselves.
It's a common misunderstanding.
Animals (organisms in general) evolve almost exclusively to accomodate
their environs. That's why animals in reasonably unchanging environs
tend to evolve more slowly (ie., sharks, scorpions, etc...). If a
shark's environment became fresh-water, or arctic or really hot, then
they'd either evolve or disappear. Bull-sharks, and river-sharks are
great examples of evolved responses to fresh-water environs. And the
Greenland shark is a decent example of an arctic shark -- it's clearly
different from other, more agressive sharks in that, while they can
grow to more than 6 meters (about 20 feet!) but are often hunted by
Inuit with their bare hands.
As per that Ed Conrad, none of his displays appear to be human. The
cranial pro****tions, thicknesses, plates, sloping or curvature appear
to be strongly non-primate -- Ed Conrad claims there's 6 millimeters
of material inside and outside of the skull fossil, making it
effectively about the size of a real "head" adding skin and blood-
vessels, etc.... Finally, of all "coal-bed human fossils" to which
scientific access has been granted, all have debunked.
The "scientific paper" is anything but. Opening, the author
("scientist") acknowledges that the samples were taken without
independant supervision. The conclusion cites " it contains
fossilized osteocytes, Haversian canals, osteons, red blood cells and
various blood vessels in the specimens and thin sections ; (2) it
contains remains of Golgi neuron (brain cell), neuronal soma and
dendrites" which are/were common to all vertebrate animals, anything
chordata (fish, amphibians, mammals, reptiles, and birds). No attempt
to date any ****tion of the materials was done. Sure, there'd be
contamination from the coal itself, but there'd be plenty of matter
that's reasonably presumably date-worthy.
Most telling is the references section... it's all google-wiki-esque.
There's no serious academic citation of any actual anthropological,
nor forensic text mentioned.
I'd expect more foundation in a first-year college paper.
|
