“ Κόσμον τόνδε, τόν αυτόν απάντων, ούτε τις θεών ούτε ανθρώπων εποίησεν, άλλ, ήν αεί και έσται πύρ αείζωον, απτόμενον μέτρα και αποσβεννύμενον μέτρα ”.

"Αυτόν εδώ τον κόσμο, που είναι κοινός για όλα τα όντα (έμψυχα και άψυχα), δεν τον δημιούργησε κανείς Θεός και κανείς Άνθρωπος. Αλλά ήταν, είναι και πάντα θα είναι, πύρ αείζωο, αιώνιο πύρ που αναφλέγεται με μέτρο και σβήνει με μέτρο."

Τάδε έφη, ΗΡΑΚΛΕΙΤΟΣ

quote:

---

....Αλλά ήταν, είναι και πάντα θα είναι, πύρ ΑΕΙΖΩΟ,ΑΙΩΝΙΟ πύρ....

---

1) O Piltdown Man ήταν ΑΠΑΤΗ που αποδείχτηκε 40 χρόνια μετά από επιστήμονες...Κανένας παπάς, κανένας βλάκας δημιουργιστής δεν το απέδειξε. Οι ραδιοχρονολογήσεις το έδειξαν. Κανένας σήμερα δεν επικαλείται αυτό το ψευδές εύρημα ως επιχείρημα. Θα χρησιμοποιήσεις τη διαδικασία της αμφισβήτησης εκ των έσω της επιστήμης και του διαρκούς ελέγχου της αλήθειας εναντίον της;

2) Ο Java Man είναι homo erectus. Υπάρχουν 10αδες άλλα ευρήματα. Τι είναι αυτά; Ψεύτικα ή αληθινά; ΑΠΟΔΕΙΞΕ ΤΟ

Και λίγε πληροφορίες για τις αιτιάσεις του ΨΕΥΤΗ Gish τον οποίο εσύ αντιγράφεις χωρίς να διασταυρώνεις

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html

Many creationists have claimed that Java Man, discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1893, was "bad science". Gish (1985) says that Dubois found two human skulls at nearby Wadjak at about the same level and had kept them secret; that Dubois later decided Java Man was a giant gibbon; and that the bones do not come from the same individual. Most people would find Gish's meaning of "nearby" surprising: the Wadjak skulls were found 65 miles (104 km) of mountainous countryside away from Java Man. Similarly for "at approximately the same level": the Wadjak skulls were found in cave deposits in the mountains, while Java Man was found in river deposits in a flood plain (Fezer 1993). Nor is it true, as is often claimed, that Dubois kept the existence of the Wadjak skulls secret because knowledge of them would have discredited Java Man. Dubois briefly reported the Wadjak skulls in three separate publications in 1890 and 1892. Despite being corrected on this in a debate in 1982 and in print (Brace 1986), Gish has continued to make this claim, even stating, despite not having apparently read Dubois' reports, that they did not mention the Wadjak skulls (Fezer 1993).
Lubenow does acknowledge the existence of Dubois' papers, but argues that since they were bureaucratic reports not intended for the public or the scientific community, Dubois was still guilty of concealing the existence of the Wadjak skulls. This is also incorrect; the journals in which Dubois published, although obscure, were distributed in Europe and America, and are part of the scientific literature. They are available in major libraries and have often been referred to by later researchers (Brace, 1996:pers.comm.).

Based on his own theories about how brains had evolved and wishful thinking, Dubois did claim that Java Man was "a gigantic genus allied to the gibbons", but this was not, as creationists imply, a retraction of his earlier claims that it was an intermediate between apes and humans. Dubois also pointed out that it was bipedal and that its brain size was "very much too large for an anthropoid ape", and he never stopped believing that he had found an ancestor of modern man (Theunissen 1989; Gould 1993; Lubenow 1992). (The creationist organization Answers in Genesis has now abandoned the claim that Dubois dismissed Java Man as a gibbon, and now lists it in their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use web page.)

Creationists are right about one thing. Most modern scientists agree that the femur is more recent than the skullcap, belonging to a modern human. Some of the teeth found nearby are now thought to be from an orang-utan, rather than Homo erectus.

It is instructive to listen to Gish (1993) expounding on the apelike qualities of the skullcap:

"Now we see that the skullcap is very apelike; notice that it has no forehead, it's very flat, very typical of the ape. Notice the massive eyebrow ridges, very typical of the ape".
Despite this, the skullcap definitely does not belong to any ape, and especially not to a gibbon. It is far too large (940 cc, compared to 97 cc for a gibbon), and it is similar to many other Homo erectus fossils that have been found. One of these is Sangiran 17, also found on Java. This skull, which is never mentioned by creationists, is an almost complete cranium and is clearly human, albeit primitive. Others are the Turkana Boy and ER 3733 fossils, both of which creationists recognize as human.

If one is trying to pigeonhole Java Man as either an ape or a human, calling it a human is easily the best choice, but very few creationists seem to have done so until Lubenow in 1992. However he attempts to disqualify Java Man as a primitive human by using faunal evidence to show that it is the same age as the Wadjak skulls. Lubenow gives the following quote from Hooijer (1951):

"Tapirus indicus, supposedly extinct in Java since the Middle Pleistocene, proved to be represented in the Dubois collection from the Wadjak site, central Java, which is late - if not post - Pleistocene in age."
Lubenow is saying that since this species of tapir was found in both the Trinil [the site where Java Man was found] and Wadjak faunas, these fossils may be of the same age. This conclusion is reinforced by three other quotes from Hooijer, all of which describe difficulties in using faunal methods to date Javan fossils. Lubenow's argument fails for a number of reasons.
Even if faunal methods were completely invalid, it would not constitute evidence that Wadjak Man and Java Man were the same age. The most that could be claimed was that the ages of both were unknown. However Hooijer never said that the faunal methods were useless, or that the Wadjak and Trinil faunas were the same.

By far the simplest resolution of the tapir discrepancy is, as Hooijer stated, that Tapirus indicus survived longer than previously thought on Java (Lubenow does admit this possibility). This is consistent with the rest of the evidence. The Wadjak fauna is modern, and hence Wadjak Man is considered to be less than 50,000 years old, and more probably about 10,000 years old. The Trinil fauna contains many more extinct species, and is hence older.

Basically, Lubenow argues that Wadjak Man and Java Man are the same age because a single species of tapir is in both faunas, ignoring that there are many other species not shared between the faunas, and that the extinct species are exclusively in the Trinil fauna.

Lubenow claims that Dubois concealed the Wadjak fossils because the discrepancy of the tapir would have contradicted his claim that Java Man was far older than Wadjak. This seems implausible because Dubois was one of the earliest collectors in Java, and detailed information on the Javan faunas was not compiled until decades later (Hooijer 1951).

Incidentally, the tapir was probably not singled out for mention by Hooijer because it is an anomaly, as Lubenow seems to suspect. It was probably of interest because this species of tapir is still living in South East Asia, and is not, as Lubenow stated, extinct. (Hooijer only stated that it was extinct in Java, not elsewhere.)

Parker (Morris and Parker 1982) expresses puzzlement that Johanson (1981) considers Java Man to be a valid fossil. It is of course a valid fossil because the skullcap had to belong to something, but Parker merely dismisses it as "bad science". (He seems to be of the opinion that it was an ape, but does not say so explicitly.)

As mentioned above Lubenow, publishing in 1992, was one of the first major creationists to conclude that the Java Man skullcap did not belong to an ape. Bill Mehlert came to similar conclusion in a paper published in a creationist journal in 1994:

The finding of ER 3733 and WT 15000 therefore appears to strongly reinforce the validity of Java and Peking Man. The clear similarities shared by all four (where skeletal and cranial material available), render untenable any claims that the two Asian specimens are nothing more than exceptionally large apes. (Mehlert 1994)
Following this many of the better-informed creationists decided that the skullcap which had hitherto belonged to an ape was in fact human, such that Carl Wieland, the CEO of Answers in Genesis was able to write in 1998 (in a review of Richard Milton's book Shattering the myths of Darwinism) that
[Milton's] statement that the Java Man remains are now thought to be simply those of an extinct, giant gibbon-like creature is simply false. He appears to have been misled by the myth (commenced by evolutionists, and perpetuated in both creationist and evolutionist works since) that Eugene Dubois, the discoverer of Java Man, recanted and called his discovery a 'giant gibbon'. Knowledgable creationists do not make this sort of claim anymore. (Wieland 1998)
"Knowledgable creationists" may not claim that Java Man is an ape any more, but there still seem to be quite a few non-knowledgable creationists out there, such as Duane Gish (1995). Old lies die hard, however. An article published in 1991 in Creation, the popular magazine of Weiland's organization Answers in Genesis, suggested that the Java Man skullcap was probably that of an ape. That article is still on the AIG website as of 2005:
'Java man' has been renamed so as to now belong to the category of Homo erectus. However, readers should be aware that though there are indeed reasonable specimens which have been named Homo erectus (of disputed status in this whole question, but that's another matter) there is no reason to believe that 'Java man' necessarily even belonged to this category, nor had any objective existence at all.
The skull-cap may have belonged to a large extinct ape, and the leg bone to an ordinary human.

When Mehlert stated that ER 3733 and WT 15000 had rendered untenable the claim that Java Man skullcap was just a large ape, he was only about 60 years behind the times. Legitimate scientists had come to the same conclusion in the 1930's, when other fossils similar to but more complete than the original Java Man were discovered, showing conclusively that it did not belong to a giant ape. It seems to have taken the discovery of the Turkana Boy fossil WT 15000 in 1985 to make this obvious even to creationists.

http://warforscience.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/java-man-is-a-genuine-fossil/

http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/170/13th-foundation-falsehood-of-creationism---evolution-is-not-a-hoax/

Ernst Haeckel was a pioneer zoologist and taxonomist whose numerous contributions to biology go largely unnoticed compared to a couple rather odd errors. First, he proposed that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", suggesting that embryonic development reflects the organism’s evolutionary ancestry. To illustrate this, he produced about a hundred drawings of embryos at various stages. But he later admitted that about a half-dozen of them were ‘falsified’ due to a lack of visual references. The fact that any of his drawings were admittedly without reference has disgraced Haeckel’s name in the annals of science.
Darwin wrote that embryology contained compelling evidence of evolution. Creationists dismiss this on the assumption that Darwin’s theory was inspired by Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings, and that consequently, evolution is a fraud. But of course the truth is the other way around. Darwin referred to real embryos; Haeckel’s drawings didn’t even exist until years after Darwin’s final publication.
What is especially sad about Haeckel’s “embellishments” was that they were unnecessary. Creationists adamantly complain that textbooks referred to his admittedly inaccurate drawings for so long. But for some reason, they continue to accuse those authors of fraud even when those books replace the drawings with microphotographs which still indicate those same evolutionary parallels which Haeckel envisioned. Now his original assumption that embryonic development would indicate adult species in an organism’s ancestral history was proven false by 1910. But the fact Darwin recognized, that embryology does provide testable confirmations and predictions of phylogeny was already evident before Haeckel ever picked up his pencil, and has recently began a new embryological study known as “evo devo”. Among other discoveries, this field revealed the evolutionary origin of the feather, as implied by transitional stages in the fossil record, and summarized in the formation of feathers in developing chickens.
It is no hoax that mammalian embryos temporarily have pharyngeal pouches, which are morphologically indistinguishable from the gill slits in modern fish embryos, and that the divergence of development from there matches what is indicated in the fossil record. This is fact, not fraud. And none of these facts should be true unless evolution were true also.
100 years ago, the only human fossils yet known were a few Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, and Homo erectus. Then an English attorney and amateur archaeologist presented bones and associated artifacts of what appeared to be an as-yet unidentified species. British Imperialists were generally accepting of the news, but French and American scientists were skeptical, doubting that the skull and jaw even belonged together. The British museum touted the “Piltdown man” as authentic, but the American Museum of Natural History displayed it only as a “mixture of ape and man fossils”, which is what it eventually turned out to be.
There was no way to adequately examine such things back in 1915. Chemical tests –common today- didn’t yet exist and we didn’t yet have a practical understanding of radiation. And before the first australopiths were discovered, we didn’t know exactly what to expect of the links that were then still missing between humans and the other apes known at that time. But as we began filling in the gaps in human evolution with thousands of legitimate fossils, a pattern emerged which left Piltdown an increasingly obvious anomaly. Consequently it was taken off display and stored away almost continuously for decades. It lost importance in most discussions because, in light of everything else we discovered over the next few decades, it just never fit, and was eventually dismissed from the list of potential human ancestors for that reason.
As the years wore on, criticism arose against everyone who ever promoted the Piltdown collection because there seemed to be so much wrong with it. Finally, in the 1950s, it was taken back out of the box and scrutinized via more modern means. First fluorine dating revealed that it was much too recent, and it was shown to have been chemically-treated to give a false impression of its age and mineral composition. Then it was finally determined that the jaw must have come from an orangutan, and that it had been deliberately reshaped with modern tools in a well-crafted and deliberate forgery.
No one knows who did it either. And more importantly, why? Errors were already known and previously reported, but few ever suspected fraud because, what would be the motive? Nearly everyone who stood accused was a man of high reputation and credentials. Maybe that was the motive. Maybe Piltdown man was just a joke that had gone too far. But no one was laughing, and they weren’t going to let it happen again.
Even before the Piltdown hoax was officially exposed, an American paleontologist earned himself a life-time of embarrassment when he found a tooth from an extinct species of pig in Nebraska, and mislabeled it, Hesperopithecus. The cheek teeth of pigs and peccaries are fairly similar to ape molars, and this one was badly worn such that Henry Fairfield Osborne initially believed it to be human. But the real embarrassment came when he publicized his find in a popular magazine rather than submitting it for peer review first.
Creationists like to say that scientists were as duped by Nebraska man as they were by Piltdown man. But they weren’t. Everyone who saw the fossil agreed that it did look like an ape’s tooth. But with only a couple tentative exceptions, the entire contemporary scientific community either immediately rejected the accuracy of Osborne’s assertions, or they demanded more substantial evidence to back them. He obviously couldn’t provide that evidence despite another five years of searching. Eventually, he came to the sad realization that his fossil probably wasn’t really human after all. His more skeptical associate, W.K. Gregory then published a formal retraction in scientific journals.
Creationists often accuse scientists of contriving the illustration of Nebraska man and of conjuring a whole skeleton and facial construct out of a single tooth that was never even human in the first place. But the fact is that the magazine commissioned their own ‘artist’s impression’, and scientists of the day, including Osborn himself, immediately reacted with harsh criticism. As a result, the article was never reprinted.
Now even though Piltdown man was eventually exposed by evolution itself; and even though Nebraska man was simple stupidity, honestly and voluntarily admitted, and even though there were no other such examples in the history of paleoanthropology, -creationists still portray both of these events, and many others, as if they were all part of some ridiculous unified international conspiracy intended to fool the world into believing evolution over creation ex-nihilo. These paranoid propagandists also commonly contend -based only on these exceptions- that each of the thousands of fossil hominids we’ve found and confirmed before and since were all proven to be fakes too –even when the alleged authorities making these claims are already-exposed charlatans currently imprisoned for fraud.
Some forty examples of Peking man were lost in World War II. But they were just part of a subset of Homo erectus, and not the only evidence of human evolution. Modern man didn’t just come from a monkey, but as a member of the infraorder, Catarrhini, he is a monkey by definition! Cro-Magnon wasn’t a different species; they were just the first of our own species known in Europe; displacing the sons of Heidelberg man. Homo heidelbergensis was “quite human” because he was a human, just not the same species we are. And it was never known from a single jawbone either, but from more than 4,000 bones representing nearly 30 individuals found in one site alone, and there are still dozens more. Their evident descendants, the Neanderthals weren’t “just an old man with arthritis” either. We’ve found hundreds of Neanderthal men, women, and children, and even their DNA, which has provided proof that they were not part of our species! None of the experts believe “Lucy” was a chimpanzee. All the experts agree that australopiths lie between humans and modern apes, or that they were simply basal human forms. Nebraska man was never accepted by the scientific community. Piltdown man was the only such fraud that ever duped scientists, and there’s never been a fossil of “New Guinea man” because he is apparently a lie made up out of nothing by the author of this entirely fraudulent religious tract.
“Homo habilis was made up of at least two -if not more- different groups that did not belong together. They’re an assemblage of several different types of animals put together and made into one.”

“That’s not entirely accurate.”

Actually we’ve found the remains of dozens of Homo habilis individuals, and about a half-dozen Homo rudolfensis too. These were once thought to be distinct hominine species, but they’re so similar that many paleoanthropologists now consider them to be two variations of one species.
“Homo erectus or “Java man” isn’t a half-man, half-ape either. The man who discovered it admitted before he died that it was a fraud. He confessed that he had found an ape’s skull about fifty feet away from a human leg and two human skulls. And had mixed-and-matched to create a fictitious creature.”

“Are YOU a rotten liar!”

The two modern skulls weren’t fifty feet away; they were found in a cave over sixty miles away! Despite the many lies repeated by Duane Gish and other creationists, Java man was just one out of hundreds of Homo erectus individuals documented thus far.
Also, Homo floresiensis wasn’t microcephalic; there was a whole community of them. Similarly “Lucy” wasn’t assembled from bones found miles apart; those were different individuals who each bore their own independent evidence of strict bipedality. And the total number of hominin fossils will no longer fit on a pool table either; now you’ll need a whole pool!
Even though there’s now been innumerable examples of natural selection acting under direct observation, and a multitude of experiments gauging these, creationists are still trying to deny even the first of these observances, the peppered moths of industrialized England. Creationists say that was a fraud too, because the photos had to be staged, not for the normal convenience of photography, but because these creationists claim that peppered moths don’t rest on tree bark. But a thirty year study by Cambridge University revealed that in fact most of them do!

Ψέμματα, Ψέμματα, Ψέμματα, Ψέμματα,Ψέμματα, Ψέμματα,Ψέμματα... Αυτά βγάζει μόνο το στόμα σου δημοσιογράφε της συμφοράς

3) Νέατερνταλ

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html

Creationists often point out, correctly, that Neandertals were human, but they tend to exaggerate their similarity to modern humans:

"The creationists in those days [the 1860's] responded 'Now wait a minute. Neanderthals are just plain people, some of whom suffered bone disease'"
"Nowadays, evolutionists agree with creationists: Neanderthals were just plain people, no more different from people living today than people than one living nation is different from another." Parker in (Morris and Parker 1982).

"Nowadays, Neanderthal Man is classified as Homo sapiens, completely human" (Huse 1983).

Actually, Neandertals are usually classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of humans, in recognition of consistent differences such as heavy brow ridges, a long low skull, a robust skeleton, and others. (Some scientists believe the differences are large enough to justify a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis.) Evolutionists last century claimed that these were real differences between us and Neandertals, and they were right. Creationists claimed that the differences were a result of various diseases or environmental factors, and they were wrong. For Parker to claim that creationists won this debate is a rewriting of history.

Amazingly, a century after scientists knew otherwise, most creationists still believe that Neandertals were merely modern humans, deformed by diseases such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis. Some, but by no means all, Neandertals have been found with signs of health problems such as arthritis. But Neandertals have many distinctive features, and there is no reason why these diseases (or any others) would cause many, let alone all, of these features on even one, let alone many, individuals. Modern knowledge and experience also contradicts the idea that disease is a cause of Neandertal features, because these diseases do not cause modern humans to look like Neandertals.

In the 1800's the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first Neandertal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. As Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) point out, Virchow, an expert on rickets, should have been the first to realize how ridiculous this diagnosis was. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor, and their bones are so weak that even the weight of the body can cause them to bend. The bones of the first Neandertal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than those of the average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extraordinarily athletic and muscular individual.

Lubenow (1992), relying on the authority of Virchow and Ivanhoe (1970), claims that Neandertals (and H. erectus and the archaic sapiens) were caused by a post-Flood ice age: heavy cloud cover, the need to shelter and wear heavy clothes, and a lack of vitamin D sources, would all have combined to cause severe rickets.

This explanation fails for many reasons:

Rickets does not produce a Neandertal, or Homo erectus morphology; it is clear from many sources (Reader 1981; Tattersall 1995) that the original Neandertal skeleton was unlike any previously known, even in a century in which rickets was a common disease.
Evidence of rickets is easily detectable, especially on the growing ends of the long bones of the body. Radiology courses routinely teach the symptoms. It has never (so far as I know) been detected in Neandertals or Homo erectus.
Even Virchow did not claim rickets as a sole cause. Virchow in 1872 decided that the first Neandertal Man fossil had had rickets in childhood, head injuries in middle age, and chronic arthritis in old age. A whole population of such people strains credibility, to say the least, although Lubenow says that this diagnosis "is as valid today as when [Virchow] first made it".
The long bones of Neandertals, like those of rickets victims, are often more curved than normal, but rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur, while Neandertal femurs curve backwards (Klein 1989).
Humans could hardly have stayed in shelter all the time; food gathering would have required them to spend a lot of time outside (and probably a lot more time than most modern urban humans).
The most extreme differences from modern humans (H. erectus) are mostly found in regions such as Africa and Java, which were always tropical; the reverse of what would be predicted by Lubenow's hypothesis.
Creationists usually claim that most of the fossil record was laid down by the Noahaic Flood. And yet there are hundreds of fossils of "post-Flood" humans, who supposedly lived in a period of low population and little fossilization. Why, underneath these post-Flood humans, do we not find far larger numbers of fossilized pre-Flood humans?
Lubenow claims that modern scientists do not consider rickets as a cause of Neandertalism because it is a virtually unknown disease nowadays. This is not true. Although not as common as it used to be, rickets has other causes besides vitamin D deficiency and still occurs. Information on it is common in medical textbooks (and even on the web), and the symptoms bear no apparent similarity to the Neandertal skeleton or skull.

Ironically enough, one of the best refutations of the idea that Neandertalism is caused by diseases such as rickets, syphilis or arthritis, is by a creationist author, Jack Cuozzo (1998, pp.275-279). As Cuozzo documents, the symptoms of these diseases bear very little resemblance to the features of Neandertals. (See also a review of Cuozzo's book Buried Alive by Colin Groves.)

Creationists sometimes imply that a paper by Straus and Cave (1957) showed that Neandertals were identical to modern humans. Straus and Cave overturned the stereotype, created by Boule, that Neandertals were semi-erect ape-men with a shambling gait and a divergent big toe, and showed instead that their posture was identical to ours. However their conclusions applied only to posture, and they did not claim that Neandertals were identical to modern humans; in fact quite the opposite:

"This is not to deny that his limbs, as well as his skull, exhibit distinctive features - features which collectively distinguish him from all groups of modern men. In other words, his "total morphological pattern", in the phraseology of Le Gros Clark (1955) differs from that of "sapiens" man." (Straus, Jr. and Cave 1957)

The exhibit on Neandertals at the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) Museum says (or used to say):

"Many Neanderthal features are similar to those in elderly humans today. Since humans lived to great ages in the initial generations after the flood and Babel, perhaps the features are primarily due to advanced age ...".

In fact, the distinctive features of Neandertals, least of all the powerful bones and muscles, seem to bear little resemblance to those of old people. This argument is particularly implausible because even Neandertal children are distinctive. Whoever wrote this presumably also thinks that Neandertals are arthritic modern humans.

At least two evolutionary scientists have revived the idea that Neandertal morphology may be a result of congenital diseases such as rickets (Ivanhoe 1970) or syphilis (Wright 1971). According to Day (1986), neither of these cases was adequately supported or subsequently justified. Both claims seem to have sunk without a trace except among creationists, who often cite them. Gish goes even further, dishonestly implying that even the scientific community accepts these claims:

"They have now concluded that these primitive features of Neandertal people were not genetic, they were pathological." (Gish 1985)

Straus and Cave (1957) made a striking comment about Neandertals:

"Notwithstanding, if he could be reincarnated and placed in a New York subway - provided that he were bathed, shaved, and dressed in modern clothing - it is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention than some of its other denizens".

This may be a source of the creationist idea that Neandertals are "just plain people" (Morris and Parker 1982). Note, though, that this is not quite what the quote says. Anyone who has travelled the Big Apple's subway will probably agree that Neandertals could look quite odd and still meet Straus and Cave's rather lax criterion. Gish (1985) distorts this quote by claiming that a Neandertal in a business suit could walk down a city street and not attract more attention than any other individual, a statement that is probably false.

Johanson and Edey (1981) extend this example by saying that if you put Homo erectus on a subway, "people would probably take a suspicious look at him". Put Homo habilis on the subway, and "people would probably move to the other end of the car". Berra (1990) states that "if cleaned up, shaved and dressed in business suits, [Neandertals] could probably pass for television evangelists."

The following quote from Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) refutes claims that Neandertals differ no more from modern humans than living races do from each other:

"Rare individuals among modern humans may share one, or even a few, of the anatomical characteristics of Neandertals, but not one human - much less any population - can be found that possesses the entire constellation of traits that define Neandertals" (p 412).

Some creationists, such as Doug Sharp (1997), have claimed that Neandertals have existed in historic times. The most cited example is that of a Neandertal reputedly found with (or sometimes in) a suit of chain mail armor (Nature, Apr 23 1908, 77:587), but Sharp also mentions a report of a living Neandertal-like human found in the Phillippines (Nature, Dec 8 1910, 85:176). Both of these reports are so short, a single paragraph, that Sharp quotes them in their entirety. The problem with these claims is that they were made at a time when Neandertals were not nearly as well known as they are today, and by authors who probably had no personal familiarity with Neandertal fossils. There was a tendency in the early 1900's to classify any skull with a browridge or receding forehead as a Neandertal (Trinkaus and Howells, Sci.Am, Dec 1979). This tendency is perfectly illustrated in the report on the "chain mail Neandertal", which mentioned that another scientist had recently classified Australian aborigines as Neandertals. Needless to say, any such claim would be considered ridiculous today. Such old reports, non-peer-reviewed and unsupported by any recent or even contemporary documentation, are equally worthless as evidence of recent Neandertals. (See also my response to Sharp, who commented on the above argument on his web page.

In 1998, creationist Jack Cuozzo published his book Buried Alive, which claimed that Neandertals were humans who had lived for hundreds of years, and that their skull features were caused by extrapolating the changes which normally occur in modern human skulls as they age. Follow this link for material about this book and related issues.

Άλλη μία ψευτιά... Οι Νεάτερνταλ ΑΠΕΧΟΥΝ από το σύγχρονο άνθρωπο... είναι 99.7% ίδιοι και έχουν γονίδια πιθήκου περισσότερα από εμάς...Παρόλα αυτά είχαν φωτιά και εργαλεία...

Γιατί δημοσιογράφε της πλάκας δε διασταυρώνεις τις μπούρδες που μεταφέρεις; Νομίζεις ότι μας συγκλονίζεις με την άγνοια σου; Στην αρχή έλεγες ότι δεν έχει βρεθεί κρίκος...Τώρα κάνεις κωλοτούμπες και προσπαθείς να τους βγάλεις ψεύτικους...Τελικά τι έχει γίνει; Και η πρόσφατη, χτεσινή σχεδόν, ανακάλυψη με το κρανίο των 2 εκατομμυρίων ετών; Σου έτριψα στη μούρη τις φυλλάδες...θα την βγάλεις και αυτήν ψεύτικη;

quote:

---

Δηλ φίλε Think_Math , η απλή ύλη μπορεί να γεννηθεί εκ του μηδενός ενώ ο θεός όντας μια καθαρή και υπέρτατη δύναμη δεν μπορεί να γεννηθεί εκ του μηδενός ( και μιλάμε για την περίπτωση που γεννήθηκε αν δεν υπήρχε ανέκαθεν)???????????
Καταλαβαίνεις τί λες??????
Και έχουν τα σωματίδια αυτά δύναμη δημιουργίας από μόνα τους??????????????
Κάπου αυτό δεν κολλάει με τίποτα.
Αλλά εφ όσον θες να το πιστεύεις εσύ, φυσικά και μπορείς. Δεν θα σου αλλάξω ΕΓΩ γνώμη

---

quote:

---

Indonesia (island of Java): Trinil 2 (holotype), Sangiran collection, Sambungmachan collection, Ngandong collection
China: Lantian (Gongwangling and Chenjiawo), Yunxian, Zhoukoudian, Nanjing, Hexian
India: Narmada (taxonomic status debated!)
Kenya: WT 15000 (Nariokotome), ER 3883, ER 3733
Tanzania: OH 9
Vietnam: Northern, Tham Khuyen, Hoa Binh
Republic of Georgia: Dmanisi collection
Turkey: Kocabas fossil

---

Αυτά είναι τα ευρήματα που αφορούν στο homo erectus... Δεν είναι μόνο ο άνθρωπος της Ιάβας...

quote:

---

Κρανίο ανθρώπου σε σχέση με χιμπατζή...Υπάρχουν διαφορές και ομοιότητες... Σημαντικά σημεία το σχήμα του οστού πάνω από τα μάτια και το σαγόνι

πώς θα ήταν ένα ενδιάμεσο είδος θα είχε λίγο μικρότερα οστά πάνω από τα μάτια πιο μαζεμένο σαγόνι

Και τι θαύμα
homo erectus

Το σαγόνι σχεδόν σαν του ανθρώπου αλλά τα οστά πάνω από τα μάτια είναι ακόμα έντονα, πιο μαζεμένα αλλά έντονα

ο erectus είναι πιο κοντά στον άνθρωπο...Ο αυστραλοπίθηκος θα έπρεπε να είναι πιο κοντά στον πίθηκο... Για να δούμε

Ω τι θαύμα...Ακριβώς όπως προβλέπεται...Πώς ήξερε ότι θα βρίσκαμε κάτι τέτοιο ο Δαρβίνος;

Edited by - IndustrialAngel on 20/07/2010 01:44:47

---

Και πως εξηγειται η χαωδης διαφορα στην πνευματικη εξελιξη?

Επίσης εξήγησε μου τι εννοείς

quote:

---

πνευματικη εξελιξη

---

http://www.aee.gr/hellenic/6petrlona/40years/40years.html

quote:

---

Κατσε ρε φίλε Σκαρταδε, γιατι εδώ,έχει πλάκα..Ποιό απο αυτά τα κρανία, ήταν και αποδείχθηκε ολόκληρο, Βιομηχανικέ μου;
Γιατί,απο ότι ξέρω,ολα αποδειχτηκαν είτε ...συνθέσεις δημιουργιες, αφηρημενων καλλιτεχνών, είτε φαντασία, σκέτη..Όπως η ....κόρη της "Λούσης"..Απο ένα κόκκαλο, βρήκαν, πως ήταν μέχρι ότι ήταν τριχωτή..

---

Μόνο ψέμματα και παραμύθια βγάζει το στόμα σου...

Αυτήν τη στιγμή ΚΑΝΕΝΑΣ επιστήμονας εκτός από τους ψεύτες Θεούς σου δεν αμφισβητεί ΟΥΤΕ τον αυστραλοπίθηκο ούτε το τον homo erectus ούτε κανένα άλλο εύρημα ως προς την εγκυρότητα του.

quote:

---

Πρόσεξε τι γράφεις..Εκτίθεσαι..Ήταν απάτη, λέμε...Κατάλαβες;
Η απάτη, θα σε έκανε κανονικά, να ζητήσεις συνγώμη, αλλά, εσύ που;
Που βρήκες την τσίπα και την αξιοπρέπεια, να φερθείς οπως πρέπει, όπως ένας ενήλικας;
Ειναι θέμα καθαρής ανωριμότητας σου, τελικά...Νοιώθω ότι έχω να κάνω με τον 9χρονο γιό μου...Στην ξεροκεφαλιά, εννοώ...

---

quote:

---

Ουτε η κόρη μου που είναι 4 χρονών δεν τα λέει αυτά .

---

Εμ, φυσικό είναι γιατί είναι ήδη 4 χρονών. Και ο τρεχαγύρευε μόλις κλείσει τα 4 θα σταματήσει να τα λέει...

macedon

quote:

---

, ότι κάτι δήθεν ειναι ολόκληρο και βρέθηκε ως αποδεικτικό στοιχείο,αλλά, αποδειχτει, ότι ΛΑΘΟΣ μεταφέρανε μια πληροφορία, ζητάνε συγνώμη, για να μην τους περνάνε και για χαζούς...Έτσι τα μαθαίνουμε...

---

Εγώ έγραψα για habilis, erectus, australopithecus, ardipithecus, ergaster κτλ... ΥΠΑΡΧΕΙ ΠΟΥΘΕΝΑ ΑΜΦΙΣΒΗΤΙΣΗ αυτών; ΠΟΥΘΕΝΑ, κανένα πανεπιστήμιο, κανένας ανθρωπολόγος...

quote:

---

Κοίτα βρε άτολμε και δειλέ τα κρανία. Ψάξε για φωτογραφίες. Στην τελική ΠΗΓΑΙΝΕ ΝΑ ΤΑ ΔΕΙΣ. Υπάρχουν σε μουσεία.

---

Χα! Και τι είναι αυτά; Αποδείξεις της εξέλιξης; Εδώ ρε υπάρχουν αδιάσειστα στοιχεία της δημιουργίας του κόσμου με τον Αδάμ και την Εύα.

Ορίστε ο τάφος της Εύας στη Τζέντα της Σαουδικής Αραβίας

Ο τάφος έχει μήκος περίπου 122 μέτρα και πλάτος 3 και συμφωνεί με την παράδοση που υποστηρίζει ότι η Εύα είχε ύψος 36 μέτρα. Ο τάφος βέβαια είναι άδειος αλλά αυτό αποτελεί λεπτομέρεια...

Φαίνεται πως τα τελευταία χρόνια της ζωής τους ο Αδάμ και η Εύα βρισκόταν σε διάσταση και ο Αδάμ κατέληξε στην Κεϋλάνη, πιθανώς ως οικονομικός μετανάστης, όπου πέθανε (και θάφτηκε μάλλον μόνος του) και εκεί βρίσκεται ο τάφος του.

Βέβαια η Ελένη βρήκε τον τάφο του Αδάμ ΚΑΙ στην Ιερουσαλήμ... αλλά αυτό είναι επίσης λεπτομέρεια.

Αυτά βρε είναι στοιχεία, όχι τα κρανία που μας παρουσιάζεις... Και τα στοιχεία αποτελούν αδιάψευστη απόδειξη της δημιουργίας του κόσμου από το Γιαχωβά...

macedon

quote:

---

.Αν θυμάμαι καλά, για τον χόμο ερέκτους, λένε, ότι δεν δικαιολογείται σε καμία περιπτωση, η αύξηση του μέγεθος του εγκεφάλου του, σε σχέση με προηγούμενα ή επομενα δειγματα της εξέλιξης...θέλεις να το βγάλουμε ως ζήτημα;

---

The following graph from McHenry (1994), plotting brainsizes against time, shows a general trend towards increased brainsize over time for the hominids:

Ένα σπάνιο σχετικά φαινόμενο, που έγινε γνωστό σήμερα...Μαύροι γονείς γεννάνε ξανθό μωρό...

quote:

---

http://www.newsit.gr/default.php?pname=Article&art_id=35036&catid=11

Ένα σπάνιο σχετικά φαινόμενο, που έγινε γνωστό σήμερα...Μαύροι γονείς γεννάνε ξανθό μωρό...

Αν είναι έτσι όπως τα λένε και ΔΕΝ έχουν γονίδια από λευκούς προγόνους (δηλαδή αν δεν είναι και οι 2 ετερόζυγοι) που και αυτό προβλέπεται από τη μεντέλεια κληρονομικότητα (πιο κλασσική περίπτωση) τότε μιλάμε για εμφάνιση ΝΕΟΥ χαρακτηριστικού λόγω μεταλλάξεων ακριβώς όπως είχε προβλέψει ο Δαρβίνος ότι θα γίνεται... Δηλαδή ΚΑΠΩΣ έτσι γεννήθηκε ο ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ξανθός άνθρωπος...

---

Δεν εχει αποδειχθει επιστημονικα,οτι ο μαυρος μπορει να γινει ασπρος....μονο ικασιες που δεν πειθουν....

Το είπα και στην αρχή αν είναι ΟΜΟΖΥΓΟΙ, δηλαδή ΔΕΝ έχουν λευκό πρόγονο και ΔΕΝ είναι αλμπίνο το παιδί τότε αυτό ακριβώς που λες ότι ΔΕΝ γίνεται μόλις συνέβη... Εγώ στη θέση τους (ή των γιατρών) θα έκανα ένα τεστ DNA...

Edited by - IndustrialAngel on 20/07/2010 20:59:06

Edited by - IndustrialAngel on 20/07/2010 20:59:31

quote:

---

Δεν εχει αποδειχθει επιστημονικα,οτι ο μαυρος μπορει να γινει ασπρος

---

Μισή ζωή μαύρος
Μισή ζωή λευκός
Μάικ Τζάκσον ζεις
για πάντα Παοκτσής...

macedon

quote:

---

κοίτα αν πάει λευκός με μαύρη, ομόζυγοι και οι 2, θα βγει μαύρο το παιδί, αυτό είναι σίγουρο οπότε ο μαύρος κερατάς πατέρας είναι "ασφαλής" γιατί δε φαίνεται το κέρατο...Επίσης μαύρος πατέρας με λευκή μητέρα ΠΑΛΙ μαύρο παιδί θα γεννήσουν, εδώ είναι που μπορεί να έχουνε πρόβλημα όσοι παντρεύονται λευκές και είναι λευκοί... Το θέμα υπάρχει αν η μητέρα είναι μαύροι ετερόζυγη, τότε είναι μοιρασμένες οι πιθανότητες 50-50 να βγει μαύρο ή λευκό. Τώρα αν 2 μιγάδες κάνουν παιδιά είναι 25% να βγει καθαρός ομόζυγος μαύρος, 50% μιγάς και 25% λευκός ο απόγονος

Το είπα και στην αρχή αν είναι ΟΜΟΖΥΓΟΙ, δηλαδή ΔΕΝ έχουν λευκό πρόγονο και ΔΕΝ είναι αλμπίνο το παιδί τότε αυτό ακριβώς που λες ότι ΔΕΝ γίνεται μόλις συνέβη... Εγώ στη θέση τους (ή των γιατρών) θα έκανα ένα τεστ DNA...

Edited by - IndustrialAngel on 20/07/2010 20:59:06

Edited by - IndustrialAngel on 20/07/2010 20:59:31

---

Δεν νομιζω να δεχτει η συζυγος....γιατι το τυλιξε το ξανθο καλωδιο....

Τι προκαλεί το χρώμα στον άνθρωπο;
Πώς μπορεί να αλλάξει αυτό το χαρακτηριστικό;

Ψάξου σε αυτά και μετά το συζητάμε. Ψάξε επίσης και για τα αλμπίνο (αλπινισμός ή αλφισμός λέγεται η πάθηση)...

Kαι γενικώς να ξέρεις ότι ΕΧΕΙ απαντηθεί αυτή η απορία από τους επιστήμονες...

The Origin of Races
People whose ancestors have been living in the same geographic area for a long time tend to show similarities in visible characteristics such as size and shape, skin color, and hair form, and also invisible characteristics such as blood groups. Some of these groups are large, as were native Americans before Europeans and Africans came to the New World. Some are small, as are neo-Hawaiians (the descendants of Europeans, Japanese, and Polynesians). Large groups can be subdivided, depending on the level of comparison being made: sub-Saharan Africans are more similar to one another than they are to Europeans, but within this groups there is considerable diversity, such as that between the brown-skinned Bushman-Hottentot people and Bantu-speaking ("black") Africans.

Human "racial" diversity is a result of people in a geographic area intermarrying, being exposed to a number of biological processes, and adapting slowly to local environments. These biological processes include combining and recombining inherited genetic material over the generations, which produces offspring and descendants who differ from their parents and ancestors. The environment may favor certain characteristics, producing populations that are on the average taller, or darker, or more rugged than other populations from other geographic areas. Isolation and inbreeding of some populations may produce differences as well. These natural processes occur in humans as well as other animals and are the source of much study in biology and anthropology.

However, even if people in different geographic areas differ, it is impossible to draw sharp lines between racial groups. Few if any populations are cut off from others, and even if laws, culture, and/or religion prohibit it, mating does take place. Characteristics of people change gradually from one geographic area to another; where across Central Asia do European "whites" leave off and Asian "yellows" begin? Anthropologists see races as temporary, changing phenomena, products of genetic processes and natural selection. The races we see today are different from those of yesterday and will be different tomorrow.

Scientific creationists, however, have a simple, Scriptural explanation for human diversity. All people today are descendants of the sons of Noah. Shem founded the Hebrews; Japheth gave rise to the other Semites, Europeans, and the people of India (Indo-Europeans); and Ham was the father of the rest of humanity (the "colored" peoples, as one of the scientific creationist writers puts it.) The appearance of all these varieties of humanity occurred within a few thousand years after Noah’s Flood and before recorded history. The three brothers and their descendants moved to different parts of the world, where according to the scientific creationists, normal processes producing genetic variation produced the diversity of races and nations we see today. Both scientific creationists and evolutionists recognize the existence of these processes in producing human variation and agree on their importance. The two groups differ considerably on how these processes can operate, however.

Scientific evidence of either visible or invisible characteristics found in our species does not support the scientific creationist view of human variation. Although Homo sapiens has considerable genetic variation as a species, and each individual has many different genes, it is incomprehensible that differences as great as those seen between small, black, lightly built, kinky-haired Negritos of Melanesia and tall, copper, broad-shouldered, straight-haired Greenland Eskimos could occur in only a few thousand years. To derive this much diversity in such a short time from only three people -- and these as closely related as brothers -- would require rates of mutation, natural selection, and other processes of evolution so high as to most likely cause the extinction of the population.

ESOTERICA.gr Forums !

© 2010-11 ESOTERICA.gr