Comment: "Just too much evidence to

(See in situ)


"Just too much evidence to

"Just too much evidence to believe otherwise", really?

Read the first paragraph of the CNN article:

"Sometimes a tooth or a few bones are all we have to tell us about an entire species closely related to humans".

I'm sure the writer of the article didn't realize it's full implications, but that is the most honest statement about ancient human fossils I've read in the press yet. It would be more accurate to say that most claimed evidence for an entire species of "proto-humans" comes from much less actual fossil remains.

Australopithecus Afarensis, or "Lucy", was 4 skull fragments, a jaw and 50% of the rest of a skeleton ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html ), Java man was a skull cap and thigh bone, and the remaining legitimate fossils (from Africa or elsewhere) are summarized here ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html ). That is the sum total of all actual fossils claimed to be sub-human.

I say "claimed to be sub-human" because a real scientific comparison of them with the full range of modern examples would show that they are morphologically (according to shape and size) within the range of modern humans with a few in the morphological range of modern apes.