Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Message from discussion Evolution's nervous breakdown.
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
richardalanforrest@google mail.com  
View profile  
 More options Nov 4 2009, 6:57 pm
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:57:08 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Nov 4 2009 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution's nervous breakdown.
On Nov 4, 3:28 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

> "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote innews:f1b40$4af09be6$4a53bf9f$11261@FUSE.NET:

> > "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9CB88E22C8E9Featjoespub@202.177.16.121...
> >> Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:aaec5c44-ceb1-4814-8d1d-
> >> 8909ab2a9...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:

> >>> On Nov 2, 12:33 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:

> >>>> > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.

> >>>> Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils
> >>>> of a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There
> >>>> should be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures
> >>>> slowly changing.

> >>> Well, here's evidence of a creature's brain trippling in size
> >>> over a 2.5 million year period.  Does that count?

> >>> STS 5
> >>> Mrs. Ples
> >>> Species:  Australopithecus africanus
> >>> Age:      2.6 million years
> >>> Brain Size: 485cc
> >>>http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/sts5.html

> >>> STS 71
> >>> Species:  Australopithecus africanus
> >>> Age:      2.5 million years
> >>> Brain Size: 428cc
> >>>http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/sts71.html

> >>> KNM ER 1813
> >>> Species:  Homo habilis
> >>> Age:      1.9 million years
> >>> Brain Size: 510cc
> >>>http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/ER1813.html

> >>> KNM ER 1470
> >>> Species:  Homo rudolfensis
> >>> Age:      1.8 million years
> >>> Brain Size: 775cc
> >>>http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html

> >>> KNM ER 3733
> >>> Species:  Homo ergaster
> >>> Age:      1.75 million years
> >>> Brain Size: 850 cc
> >>>http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/ER3733.html

> >>> KNM WT 15000
> >>> "The Turkana Boy"
> >>> Species:  Homo ergaster
> >>> Age:      1.6 million years
> >>> Brain Size:  880cc/910cc
> >>>http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html
> >>> [A link to a rotatable skull is at the bottom of the page]

> >>> Peking Man
> >>> Species:  Homo erectus
> >>> Age:      500-230 thousand years
> >>> Brain Size: 1043cc (average of 5 skulls)
> >>>http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/weid.html

> >>> "Rhodesian Man"
> >>> Species:  Homo heidelbergensis
> >>> Age:     300-125 thousand years
> >>> Brain Size: 1300 cc
> >>>http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/brokenhill.htm

> >>> Skhul V
> >>> Species:  Homo sapiens
> >>> Age:      ~90,000 years
> >>> Brain Size:  modern (~1350cc)
> >>>http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/skhul.html

> >>> Cro-Magnon 1
> >>> Species:  Homo sapiens
> >>> Age:      ~30,000 years
> >>> Brain Size:  modern (~1350cc)
> >>>http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html

> >> These are not instances of "a creature" like you said. They are
> >> different species.

> >> No "creature's brain" tripled in size. Different creatures have
> >> different brain sizes. That's all.

> > What an asinine dodge?  Do tell us where the Cro-Magnon fossils from
> > 2.5 million years ago are . . .

> Read Forbidden Archaeology.

I suggest that you educate yourself in real archaeology, and then you
will find that "Forbidden Archaeology" is a mismash of distortion,
misrepresentation and outright falsehoods. Of course, you can prefer
to remain ignorant, but that tells us more about you than about the
reliability of "Forbidden Archaeology".

By the way, I *have* read the book, but also have read widely
elsewhere in the subject. I found it to be utterly dishonest, and
obviously aimed at an ill-educated audience who swallow such
nonsense.

RF


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2010 Google