No fossil evidence for human evolution

Lucy - The skeleton of a three foot tall chimpanzee.
Heidelberg Man - Built from a jawbone that was conceded to be human.
Nebraska Man - Scientifically built up from one tooth, later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
Piltdown Man - The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.
Peking Man - Supposedly 500,000 years old, but all supporting evidence has disappeared.
Neanderthal Man - At the 1958 International Congress of Zoology, Dr. A.J.E. Cave said his examination showed that his famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.
Newguinea Man - Dates back to 1970, found just north of Australia.
Cromagnon Man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man.

I don't know much about this, but it certainly seems like the simplest explanation since it's seen in all other species to some extent or another.

>>1
they are two or more species of man our ancestors killed the rest.

Chick tracts are an excellent source of information, amirite? (Big Daddy?, published in 2002.)
Pity this is just a tired old troll, or I'd write up a detailed takedown.
In brief, though:

- Lucy was an Australopithecus afarensis, and she walked upright. The claim that she's a chimpanzee is a simple lie.
- The Heidelberg Man is in the genus Homo, but that does not make it human. It's well established as the progenitor of the Neanderthals, and several complete skeletons have been found, not just a jawbone.
- The Nebraska "Man" tooth belonged to an extinct species of peccary, not pig, but that was indeed a mistake. It was also quickly discovered and discredited by scientists.
- Piltdown Man was a hoax, yes, but guess who took it apart? That's right, evolutionary scientists. The forgery crumbled under peer review; the same peer review that overwhelmingly supports human evolution.
- I'm not sure where you get the idea the evidence of the Peking Man has disappeared. It hasn't. The findings from before WW2 were lost, but a lot of additional evidence has been discovered since.
- The particular skeleton Cave was talking about was an example of a Neanderthal with arthritis. Over five hundred Neanderthal skeletons have been found, including many without it. They're very obviously not modern humans.
- Only one human fossil has ever been found in New Guinea, and that was in the 1940s. It was also only about 5000 years old and an example of Homo sapiens sapiens. It's not relevant to the discussion.
- Cro-Magnon is Homo sapiens sapiens, and nobody has ever claimed otherwise. They lived quite recently.

It's interesting how about four thousand hominid fossils have been found, and this Chick tract can only find issue with a handful of them, and still manages to be wrong about all of them.

>>4
Some of your points are based on false a priori assumptions which seem to stem from a disproved irrational belief, RAO.

>>4
Also, 'Homo sapiens sapiens' is an invalid taxon and commonly used by leftist morons to replace the real subspecies. It's just called modern Homo sapiens.

>>5
Incoherent. 0/10

>>6
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis disagrees.
``Modern Homo sapiens'' and ``Homo sapiens sapiens'' are synonyms, but that by no means means modern Homo sapiens isn't a subspecies of Homo sapiens.

fukkin science nerds can suck ma dick
i ain't no homo yo

>>7
RAO = Recent African Origin, or the Recently Out-of-Africa theory.
It is now off the table, genomics refute it.
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis disagrees.
``Modern Homo sapiens'' and ``Homo sapiens sapiens'' are synonyms, but that by no means means modern Homo sapiens isn't a subspecies of Homo sapiens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human Check the table.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature
In biology, binomial nomenclature is the formal system of naming specific species. The system is also called binominal nomenclature (particularly in zoological circles), binary nomenclature (particularly in botanical circles), or the binomial classification system. The essence of it is that each species name is in (modern scientific) Latin and has two parts, so that it is also sometimes popularly known as the "Latin name" of the species, although this terminology is frowned upon by biologists and philologists, who prefer the phrase scientific name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinomial_nomenclature
In biology, trinomial nomenclature refers to names for taxa below the rank of species. This is different for animals and plants:
* for animals see trinomen. There is only one rank allowed below the rank of species: subspecies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinomen
In zoology, a trinomen, or trinominal name, refers to the name of a subspecies.
A trinomen is a name consisting of three names: generic name, specific name and subspecific name. All three names are typeset in italics, and only the generic name is capitalised. No indicator of rank is included: in zoology, subspecies is the only rank below that of species.

>>7
Oops. Sorry about >>9. I misread.
So you DO claim that Homo sapiens sapiens IS a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Then you clearly are either misinformed or a fool.

>>9
I know what RAO is. Even if genomics did refute it (and they don't), it's not relevant to this discussion at all.

>>10
Full of shit.
And again, irrelevant to the point of this thread. At most, it's a simple naming issue.

>>11
http://harpend.dsl.xmission.com/Documents/eswaran%20et%20al%202005%20genomics%20refutes%20exclusively%20african%20origin%20jhe.pdf
and they do.
it's not relevant to this discussion at all.
Maybe it would change the wording of your rebuttal a bit.
Full of shit.
Not really. It just isn't *really* a proper subspecies, as per everyone else. Check the leopard subspecies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard#Subspecies
(Also, the statement "It has been suggested that there may be as many as 30 extant subspecies of the Leopard. However, modern taxonomic analyses have demonstrated that only 8/9 subspecies are valid." is kind of false, since before they were determined by genetic clusters, 8 subspecies were alleged. Now it's 9.)
At most, it's a simple naming issue.
I dislike leftist bullshit, sorry.

>>12
>http://harpend.dsl.xmission.com/Documents/eswaran%20et%20al%202005%20genomics%20refutes%20exclusively%20african%20origin%20jhe.pdf and they do.
A single paper? Against the overwhelming evidence in favor of it?
There are good reasons the multiregional hypothesis is still just a fringe theory, you know.

But again, even if it were true, it would be irrelevant:

Maybe it would change the wording of your rebuttal a bit.
It wouldn't, since none of it's dependent on RAO.

Not really. It just isn't *really* a proper subspecies, as per everyone else.
Repeating bullshit makes it true! Actual evidence or GTFO.

Check the leopard subspecies:
What's your fucking point?

I dislike leftist bullshit, sorry.
I dislike idiots who blame "leftists" for everything without offering the slightest bit of evidence this even has anything to do with politics.

lol discussion using wikipedia

>>13
'Homo sapiens sapiens' is not a valid subspecies because it's not what subspecies mean. Subspecies is a ->taxonomic<- rank inferior to species. It cannot be applied like you had. Leftist people in academia use this misleading nomenclature and claim it's a subspecies in order to deny actual races/subspecies, or claim races are taxonomically inferior to subspecies (LOL) in order to trivialize (current) human biodiversity. I've hit both kind of these stances quite a few times.
A single paper? Against the overwhelming evidence in favor of it?
"These findings support the RAO hypothesis" is a well-known politically correct meme in papers that *don't* actually help the hypothesis (at least not in opposition with MRE or other hypos). I guess getting off peer-review easily is worth more than integrity.
There are a lot more papers, but what's your dissatisfaction with this one?
There isn't much overwhelming proof for either one. As the paper says, probably no simple model can explain the data we have.
There are good reasons the multiregional hypothesis is still just a fringe theory, you know.
Any that don't involve morality, PC faggotry, a priori assumptions and other useless concepts in establishing something as correct or incorrect?

>>15
in order to deny actual races/subspecies
I should've known.
Your opinions on anything relating to human evolution are null and void. gb2/b/.

>>16
So, just for clarification, are you a human biodiversity denier?

No evidence? You wish.

...damn

Lol, because taxonomy is so exact and constant...
Its not like entire kingdoms have been rearranged in the last few decades.

As for the actual argument:
"There are a lot more papers, but what's your dissatisfaction with this one? [This is drivel unless you put forth more papers for the discussion as it is your argument that needs proving.]
There isn't much overwhelming proof for either one. As the paper says, probably no simple model can explain the data we have."

A simple model can almost never explain complex systems where we don't have very much data...  Wow that explains so much.  The sheer chance of convergent evolutionary pathways at roughly the same time from different species resulting in a 'species' (individuals that could interbreed) is ridiculous.  It's a possibility, but remote at best. 

Btw shut the fuck up about a priori knowledge.  Backandforth is not worthwhile.

Don't give people like this your time, you idiots. It fuels their delusions that they have something worthy of consideration.

I'm afraid that 55% of Americans believe in young Earth creationism. You have to give these people your time, if you have at least a glimmer of hope for humanity.

>>22
YECs, yes, up to a point. Neo-eugenicists (which is what this thread is about now), no. They aren't worth bothering with.

>>20
Lol, because taxonomy is so exact and constant...
It's not. Actually, taxonomy is a social construct (with a basis in genetic reality) which the architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis decided to keep. Especially at population (subspecies/race) levels, things have been changing a lot and will continue to do so. STRUCTURE-based studies are, though, finally giving a good idea of what's going on.
Its not like entire kingdoms have been rearranged in the last few decades.
There's still a debate about a lot of things, actually.
However, if I'm not mistaken, you are merely talking about the name then? In that case you're wrong, a trinomen is for subspecies, as much as ever. Or at least it still was so in 1998 and I am unaware of new regulations in that regard.
[This is drivel unless you put forth more papers for the discussion as it is your argument that needs proving.]
Read the majority of Milford H. Wolpoff's papers on human evolution. Then read Erik Trinkaus's papers on human evolution. I don't know how many of them are online though.
A simple model can almost never explain complex systems where we don't have very much data... 
Wow that explains so much.  The sheer chance of convergent evolutionary pathways at roughly the same time from different species resulting in a 'species' (individuals that could interbreed) is ridiculous.  It's a possibility, but remote at best.
Saying that modern humans replaced the Neandertals with little or no gene exchange is even more fucking retarded, an easy cop-out solution to a complex issue and countering emerging evidence. Together with h-bd denial it makes things even more simple. Also your explanation of MRE is a completely false and misleading, multiregional evolution is about the same species evolving into modern humans through recurrent gene flow.
>>23
So you actually believe in a refuted model of human evolution and say people who pointed it out are not worth bothering with? If YECs *are* worth it in your mind, then it's solely because of your inability to debate much else. By the way, why do you call people who don't believe in disproved RAO fairy tales neo-eugenicists?  This is just icing on the cake of tautology, silliness and unsubstantiated assertions. In fact, to leftists science seems to be a tautology and not a process.

Where does evolution play into this freak of nature?  Is this the mutants that occur when evolution makes sudden leaps and bounds out of nowhere like professor xavier talks about in X-Men the movie?

http://www.normastitz.com/norma-cinderella.htm

The mutations seen in the X-Men are the result of the Celestial seed, an alien form of genetic engineering conducted before recorded history

>>26
This may surprise you, but that comment has as much scientific content as >>24 does.

>>27
How annoyed are you of there being no report button for my comment which you cannot refute?

>>28
You suffer from a powerful persecution complex. ``Leftists'' are suppressing you! People want to ``report'' you! The ``Zionist conspiracy'' is why you're not a winner!
Fun fact: there is no conspiracy. People don't bother with you because your bullshit is self-evident, and you're doing the racist  (sorry, ``racialist'') equivalent of the Gish gallop.

>>29
Fun fact: When people can't debate and they want to win an argument regardless of how retarded and wrong it is, they resort to fallacies. I never alleged any Zionist conspiracy or leftist suppression. In fact, Zionists have a clear goal, Zionism, so there can't be much of a conspiracy there and leftists aim to be as retarded as possible. I can't imagine their suppressing me. As for your (and not 'people' like your conspiracy minded self would love to think) wanting to report me, it's pretty obvious from your sage and inability to respond to what I've said, but still taking the time to smear my post. Feel free to address my post having no scientific content, especially where I fixed the other person's straw man version of MRE. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

>>1

Hovind's posting from jail

>>30
As for your (and not 'people' like your conspiracy minded self would love to think) wanting to report me, it's pretty obvious from your sage and inability to respond to what I've said, but still taking the time to smear my post.

Um... It's obvious he wanted to report you by saging the thread? You really think reporting that post would cause it to be removed based on its content? Wow dude. >>29 was right, you do have a persecution complex.

>>30
hi, I just stopped by to say enjoy your retardation.

Wow.  I thought /prog/ was bad, but you /sci/entists are completely insane.  Acknowledging the existence of race is some kind of unforgiveable hate crime now?  "Leftism" is a school of science?  Can anyone here even say what they fucking mean without ten layers of code words and irrelevant assumptions?

>>34
LISP

>>34
Stormfront does not represent the mainstream /sci/ discourse. They just drop by to fag up the occasional thread from time to time.