Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 9)
Message-ID: <422@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Apr-85 11:54:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.422
Posted: Fri Apr 26 11:54:18 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-May-85 03:00:37 EDT
References: <340@iham1.UUCP> <361@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 49
Summary: 

In article <361@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) writes:
>
>>      THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
>>
>>
>>        18.  ....
>>                                  The  discoverer  of  Java  man  later
>>             acknowledged that Java man was similar to a  large  gibbon
>>             [h,i]  and  that  he  had withheld evidence to that effect
>>             [j-m]. 
>>
>>            ....
>>
>>             h)  ''Pithecanthropus [Java man] was  not  a  man,  but  a
>>                 gigantic  genus  allied  to the Gibbons,....  ''...[it
>>                 had]  a  close  affinity  with  the  gibbon  group  of
>>                 anthropoid   apes.   ''...This  comparison  more  than
>>                 confirms the opinion of  Marcellin  Boule,  pronounced
>>                 fifteen  years ago, that Pithecanthropus may have been
>>                 a large gibbonoid species,....'' [Eugene Dubois,  ''On
>>                 the  Fossil  Human  Skulls Recently Discovered in Java
>>                 and Pithecanthropus Erectus,'' MAN, January 1937,  pp.
>>                 1-7.]
>>
>> 					Ron Kukuk
>> 					Walt Brown
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this argument saying that Java Man
>isn't valid evidence for evolution because it's genetically related to
>gibbons and not to man?  (Note that it had *"a close affinity with the
>gibbon group"*, not that it *was* a gibbon.)  The particular group it's
>related seems of less importance than the fact that it's genetically
>related to *somebody*.  I think it's still good evidence for evolution.
>
>--JB  (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth)

	Not only this but this is another example of outdated science.
Look at the date, 1937!! In fact the ideas presented in the article
have long been rejected by anthropologists. The entire classification
of hominid fossils was revised in the late 60's, using careful, comparitive
technique, the old genus Pithecanthropus has in its entiretly been
transfered to the single species Homo erectus, which is considered to
be man's nearest relative by *all* researchers in the field.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen