52. How to Tell Ape from Human Bones

1-2 human_evolution line BWI do realize that the vast majority of scientists in the world are strong believers that humans arose through ape-to-human evolution. It’s simply a universally accepted concept. Even Time Magazine (Figure 1-3) from August of 1999 tells us “how man evolved”. They never ask the biggest question: Did man evolve from an ape common ancestor? How could little ole’ me prove that the world’s scientists and Time are flat out wrong? My job in this book is to show you that human evolution is nothing but a concocted illusion. You will know for yourself once you see the evidence, drawn purely from the facts.

1-3 time cover copy_edited-1To understand ape to human evolution, you need a basic understanding of the clear differences between the bones of apes and humans. They are easy to spot. Taking a few moments learning about the differences will make it far easier for you to make a scientific assessment of the validity of human evolution. If I can make you an expert in just a few minutes of reading, you will be able to decide for yourself what is real and what is not. You won’t have to believe and accept what someone else tells you. If you are an avid believer in human evolution, just keep an open mind. The information itself will tell the tale. You won’t have to believe the pronouncements of any human, including me. You can see for yourself.

There are many characteristics that could be cited in the full skeleton of humans and apes that would determine to which group a particular skeleton belongs. I am going to cite only their skulls, hands and feet. Each individual characteristic that I cite will separate apes from humans. I am exampling a chimpanzee because they’re genetically the closest primates to humans. Evo-illusionists claim that chimpanzees have 96 percent of human DNA. If we have a common ancestor with chimps, they are our cousins many times removed. So our skulls should be similar in design as well. But there are a few obvious and very defining characteristics that need to be known if one is to determine if ancient ape bones are just from apes; or if they truly represent our ancestors.1-4 ape human skull

Figure 1-4 is a montage of the skulls of a chimpanzee (left) and a human (right). The following are key characteristics of ape skulls that human skulls do not have:

(1) Prognathic Jaws: A chimpanzee’s maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) protrude significantly. Typically, the bone from the nose to the tip of upper teeth extrudes out at about a 450 angle, whereas a line drawn from the nose to the chin of a typical human is vertical or concave.

(2) Large Brow Ridges above the eye sockets. Humans have negligible brow ridges.

(3) Absent or small laid back forehead: Apes lack significant vertical foreheads. Humans have large vertical foreheads, which provide room for the much larger frontal lobe of our brains. This is an important difference, as the large frontal lobe of the human brain allows us the ability to make decisions and solve problems. It also controls our behaviors, voluntary movements, emotions, and consciousness. Without a forehead, an animal would not have room for a large frontal lobe, and could not perform functions that differentiate animals from humans. The ability to make tools, improve on them, and the ability to remember how to make them, wouldn’t be possible without a forehead and large frontal lobe.

(4) Small Ovoid or Flat Cranium that houses their much smaller brains. Human adult craniums are about two to three times the volume of ape craniums. Ape craniums are narrower than the lateral extents of the eye sockets, whilst human craniums are far wider than the outer extent of their eye sockets. (See Figure 1-7 below)

1-5 jaw test key(5) Posterior Dental Arches Are “U” Shaped Or Even Towed In Toward The Back: (Figure 1-5) Human dental arches are shaped like a rounded “V”. The lineup of human posterior teeth is flared toward the back. If you look at the chimp, gorilla, and orangutan dental arches you will see that the right and left posterior (back) teeth are lined up parallel to each other. (white lines) The orangutan’s teeth actually flare to the front.

1-6 hands(6) Apes Have a Shorter and Lower Positioned Thumb than Humans: (right image in Figure 1-6) Notice, the thumb doesn’t reach the first knuckle of the index finger. Compare with your own hand.

(7) Ape Big Toes Are Separated From The Rest Of The Toes and are aligned 650 away from the other toes. (left image in Figure 1-6) Ape feet almost look like hands. Ape feet and hands are designed so they each act as both hands and feet. Their hands and feet are both proficient at walking and grasping. Our hands are graspers, not walkers, whilst our feet are walkers, not graspers.

There you go. Now you’re a trained expert at telling the difference between ape fossils and human fossils. Each of these characteristics taken individually can separate ape from man. For example, a skull with large brow ridges will always be ape, not human. Browridges alone are a defining characteristic.            Now that you’re an expert, let’s give you a test. Take a look at Figure 1-7 and see if you can tell which skulls are ape, and which are human. Hint: A is hominid. Or is it ape? Observe how the cranium of a human is wider than its eye sockets, whilst the smaller ape craniums terminate inside of the eye sockets. (arrows)11-7 skull test_edited-2

When diggers unearth supposed ancient pre-human fossils, all possibilities must be considered, not just a single possibility that is given by evo-illusionists with an agenda who are trying so hard to form their illusions. The fact is evo-illusionists routinely use the single possibility that supports their illusions to describe fossil finds when other possibilities exist and are far more likely. This is a demonstration of what an incredible illusion human evolution is. So, what are the possibilities that exist when an ancient ape skeleton, or any part thereof, no matter how tiny, is unearthed by diggers and paleoanthropologists? Evo-illusionists assign them to be human precursors and place them on a branch of the human tree of life. They must do this when there are so few fossils, or the illusion of human evolution will crash. They can’t choose if a particular fossil is an ape or sub-human because there is such a dearth of samples. Evo-illusionists declare nearly every ape-like bone and tooth dug out of the dirt to be a human precursor. Are there other possibilities that scientist should consider when fossils of supposed sub-humans are found? Fortunately for this book and me, there are. Here are a few of the possibilities that should be on any true scientists mind when analyzing supposed early ape-person fossils. Only #7 will be considered by any evo-illusionists for certain. The first six will kill the illusion so you will never hear of them from any evo-illusionists. The possibilities are:

(1) It’s a modern ape skeleton that was damaged by moisture, pressure, and chemical decomposition.

(2) Ninety-nine percent of all species that have ever inhabited the Earth became extinct. This means a large number of primate (ape, monkey) species became extinct as well. If a conservative percentage of primates became extinct, say 25 percent over the last five or ten million years, that would mean there are over 200 extinct primate species. These extinct primates certainly died and left bones all over Africa. The odds are huge that “hominid” fossils represent nothing but extinct ancient apes.2,3

(3) It’s a conglomeration of bones found in separate locations put together by evo-illusionists to make them appear to be from a single hominid. In other words, it’s a hoax. This has a much higher chance of being the case than one would think, as you will see.

(4) It’s a bone or part of a skeleton of an ancient non-primate vertebrate species that looks similar to an early ape.

(5) They’re ancient bones of a true human that were crushed, broken, or disturbed in a way that makes them seem a like a human precursor.

(6) They’re the bones of a microcephalic human: or a human who had major deficiencies and mental deficits and were intellectually underdeveloped. Figure 1-8 is the photo of a microcephalic person with slanted forehead and small cranium. Microcephaly occurs in about one in sev1-8 microcephaly_edited-2en thousand births. Microcephalics are generally incapable of inventing and making tools or any complex devices. Almost every hominid fossil found that is supposedly an early human is either an ape whose braincase is “micro” compared to humans, or a microcephalic human. Since no vertebrate with a micro-brain is capable of making tools, any tools found near a microcephalic fossil could not have been invented and made by the live animal that left the fossil.4-6
(7) They’re hominids or pre-human. They evolved over hundreds of thousands or millions of years into modern man.

Of all the seven possibilities, (7) is by far the least likely of the choices, and the least provable. But it’s the most often used to describe puny and dubious fossil finds by evo-illusionists; as I will demonstrate.

For the purposes of this book, I would like to pose law. This law seems beyond obvious, but it’s never considered or discussed by any evo-illusionists I have ever come across, with good reason. It kills their illusion. So here it is:

Blume’s Law of Hominids:

If a selected individual feature of an early fossil skull or skeleton of an ancient animal is similar to an equivalent feature on a human skull or skeleton, that is not evidence whatsoever that the fossil species evolved into humans.

 

Advertisements

162 Comments

  1. Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

    Wow, I thought your videos were bad…. But this blog takes the cake. Well, at least I have some cleaning up of this blog to do in my spare time.

    • Steve Blume said,

      You a are typical of all evolution believers. You have nothing to say. Doesn’t t that make you wonder about yourself? I guess not My blog and vids are made for people who like to actually think. You haven’t reached that point. And, sadly, you never will. Indoctrinates don’t and can’t think.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Well actually Mr. Blume, I do have things to say. I’ve already began pointing out some of the flaws in your vids on Facebook https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2099480367036819&id=1656232994694894

        And lol, I’m not indoctrinated just because I hold a different view point than yours OK. I’ve been reading and watching your work, and wherever I see you fall short, I will point it out.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        See, Stunted, here is how it works with humanity. Some human makes up a fable, story, doctrine… to explain how something should work, or works. Then they write books on the fable, story, doctrine…, and try to convince people that the fable, story, doctrine is valid. If they can get enough people to believe, and even become zealots, then the fable, story, doctrine becomes a successful groupthink fable, story, doctrine… In the case of evolution this is what happened. And you fell for it. Even though countless biological and biochemical systems say evolution is bullshit, the people who have been indocrtinated, like you, believe anyway. They recite the dogma as if it’s valid. Like you do. Because indoctrination trumps logic and our ability to think independently. And that is where you are right now. Stuck with the bullshit you have been indoctrinated with. Sorry.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        I don’t see how pointing out someone’s faulty and fallacious arguments amounts to “You’re indoctrinated”. Anyway, because you’re making public arguments, I will take it as my obligation to respond to them publicly, regardless of if you think I’m “indoctrinated” .

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        The real question is: what would you accept as being “a transitional form”. As in what features should a fossil have that can satisfy you?

        You seem to dismiss any and all fossils that show ape-like characteristics as being “just an ape”. But a transitional form by definition should contain ape-like features because they are a mosaic of both apes and humans.

        So we first have to establish what mosaic of characters would be accepted as a transitional form between humans and apes, before we can dismiss fossils as being “unacceptable”.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Your “transitional forms” are just part of the fable you believe. Here is a comment I wrote on an evo-of-man cartoon; with 1,000,000 views. This should give you an idea about the absurdity of your transitional forms.

        So much fun making cartoons about how man evolved from apes. That’s the only evidence that that happened: cartoons. Mankind had to increase their brain size from 40 billion neurons to 100 billion neurons, plus add tens of thousands of dendrite connections to each neuron in 500,000 years or so. So let’s do the math: evolution had to add about 500,000 neurons per generation from 700,000 years ago to make the brain of modern man. Plus about 2.4 billion dendrite connections. Plus add 500,000 glial cells, cells that support brain neurons. Plus add thousands of miles of blood vessels, plus…And then when the human brain was just the right size, evolution had to come to a dead stop. Oh, it also had to add intelligence and human consciousness. It sure is fun to look at pretty pictures and fake models like this cartoon shows, but it’s all made up. Fake. If you want to see truth :https://youtu.be/fGXhZ7RFnjg
        Reality is we have no idea what our source is. And we probably never will. But we can sure make up some incredible fables.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        OK so you skip over the question on what constitutes a transitional form, and then brought in yet another argument. Well OK.

        You stated that the human brain contains 100 Billion neurons. What you failed to mention was 100 Billion is the “Average” number and that they are deviations “give or take a few billion”. So in the same way someone can be made of a few billion cells more than either of their parents (they could be taller, larger), ….. The same way someone can be born with a few million or billion neurons more than their parents. So 700K neurons is not beyond the reach of biodiversity because it is well within the standard deviation of neurons among humans today.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Your problem is you want to leave the micro world, and look at macro-shapes of entities made up of microscopic cells. This makes it easier for you to believe your fable. If you can look at body parts as if they are made up of plastic, macro-matter, then you can continue to believe your fable. If you look at the micro world, your fabled belief crashes. Actually it does in the macro world. Your “tiny” percentage is laughable. You ignore the fact that the cranium has to enlarge in the exact same fashion and shape as the brain in dumb luck fashion, which means osteocytes had to increase 60%, the blood vessels that feed the cranium and supporting structures had to increase 60%, glial cells 60%, and on and on. Blood vessels that feed the brain had to increase by thousands of miles. All of this had to be coordinated. The new shape of the cranium had to follow the the newly forming shape of the brain. How did this happen? Your god is evolution. You think it can work miracles that rival biblical miracles. Your indoctrination shows in the fact that you can so casually pick out “neurons”as an argument without considering all of the other ramifications of brain evolution yourself. If you were not indoctrinated, you would be able to pick out other entities that cannot possibly be created by dumb luck naturally selected errors. Your indoctrination blocks your ability to really think this stuff out. I don’t just casually say you are indoctrinated. It’s a fact that you should be able to see yourself. You demonstrate it with every answer that you give that only defends your fable. You cannot pick out challenges for evolution and discuss them openly yourself; in objective fashion. There are no transitions that demonstrate your belief system, so why keep asking? There are none that would satisfy me.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Lol, man you’re so funny. You said you studied evolution but I don’t think so.

        Anyways, for the other parts of the body that had to change as well, the same reasoning all applies. Let’s take dogs for example. All dogs were derived from a common source by means of descent with modifications. Dogs come with different size and shapes of craniums, different size brains, different number of neurons , different number of blood vessels, different size bodies etc etc etc…….so stevebee, how in hell are all these seemingly coordinated changes possible for dogs to exist in many varieties, shapes and forms today, but is somehow impossible for humans , for reasons you care not to explain?
        And remember that the entire dog evolves, … Head and brain, heart and blood vessels, skull and bones , number of cells, the size and shape of organs etc etc etc.
        Or is this a case of “these kinds of changes are only possible when Steve says it is”. So I really want to read how you would explain how dogs can evolve as a whole, together with all their constituent parts…..and then explain how it is “impossible” for humans to do so.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You are sure having a hard time with your indoctrinations here. You can’t get evolution off your brain. You think it’s a given that dogs evolved from a common ancestor fox or wolf. Evolution isn’t even in the mix. Evolution can change traits and characteristics, but that’s it. Dog’s didn’t evolve into existenceIt’s and either did human brains/craniums, the subject you left. ‘Tis pure fable. You are like dealing with a greased pig contest. I talk human brains/craniums, you slip to dogs. There is absolutely zero, I repeat, zero evidence that evolution is capable of forming any body part, or any biological/biochemical system. I know you think little foxes or wolves turned into chihuahua’s, great danes and collies. But that’s just a fable Stunted. A man concocted story that you believe. We are discussing tidbits. You think that all animals and plants came from a single bacterial cell (prokaryote). The fact that you can’t see how absurd that notion is is just further proof of how fooled you are.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        The reason I brought up dogs “for example” is because you seem to imply that multiple parts of an organism can’t change at the same time. But now I’m even more shocked to see you deny dogs share ancestry…. Goes to show how much you deny reality .

        I would assume that the also reject the examples of variations shown in your own blog and book, whereby you clearly show that different varieties of Bears and Felines are related and were derived by evolution. (See here: https://evoillusion.org/evidence-for-evolution/ ). Funny how you accepted these as being related, but dogs being related is a fable, even though the Bears separated from each other hundreds of thousands to millions of years before the dogs did. Care to explain that???

        See Steve if you do accept for example that brown bears, panda bears and polar bears are related by means of common descent, then you also have to accept that the seemingly coordinated changes and differences between them evolved as well…. which would defeat your own argument that these types of changes are impossible by evolution.

        So are you willing to explain how these changes (variation of bears) are possible, while human changes are “impossible”?….. Or are you going to continue to behave like a two-faced turd on the Internet???

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Do yourself a favor. Find out the number of offspring from the average momma bear during her lifetime. (For polar bears it’s about 10 to 16.) Next determine the average lifespan of a bear. (About 20 years for polars.) Polar bears have no predators, and few diseases which makes the math easy for you! Now determine the average doubling time for polar bear populations. Very conservatively for polars its about 15 years. Now calculate how many times polar bear populations doubled in “hundreds of thousands to millions of years”. You can even pick your smallest number: hundreds of thousands. I read that evolution says 350,000 years. Using these numbers or any way you want to rationally change them, let me know what the population of polar bears should be right now. Pretend the first polar bear offshoot population from its non-polar bear ancestor was one male and one female. Or a total of two. Report back.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Oh that’s your silly “population paradox” argument. Well no calculations needed here. Just a phenomenon you seem to have to concept about “CARRYING CAPACITY”. if a population has limited resources (food, space etc) that will limit the growth of the population. If carrying capacity didn’t affect population then we would have been drowning in bacteria and insects, and practically any wild plant.

        One question though stevebe92653. How long do you think species have occupied this planet?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Silly? No a killer for your fable. If the environment for polar bears couldn’t support the population, that would mean the death of billions of billions of cubs due to starvation or whatever environmental disasters that would kill them. There should be octillions of octillions of polar bear carcasses left over. Enough to fill millions of universes solid. So the mammas have cubs at a constant rate, the cubs die, and VANISH. And you dismiss it as “silly” instead of teaching me where they go. As soon as you dismiss a question about your fable as silly without explanation, you become a loser. I think species have occupied this planet for billions of years. But there is exponentially more that we don’t know about their origin and status than we do. I hope you did the math and saw what is really silly: your numbers.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        No no and no. The population never reached “billions and billions” to begin with because of “CARRYING CAPACITY”. The infinite growth of a population, in the way you see it, is impossible. If it was a real thing, then rain forests would be over populated with wild plants…… But that never happens. You haven’t even taken into account the mortality rates of polar bears before making such a half baked argument.

        Oh so you do accept that species inhabited the planet for billions of years……. So the obvious question is Steve, who the hell was keeping the population in check for the time each species roamed the planet? If it wasn’t carrying capacity, was it you Steve? Why isn’t the planet fill the the brink with bacteria for example?

        And No….. Your population paradox nonsense is not a problem for evolution because it isn’t a problem to begin with. Nowhere have I ever seen anybody publish something that would predict such a scenario for the population of any species on the planet, be they plant or animal, preditor or prey. The only people that make these kinds of stupid arguments are “young earth creationists”.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I never said there ARE billions and billions. The big and very interesting question here is why isn’t the earth inundated with polars? They have no predators or sicknesses. The current population is about 25,000. The population should be increasing by 7,000 per year or so. So if “carrying capacity” is killing off polar bears, where are the bodies and bones of the ones being killed? A very strange conundrum indeed. You answer with “silly” and “carrying capacity”. What the hell does that mean? Like all indoctrinates you cannot discuss, question, or wonder about your belief system. If your answer were valid, the evidence would be overwhelming. But as with everything you say, you have no evidence. You always come back with more fables that you cannot discuss because you believe… say hallelujah! Evolution is your religion. Time and random selected mutations changes are your creator god.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Should be increasing by 7K or so? Where are you pulling these figures from? Citation please! The last time I checked, polar bears were on the endangered list.

        So you ooze your argument from the “over population problem” to the “missing bodies assertion”…… Are you sure you’re not a creationist? You’re beginning to sound like one. And how in hell is “missing bodies” a problem for evolution again?

        Anyway, does decomposition mean anything to you? Because by your own logic, the oceans should be stacked with shell fish remains . does your “missing bodies assertion” apply to shell fish remains as well? Or as any other organism, their remains will decompose overtime?

        Silly arguments Steve. See how easy they it is to pick apart?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        “Silly” as an answer doesn’t pick anything apart. It just makes you look silly. 7,000 is an easy calculation and very conservative. You do the math because if I waste my time doing it your response will be “silly”. You are programmed to give such inane answers when you are stuck.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        7K may sound conservative, but were are you getting this number from?
        What makes you think populations should only increase? Why it couldn’t be decreasing by 2K per year? Thats a conservative number too, but its a number fished out of one’s arse.
        Polar bear populations are dwindling, and here you are making calculations for a 7K per annum increase in population. Seems like your math isn’t constrained by factors such as “Reality”.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Going to ignore you’re “evolution is a religion” nonsense.
        I I’m clearly capable of addressing your piss poor excuses for arguments, without resorting to the whims an undetectable Jin…..
        Whilst you’re here, clearly incapable of proposing a logically self sustained reality that would explain why species don’t flood the planet and never will, and what happens to their remains overtime.

        If carrying capacity and decomposition are not forces at work here……. What in hell is and was keeping populations in check for the past few billion years??…. And who was getting rid of the remains???

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I have absolutely no answer which I freely admit. You are a prophet of your creator, evolution. You know all and are able make up answers that have no evidence. Like “carrying capacity and decomposition” that doesn’t exist in reality. But that’s OK with you. Making up answers allows you to say you know all and gives you a false sense of security.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Lol what? So you have absolutely no answer for where bodies go, and what prevents infinite exponential population growth…..and reject demonstrable phenomena such as “carrying capacity” and “decomposition”…… Strange indeed . I’m not making these things up, that’s whats happening. Animal remains decompose,……………… Only unless your implying (but not saying) that some external force is getting rid of the bodies? Is that it Steve? I really want to know.
        Because its easy to test where dead bodies go, and I will love to hear your proposal.

        Its just another case of “Steve doesn’t know, but he knows he right”.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Decomposition doesn’t exist in reality?? 😂😂😂😂 ha ha ha ha ha ha. Are we in the same reality here Steve?

        And I guess your “alternative” solution for where bodies go is part of reality right ?????

        Boy you crack me up. I honestly like you…… You’re funny 😂🤣.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You are too dumb and indoctrinated to continue discussing with. Your stuff is anal and indoctrinated. Indoctrinates cannot hold a rational conversation. I patiently put up with you for a long time. But you are so lacking in anything remotely close to reality and evidence that you need to totally misconstrue just about everything I say. (I said decomposition doesn’t exist in reality? The sad thing is you have no idea how stupid that statement is. Is it your goal to appear stupid?) I do really wish I could have an intelligent conversation with a rational evolution believer. You are certainly not one. Actually don’t feel bad. Most believers in the fable are zealots like you who go hyper-overboard to defend their religion. I did respond to your inane challenges to my vid on Facebook. I’m sure you can come up with more absurd challenges. What I find sad is what evolution does to people’s brains. How can a belief system actually turn out someone like you? That is a bigger puzzle than the polar bears.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        You said, and I quote “You know all and are able make up answers that have no evidence. Like “carrying capacity and decomposition” that doesn’t exist in reality. But that’s OK with you. Making up answers allows you to say you know all and gives you a false sense of security.” -Steve.

        You clearly implied that I was making these things up. So I asked where do you think dead animal remains go? Or what gets rid of them?……. But you said you have absolutely no idea.

        But you aren’t fooling anyone by saying you have no idea, because by rejecting demonstrable mechanical and chemical processes as an explanation for the “missing bodies”……. You’re implying that some undetectable force (who has nothing better to do with its time but to get rid of dead bodies) is systematically eliminating dead animal remains, so that the planet dont drown in skeletons every few thousand years.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I have a great idea for you. Do the math calculations yourself. It doesn’t take much. A few numbers, some calculations… Show some intelligence. Then argue. You are boring me. Better yet, try someplace else.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Yeah you’re pretty boring too. You couldn’t defend your exponential growth rate of Polar bears with any statistical data, nor can you predict any exponential growth rate…… Presumably you think “conservative” numbers equates to valid argumentation.

        Nor were you able to explain, if bears existed for 10s of thousands of years, why haven’t there population exceeded 1 million under your exponential growth model, and what the hell happened to their remains if “decomposition” was not a contributing factor.

        So I can safely conclude that you and your arguments are full of shit because:
        1) you failed to provide a mechanism other than “decomposition” to account for the missing bodies you alleged should exist.
        2) you accept that species occupied this planet for billions of years, but failed to explain why your exponential growth model affected NONE of them.
        3) you fail to predict any species that would follow your exponential growth rate in the future.
        4) you failed to predict the exponential accumulation of the remains of any species overtime.

        Your arguments has NO explanatory NOR predictive capabilities………. You’re a joke Stevebee92653.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        So let’s “do the math” myself and see what we get, because apparently you can’t do it yourself.

        According to a source here (see below) the estimated global population of polar bears in 1960 was 10,000, and in 2016 approximately 32,257 bears. So for simplicity we will use the estimated 10,000 in 1960 and 40,000 in 2016 (just to make it more in your favor).

        So calculating the annual growth rate per annum to get from 1960 to 2016 would be (40,000 – 10,000) ÷ 56 = 535.71 per year.

        Using YOUR “conservative” growth rate of 7,000 we get 10,000 + (7,000 x 56) = 402,000 as the current polar bear population In 2016.

        This means that your “conservative” growth rate would have over shot the population of bears in 2016 by (402,000 – 40,000) = 362,000 or by a factor of 10.05.

        See how I can show you’re full of shit using math as well…… It’s not hard.
        So let’s see you account for a population of 10,000 in 1960 to 40,000 in 2016 using YOUR conservative growth rates…… I’ll wait.

        Source: https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/16/polar-bear-numbers-still-on-the-rise-despite-global-warming/

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Why do you discuss like such an asshole? I find that very strange. Obviously, I did the math long ago, and you didn’t without my coercion. And you call me a joke? From someone as dumb and as indoctrinated as you, I consider that a compliment. People who are as rude as you are usually blocked because they are boring and tiresome. Like you are. You have passed that threshold and should be gone. Try to remember, you are on my sites by your own choice. I am not on yours. You weren’t invited, you have failed with every point you have tried to make. But since you did the math:
        There are so many conundrums in your calculations. Things you should wonder about yourself. But you are too dense and don’t and cannot ask any questions about your belief system. According to your own numbers, the polar bear population went from 10,000 to 40,000 in 56 years, which is an average doubling time 28 years. Or about 2 times per century. In 350,000 years, that would mean polar bears would double 14,000 times. Starting with two polar bears 350,000 years ago, there should be 2.6 x 10^4,214 today. Of course absurd. I know you will tell me polar bear populations fluctuate. But what causes that fluctuation? Female polar bears produce cubs at a constant rate of about 10 per female in their lifetime. The only way to account for the nearly infinite number of carcasses that should exist but don’t is to make sure male polar bears are using good birth control (TIC), or by talking bears out of fornicating (TIC), or by the females having cubs that die at an incredible rate, like 9.99999999999999 out of 10, which is not possible, and which would leave infinite piles of polar bear carcasses and skeletons. You think pre-humans left skeletons from millions of years ago, so bear skeletons only thousands of years old should be inundating the earth.
        I pose this as a very fascinating puzzle. You try your best to use it to make yourself look smart, which you aren’t, hopefully, due to your indoctrination. I hope in other endeavors you are able to display some intelligence. As I said, (and researched) polars have no predators, they are at the top of the food chain. They have no disease. They don’t starve to death, or we would see thousands of starving polar bears in National Geographic. So what accounts for the current population? I have no idea what the answer is. You know everything and say its “decomposition and carrying capacity”. If that were the case Stunted’s theory could easily be proved. Words are easy. Reality is tough. I will leave it as a fascinating puzzle that I have no answer for. You will continue on as if you know all, it’s simple to answer, anyone could figure it out, even Stunted. My advice: don’t continue making a fool of yourself here with your fake answers unless you have something really interesting and proveable that you haven’t already thoughtlessly burped up. Like “decomposition and carrying capacity”. By the way, if polar bears have existed for 350,000 years, the average population doubling time required to get to current numbers from one male and one female is about 22,000 years. So it would go 2, then 22,000 years later, 4, then 22,000 later 8… I’m sure you can explain.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Stevebee92653, I was using YOUR calculations of population increase. I’m not making the argument that populations increase exponentially……. YOU ARE!. I’m using your calculations against you, to show that they are all silly.

        To make this simple:
        – give an estimate of when YOU think polar bears began to exist.
        – give an estimate of how much YOU think the initial population was
        – and propose a growth rate YOU think the bears would require to get from their original population to 40,000 in 2016.

        Do this and let’s get this argument over with.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Oh you’re going to see how it needs to fluctuate to accommodate your growth rate. Just answer the questions let me use YOUR growth rate against you

        **************************************************************
        -give an estimated time of when YOU think polar bears began to exist.
        – give an estimate of how much YOU think the initial population was
        – and propose a growth rate YOU think the bears would require to get from their original population to 4,0000 in 2016.
        *******************************************************

        #Note: I am arguing that populations does NOT increase exponentially.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        BTW, according to your mindless thoughtless numbers, 20,000 lucky polar bear females give birth to 535.71 cubs per year. Since there are usually two cubs per birth, that means that only 267 females out of 20,000 give birth per year. I know. The rest use abstinence! HAR HAR HAR Boy, I bet the guys get pissed. What do you think? Oh, sorry, I forgot. You don’t think.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        No…… I said a annual growth rate of 535.71 according to your constant growth model would be needed to get from 10K in 1960 to 40K in 2016…….. Stop confusing “Birth Rate” and “Annual population increase”.

        Anyway, just answer the questions let me get this argument over with.

        -give an estimate of when YOU think polar bears began to exist.
        – give an estimate of how much YOU think the initial population was
        – and propose a growth rate YOU think the bears would require to get from their original population to 40,000 in 2016.

        Thank you.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        So you don’t want to discuss how your math doesn’t work. I don’t blame you. If the population increases 535.71 per year as you say, what happens to all of the cubs that had to be born to the other fertile 15,000 females? (Considering that probably 5,000 are too young or too old to be fertile.) They had to produce about 15,000 new cubs per year since they average about 1 per year or so during fertile years. Your problem is you cannot understand the point I make which is obvious from your response and your questions. There SHOULD be thousands of more cubs per year to account for. For the population to be what it is, your “annual population increase” which is made up of births minus deaths means 15,000 new cubs had to be born, 537 survived, leaving 14,500 carcasses per year. It doesn’t matter a lick if you go by birthrate or annual population increase. Your questions are moot. And I have no idea what the answer is even if they weren’t, which I’ve repeatedly told you.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Is not my math Steve…. Its YOURS. I was only showing that your “conservative” number of 7,000 per annum won’t work with your model, and that you will need an increase of about 537 per year to get from 10K to 40K in 56 years.
        It was YOU who proposed the 7K per year “conservative” increase, I just demonstrated that it wouldn’t work.

        So please, just propose a GROWTH RATE then, since your 7K doesn’t work.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You have absolutely no idea what my point is, or how to argue it. You have no idea what you are arguing. 7,000 OBVIOUSLY doesn’t work. Which IS my point. You need to figure out what you are debating before jumping in. The current population doesn’t at all match the number of cubs that polar females produce individually. It’s a complete conundrum. Your number of 537 increase per year is obviously correct considering population numbers. But since fertile females produce an average of one cub per year, they should be producing 15,000 per year. Or my conservative 7,000. Matters not. Got it? The numbers for individual polars, and for overall population are thousands away from matching. I can’t explain it any better than that for you. No matter how hard you try, you will not be able to come up with an explanation. Your dying/decomposition story would leave thousands of carcasses annually; and eventually millions of bones. So it is a complete fail. I FREELY admit I cannot explain the puzzle. Other than that, if you don’t get the puzzle any better than you have shown, it’s time to give it up. I wrote a chapter on this puzzle in my book Evo-illusion of Man, way before we began “discussing”. My conclusion is that the puzzle is not solvable, and no person who has tried is able to, including you. Yours and evolution’s “model” of polar bears being 350,000 years old means they had to double in numbers every 22,500 years to reach 40,000. I guess you didn’t want to discuss that impossibility. I don’t blame you. There is no rational explanation to support 350,000 years. I also love Ursavus, the chosen and sainted MRCA of polar bears. That is a fun one. I wonder who picked that animal to turn into polar bears 350,000 years ago. I bet the evidence for that one is overwhelming. Just stick them next to each other on a pretty chart and everyone will believe.
        BTW, using your (and evolution’s) number of 350,000 years, with your number of 537 increase per year, there should be a current population of 188,000,000 polar bears. Golly, I guess your numbers don’t add up either. Is there ever a point where you might begin to wonder if you have been fooled?

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        No…. Why do you keep saying it had to double 22,500 years? This is not how any of this works. populations dont double like that.

        And its YOUR numbers that dont add up because its YOU making the assumption that the population should double every 22,500 years.

        You’re arguing against your own assumptions and numbers here.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You are really too uneducated, naive, and way too indoctrinated to comment here. You have no idea what my points are, what the discussion is, no matter how many times I try to explain. You skip to another subject when you get stuck. Typical of indoctrinates like you. From human brains to cats, dogs, to bears, to bacteria. You actually think you can compare bacterial populations with polar bear populations? Gad. That is funny and sad. You are a wannabe who never will be. AVERAGE doubling times for populations are used by demographers frequently as a time clock to determine the age of populations. Obviously, you aren’t aware of that fact. Average population doubling times take into account all rises and falls in population. See: https://evoillusion.org/the-population-paradox/34-b-population-definitions/ if you want a little education. You haven’t been blocked. If you want to stay and continue making a fool of yourself, have at it. You are the epitome of the gullibility of any religious zealot. You have no idea. If you want to be rude and communicate like an asshole, you will be blocked. I won’t waste any more time responding to your naive nonsense. So if you want to continue your absurd comments here, be respectful. Or adios.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        I brought up bacteria to demonstrate that populations don’t increase indefinitely as you were implying…… Thus showing there is no “population paradox” to begin with, and population growth doesn’t affect evolution.

        If you care to DEMONSTRATE using statistical data that populations can increase (or is increasing) in the way you think they should, instead of fishing “conservative” numbers out of your arse, then someone might begin to take you seriously.

        All day you try to fling insults…. Try showing data that will prove your points on population increase.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        I’ve shown your “conservative” 7K per annum growth rate model to false by showing the population in 1960 to 2016 .

        I’ve shown that your assumption of a continuous doubling of a population is false by showing even though bacteria can multiply at an exponential rate, it will not go on indefinitely (population will stop increasing after a few hours or days actually)

        You failed to predict the doubling of any population over time (if you think populations double, then predict when they would).

        You failed the average the age of polar bears (and for good reason) using your “conservative” growth rate . if demographers use the method, why can’t you?

        You failed to site any sources (other than your own blog) that would predict or confirm that populations double in the way you implied. If demographers use average doubling times for populations to average the age of the species, then cite their work.

        You failed to cite anyone else making this “population paradox” argument, and or real world data to support it.

        And yet you want to call me uneducated? You’re a special case.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You are obviously uneducated. You have no idea what I was discussing. Not even close, which is so obvious from this entry. Which makes your comment completely confused and obviously unknowledgeable. What’s truly funny is you are overtly cocky when you don’t know shit. A bad combination that makes you look so foolish. I tried my best to help you out, but you keep coming back with the same super cocky attitude and horrible responses. It’s a shame you can’t see how repeatedly dumb your entries are. Sorry. I would recommend giving it up. I really could care less if you “take me seriously”. Bye

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        And the same “uneducated” individual managed to flushed all your arguments with actual data and real world examples. Strange 🤔.

        If you have no evidence to support your “conservative” models, then its not worth consideration. Hence, I’ve shown all your “conservative” estimates to be highly inaccurate, and doesn’t fit with what is actually measured and observed.

        Your “population problem” is not a problem for evolution unless you can provide evidence to show that it is. You don’t refute concepts using mere thought experiments .

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Remember this?? “(ADHOM): Ad hominem attack. A personal attack on a questioner. Usually used when an evolutionaut is defending his position, and he is asked a question he can’t answer.”- Stevebee92653

        It seems like thats exactly what your doing here. Insulting me without answering any of my questions. Ironic isn’t it 🙄

        So back to my questions you failed to answer for some reason.

        Question #1: Are Polar Bears related to Brown bears and Panda bears as shown in your blog?

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        YOU are making your own conundrums. You make up your own population increase doubling nonsense, and then you argue against it.

        Populations fluctuate…… They increase, they decrease, they remain stable, they go extinct .

        So the population of bears “350K ago” could have been 20,000 for example. But it doesn’t matter, populations dont need to double all the time at a constant rate. It obviously didn’t take 22,500 years for it to double from 1960 to 2016. It took 56 years to go from 10K to 40K ……but its NOT going to go from 40,000 to 120,000 in 56 years because thats not how it works.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        It doesn’t matter if all the females made cubs…… We’re arguing “population increase” and NOT “birth rates”.

        So are you sticking to your “7,000 per year conservative population increase”?? Or are you proposing another??

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        But yet again, you skipped over the question. Are Polar bears, Brown bears, and Panda bears related? You seem to have implied this in your blog https://evoillusion.org/evidence-for-evolution/ . if they are related then you will have to accept that the changes and differences between then happened as well… And of course this will refute your argument that states “multiple changes working together can’t happen by means of evolution”. Accepting the bears are related also refutes your “population paradox” argument, because obviously the planet is not overpopulated by bears, and it would have taken considerable amount of generations to achieve the variation between the different bears.

        So once again with the question….. Are the bears related? Or not?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Let’s see. We go from human craniums and brains to bears and dogs. You slide off craniums and brains. I don’t argue that traits and characteristics change over time. Color, size, habits are characteristics that can and do change with time. So you might want to get off that argument, and talk biological/biochemical systems and body parts. You have been fooled by the bait and switch of your trainers. They have switched traits and characteristics to fool you into thinking evolution can make body parts, biological and biochemical systems. And you have fallen for the fake. That “argument” doesn’t work with me.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Again, I only brought up dogs to demonstrate that multiple changes (brain, skull size, blood vessels etc) can happen by means of evolution. You denied that dogs evolve….. So I brought up bears because you seem to accept that they evolved (yet you won’t answer the question if they’re related or not).
        I guess next you’ll tell me the deferent races of humans are not related because that too would require multiple changes in physiology happening at the same time.

        Are Neanderthals related to homo sapiens?…… Are all races of humans alive related? I really don’t know what extent of “change” you accept because you never explain.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        OK, so you’re not willing to give a set of criteria of what would be accepted as a transitional form…. and its for good reason. You’re doing this so you can dismiss any and all fossils as being a transition. Its a childish game of “no its not”…. Anyone can do that.

        The sad thing for you is that transional forms have been properly defined, and many have been described in exquisite detail, so contrary to your disbelief, transitional forms exist.

        Your laughable attempts to deem all fossils “not transitional” won’t work until YOU say what a transition supposed to be should one exist .

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        So 500K neurons per generation is not beyond the limits of biodiversity*****

        Oh and for the connections, the other cells, and the blood vessels. Same reasoning all applies. All your doing here is, in true creationist style, citing a set of large numbers without explaining why or how you came to the conclusion that it is impossible by means of biological evolution. (I know you’re not a creationist).
        What you have the establish are rates of evolution, and the limits of evolution, THEN we punch in the numbers to determine if evolution can achieve the kind of variation in the time available.

        And who in hell said the brain came to a dead stop?? Citation please. I don’t see why its a problem for evolution anyway.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        And just to play along with your “I know big numbers” game, lets see really how much of an increase in neurons we need . so you stated an increase of 500,000 neurons per generation to get from 40 billion to 100 billion. So punching in the numbers using 40 billion as a starter point we get (500,000 ÷ 40,000,000,000) x 100 gives us an increase of 0.00125% per generation. Doesn’t sound so impressive now right Steve….. And all this neglects to factor in that with each generation the neurons increase, the percentage will decrease.

        Anyway, enough side tracking with this numbers game of yours, and back to my original question.
        What would YOU accept as a transitional fossil between hums and apes? Only then I could know what I would need to show you.

  2. stevebee92653 said,

    I don’t just think you are. You are. You can’t look from outside the box. You cant even consider the notion that you are fooled, you are so sure your fable is truth. Even most religious people have big doubts. Not evo-indoctrinates. They are 100% sure of their fable. I was an evo-indoctrinate, so I know.

    • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

      I’m going to ignore this “if you don’t agree with stevebee92653 then you’re indoctrinated” agenda you’re trying to push, and just simply stick to addressing your arguments. OK?

      And please address the actual arguments being discussed, and stop bring up new ones, or bringing up this “indoctrinated” nonsense.

      So back to the question. What features in a fossil will you accept as being transitional?
      You can’t simply say a fossil “is not” without establishing “what is” or “what’s acceptable” .

      • stevebee92653 said,

        If you believe a manmade fable that is not possible, you are indoctrinated. It has nothing to do with “what stevebee believes”. All religions are loaded with manmade fables, including evolution. You can play pretend all you want. You pretend there are no scientific challenges for evolution when there are uncountable challenges.

  3. Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

    Wait, just realized you referred me to a source of “truth” which is actually a nonsensical video of yours that assumes superimposing misaligned photos of skulls and models constitutes a valid argument. Well I’ve already began to show that video up for what it is on your Facebook page. Will continue subsequently.

    Your video: https://youtu.be/fGXhZ7RFnjg

    The same video I responded to on Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2099480367036819&id=1656232994694894

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Actually perfectly aligned. You WANT it to be misaligned to support your fable. But, sorry. Now, get to work and do your own research, instead of ragging on mine. Prove me wrong. I need a good laugh.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        I’ve already shown two of them as being misaligned. Check your Facebook account. I’ll do the rest later.

  4. Mikie Sambo said,

    Let’s take this quote

    “When conditions are favourable such as the right temperature and nutrients are available, some bacteria like Escherichia coli can divide every 20 minutes. This means that in just 7 hours one bacterium can generate 2,097,152 bacteria. After one more hour the number of bacteria will have risen to a colossal 16,777,216. That’s why we can quickly become ill when pathogenic microbes invade our bodies.”

    This E-coli bacterium can multiply Evey 20 mins. In 8 hours it can reach a population of 16,777,216. In one week, starting with a population of 2, it can reach (5.23742497 x 10^151) ….that’s more than the estimated 10^80 atoms in the universe.

    But obviously the universe is not filled with E-coli. So this means that even though they can double every 20 mins, their population is limited by the constraints of the environment.

    Same goes for bears, or fish, or plants, or humans. The population can only reach that much before it stops increasing….. That’s basic population dynamics. This is not a problem for evolution whatsoever.

    Source: https://microbiologyonline.org/about-microbiology/introducing-microbes/bacteria

    Seems like you blocked me (Emotionality Stunted Emoticon). Anyways, I’ve already shown how stupid your assumptions of continuous population increase are. I’m going to share this blog with friends….. So look out for company.

  5. Dennis Feenstra said,

    “But there are a few obvious and very defining characteristics that need to be known if one is to determine if ancient ape bones are just from apes; or if they truly represent our ancestors.”
    What defines an ape or a human is not determined by a handful of traits cherry picked by someone who lacks any actual understanding in cladistics. Just like chimpanzees, gorilla’s, orangutans and all other primates, humans have eukaryote cells, a vertebrate and tetrapodal bodyplan, a temporal fenestra (synapsid), have all the mammalian features and primate traits. We are already by taxonomic definition a primate.

    Primates in turn are apes when they are tailless simiiformes from the Old World. Humans are tailless simiiformes too. That makes us apes already. We are more closely related, genetically to tailless great apes than tailless apes, which makes us great apes too.

    You then offer a number of explanations for why fossils look the way they look:

    “(1) It’s a modern ape skeleton that was damaged by moisture, pressure, and chemical decomposition.”
    Pressure and decomposition does not turn modern ape skeletons and modern human skeletons into fossils intermediatew to both groups, at the expected geologic deposition with the precise geologic age both relatively associated and absolutely dated. Ignoring the correct geologic layer and age, you cannot turn a chimpanzee skull or orangutan skull into anything resembling a transitional population. We can clearly see the change in skull size, the small distinctive features in face shape, the lack of large canines and many more traits which differentiate humans from all modern apes.

    One nearly intact australopithecene called ”Little Foot” is quite distorted for a fossil, yet is strangely enough nearly identical to Lucy and other Australopithecenes. The distortion as can be clearly seen, did not affect the general shape at all. I am to believe damage and moisture turned a chimpanzee skeleton into a transitional fossil over and over again, with all of them being equal to one another?

    “(2) Ninety-nine percent of all species that have ever inhabited the Earth became extinct. This means a large number of primate (ape, monkey) species became extinct as well.”
    Including those that are anatomically a transition or even derived from an earlier transition in a different direction.

    “(3) It’s a conglomeration of bones found in separate locations put together by evo-illusionists to make them appear to be from a single hominid. In other words, it’s a hoax.”
    Interesting. So Atapuerca humans are just a hoax? Java and Peking erectus are just another hoax? Naledi? Sediba? Neanderthalensis? You got zero evidence.

    “(4) It’s a bone or part of a skeleton of an ancient non-primate vertebrate species that looks similar to an early ape.”
    You do realize paleontologists have a very extensive catalogue to compare every sample with? Not only that, many of these fossils are found alongside stone tools, human teeth, or in assocation with human-like culture. Others are found in the same horizon as human-like skulls.

    “(5) They’re ancient bones of a true human that were crushed, broken, or disturbed in a way that makes them seem a like a human precursor.”
    This is just (1) with ape changed to human. No amount of crushing, breaking and decomposition turns a well preserved human skull or a well preserved modern chimpanzee skeleton into a transitional form that just so happens to combine traits from both extant clades. This is really akin to the creationist argument: a tornado through a junkyard assembling a 747. Because that’s what it is.

    “(6) They’re the bones of a microcephalic human”
    A microphalic human? Look at any microphalic skull. They all share the same modern human derived traits lacking entirely or partially in every actual homo genus fossil that is not a modern human. Any human suffering from a genetic disease that would somewhat vaguely produce SOME of the traits seen in these fossils, is a far cry from claiming those fossils are the result of a genetic disease.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Peking “erectus” was just four teeth, three adult and one deciduous exfoliated tooth. Out of these teeth came Peking man, the first hominid to leave Africa. It took four years of digging to turn up these pathetic fossils. Can you imagine digging and finding only four teeth, then continuing the dig? Peking man was touted in newspapers all over the world as a spectacular hominid find. From just four teeth. Years later other bones turned up that had nothing to do with the original four teeth. They didn’t fit together in any reasonable fashion. They were obvious ape bones. Java “erectus” was just the cranium of a gibbon with large brow ridges, no vertical forehead and a flat cranium. Just an obvious ape cranium. Later a molar and long bone were found that had no connection to the cranium. Again touted as an early hominid. Can you imagine an ape/human trekking across the Sahara Desert, the Red Sea, crossing the Arabian peninsula, the Straight of Hormuz, and all the coastal land and winding up in Peking and Java? That never happened unless you believe fairy tales. None would have even made it across the Sahara. They would have all quickly died. They had no reason to go anyway. The fact is all “hominid” fossils are apes. There are no examples of hominid fossils that show the growth of a forehead that could house our large prefrontal cortex, the elimination of brow ridges, or the flattening of the jaws.
      I put down the six possibilities you tried and failed to critique only to include ALL possibilities of skulls that had no forehead and small craniums. The “handful of traits” and that you say I cherry picked that you criticize are the MOST important traits of the skulls of supposed pre-humans. If there is no evolution showing the formation of a forehead that can house our large prefrontal cortex, the loss of brow ridges, or the flattening of the jaws, there is no sense looking elsewhere on the skeleton. Without a large forehead, human intelligence and consciousness cannot exist. The “cherry picked” traits are the foundation of what needs to be shown that evolved. And no fossils shows that evolution. All “hominid” fossils have ape foreheads, flat small craniums, large brow ridges, and protruded jaws. Feel free to watch my vids on the subject at the bottom of the first page of this blog. Or here: https://youtu.be/fGXhZ7RFnjg https://youtu.be/9yGa01TxsaM

      • Dennis Feenstra said,

        You state: “Peking “erectus” was just four teeth”
        Nope. Plenty of fossil skulls also (15 partial crania). Most however got lost during world war 2 after casts were already made foruntately. Of course you’ll call it a hoax, but actual science doesn’t care.

        More erroneous ramblin about peking man… bla bla bla bla…

        You state: “They were obvious ape bones. Java “erectus” was just the cranium of a gibbon with large brow ridges”
        Bahahahahaahaha! Gibbon?
        – Java man has a cranial capacity of 900cc,
        – its occipital bun is oriented like that of homo erectus, not like that of gibbons.
        – its frontal bone is clearly more rounded, both front to back.

        You state: “Can you imagine an ape/human trekking across the Sahara Desert, the Red Sea, crossing the Arabian peninsula, the Straight of Hormuz, and all the coastal land and winding up in Peking and Java?”

        Faunal exchange is understood in plio-pleistocene Africa along possible routes of migration with Eurasia, be it along the Nile, Lake Chad Basin or bab el Mandab. The presence of early paleolithic tools across Arabia reinforces this understanding.

        You state: “The fact is all “hominid” fossils are apes.”
        Correct, including humans. Again, hominid is such a broad term, as is hominin, it automatically includes humans by definition, whether you like it or not.

        You state: “There are no examples of hominid fossils that show the growth of a forehead that could house our large prefrontal cortex, the elimination of brow ridges, or the flattening of the jaws.”

        You do realize the evolution of human brains is incredibly complicated going through numerous different evolutionary paths? There’s literally an endocast for nearly every human fossil found to date. Irhoud 1, for example, shows some cranial development consistent with modern humans: [If physical and cognitive attributes have evolved separately in modern humans, it is not surprising to find geographically isolated populations, such as Jebel Irhoud, that display a subset of modern cranial traits while retaining non-modern brain morphology.] BRUNER et al 2012

        You state: “I put down the six possibilities you tried and failed to critique only to include ALL possibilities of skulls that had no forehead and small craniums.”

        1 and 5 (practically the same point) are a complete and utter farce. Destructive forces do not produce intermediate fossils.
        Point 2 does nothing to adress intermediate fossils and merely includes the notion of intermediates.
        Point 3 is just a wild accusation.
        Point 6 shows you don’t understand what the hell you’re talking about.

        You want me to list even more fossils?
        Iwo Eluru, Jebel Irhoud, Herto, Laetoli 18, Qafzeh 9, skhul 5, atapuerca, dmanisi, naledi, all of which demonstrate different skull dimensions, either in a nar-direct lineage to us, in a convergent evolutionary path, or in a different path all-together because the skull shape differs.

        You state: “The “handful of traits” and that you say I cherry picked that you criticize are the MOST important traits of the skulls of supposed pre-humans. ”
        What? The claim is simple: Is a specimen human or ape? Given humans are apes, it doesn’t matter in what variation your traits are found; because they’re already ape traits. It’s the unique combination of traits in a single specimen that determines *where* a specimen belongs within this clade.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You are obviously an uber-enthusiastic believer in evolution, and the evolution of man from apes. I love the notion that we are all apes. Laughable. But, amazingly believed by the gullible like you. See if you can come up with the differences between humans and the 650 ape species on Earth. I bet if you really sit down and think, I you can come up with lots if very unique differences. Peking man WAS four teeth for it’s first four years of existence. A little research will help you out here. Java man was just an ape cranium with large brow ridges. Added to by ape bones found in far distant locations like H. heidelbergensis and others. Can you imagine making an entire story and hominid out of just those few teeth and bones? That these guys migrated from Africa to the Peking area or Java is nothing but an absurd fable that you believe without question. So, good for you. It’s so ridiculous it’s not worth my time arguing. Sit down with Google Earth and try to come up with a survivable pathway for that absurd migration that there was no reason for in the first place. You won’t because you believe. I love H. nalidi, another huge fake that has you fooled. Try:https://evoillusion.org/51-homo-naledi-the-real-story/ on this blog if you want to see how fooled you are. But you don’t and won’t. You drank the Kool-aid, and there is no cure.

  6. Dennis Feenstra said,

    “You are obviously an uber-enthusiastic believer in evolution”
    My beliefs are irrelevant to the errors you make.

    “and the evolution of man from apes”
    We are apes, cladistically, whether or not we share a common ancestor.

    “See if you can come up with the differences between humans and the 650 ape species on Earth.”
    Why would I do that? Species specific variation is irrelevant to higher nests.

    “Java man was just an ape cranium with large brow ridges.”
    Yes it is. Humans are apes too. Funny how you switched from Gibbon (species) to ape, which is the correct classification for someone who does not understand the finer details which classify it amongst the Homo Genus:
    – Java man has a cranial capacity of 900cc,
    – its occipital bun is oriented like that of homo erectus, not like that of gibbons.
    – its frontal bone is clearly more rounded, both front to back.

    “Can you imagine making an entire story and hominid out of just those few teeth and bones? ”
    -> Humans are apes by definition.
    -> Species specific traits are population specific traits.
    -> All fossils from the Homo genus belong to populations that are intermediate to two extant species in the great ape clade.
    -> The only story to tell is which population lived when, and use their traits to explain which they are more closely aligned to anatomically. That’s it.

    “That these guys migrated from Africa to the Peking area or Java is nothing but an absurd fable that you believe without question. ”
    Mammals occupy nearly every terrestial location on Earth. You don’t seem to dedicate a website to those evil evolutionists arguing for massive mammalian dispersions based on fossil evidence? Gee, I wonder why.

    ” I love H. nalidi, another huge fake that has you fooled. ”

    Because you say so?
    Let’s see what you had to say:

    [Berger says that most paleontologists that dig for fossils will never even find a single hominid tooth; and that 80 to 90 percent of the hominid fossil record is composed of just bits of isolated teeth. Hominid fossils are incredibly rare. Berger knows the chance of Boshoff finding even a tooth is infinitesimal.]
    Most paleontologists don’t find fossils because they don’t explore areas that have yet to be explored: ie, caves. Berger sent Boshoff to find cave explorers and tell them to keep an eye on fossils. That’s it.

    [For some reason, Steve and Rick didn’t collect any of the loose bones. After they took the pictures, they squirmed their way back out of the cave. They excitedly showed the pictures to Boshoff, who immediately declared them to be hominid! ]
    Cavers were not told to *remove* fossils. They were told to find them. Just removing fossils destroys geologic context. Do you expect police officers to change things on a crime scene too? Furthermore, more equipment and personel were needed to accomplish this task than just two cavers with caver equipment only.

    Furthermore, it isn’t difficult to see that these specimens are clearly hominid. Especially for people who look at them for dozens of years.

    [After all, Berger didn’t know Steve and Rick at all. Berger and Boshoff were too physically big to enter the fossil chamber. They couldn’t even fit in the 10-inch tubular Superman’s Crawl. Steve and Rick could have surreptitiously gone back, and removed every fossil for their own keeping or controlling.]
    What? Why would they? Not everyone is as dishonest as creationists. What an incoherent rambling.

    [Berger took full command and control of the discovery, even though he had little to do with it. ]
    Actually yes he did. He made sure he could fund an entire team via National Geographic, and has actual experience and knowledge on hominid fossils.

    [He contacted National Geographic who funded an expedition that Steve and Rick had already accomplished.]
    Steve and Rick accomplished what Berger and Boshoff wanted them to do.

    [The last chore for the cave-o-nauts was to ever so carefully dig out the skull. (fig. 7-13) Why wasn’t it retrieved first? Wouldn’t it have been far more interesting to first see what story the skull had to tell about what kind of creatures left these bones?]
    What? Why does it matter? It’s not like bones run away or something. They can do in whatever the order they want it to do.

    [Did Homo naledis squeeze through the cave’s maze, in absolute darkness, and become trapped, and die inside the fossil chamber? Apes and monkeys don’t do things like that, so this is completely unlikely.]
    How do you know? Were you there?

    [Unfortunately, there are no fitted, naturally articulated, bony connections from the hands and feet directly to the skull, so it can only be assumed that they belong to the skull because they were found in the same chamber.]

    Of course they only belong to a single population. Nearly all bones were represented multiple times, and variation between each duplicate was nearly zero.

    Either you would have different species contributing a different type of bone and only that different type of bone, which is utterly ridiculous, or they all belong to the same population.

    Your rambling about Naledi was an utter waste of my time. You really need to learn to stop rambling and get on with your wild accusations.

    • Dennis Feenstra said,

      Correction
      From: Yes it is. Humans are apes too. Funny how you switched from Gibbon (species) to ape, which is the correct classification for someone who does not understand the finer details which classify it amongst the Homo Genus:

      To: Yes it is. Humans are apes too. Funny how you switched from Gibbons to apes, which are different levels of nests all-together. Ape is of course the correct classification for someone who does not understand the finer details which classify Java Man within the Homo Genus:

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Before you overcommit in a feeble attempt to make it look like I “don’t understand”, a trite and very dumb way of trying to make yourself look smart, do a little research. Java man was thought to be a large gibbon. The argument raged for several years until it was decided that the cranium was from a hominid for some strange reason. Isn’t it nice that your fellow believers can just “decide” that? Your homework for the day: Google Java man/gibbon. This might save you a little time: “Dubois (the discoverer of the cranium) argued that Java Man was shaped more like a gibbon than a human.” In case you don’t know, for some very strange reason Dubois dug in Java looking for hominid bones. The big question is why, since humans supposedly came out of Africa. What a one in a trillion dig. Did he know something? Or have something in his pocket?
        Human are apes too? Try going to South Chicago and make that announcement. The absurd notion is man-concocted, just as the entire fake science of evolution. You can choose to believe that nonsense if you like. Just like I can choose to believe llamas are giraffes if I want. I do choose to see “people are apes” for what it is,. Complete bullshit. Laughable bullshit. Along with birds are raptors and evolved from T. rex’s, and 78 species of whales evolved from a 20 lb. fox-like animal. See how many fables you have to believe and defend with all your might?

    • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

      Steve has a way of not addressing your rebuttals, and instead resorting to insults. Just take a read of our discussion and you’ll see.

      Don’t expect a civilized discussion from Stevebee92653.

      • Dennis Feenstra said,

        The moment he resorts to insults and starts deleting my comments, I know he has nothing to support his beliefs 😉
        Until then I’ll give him a chance to demonstrate he knows atleast something concerning paleoanthropology. So far I am not impressed by Steve. Not at all.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I don’t really give a shit if you are impressed by me. I am certainly not by you. You are here by your choice. You are just another run of the mill evolution indoctrinate who believes without question. Pretty sad. I also don’t delete comments or block people unless they are completely rude and worthless. The biggest laugher is “nothing to support his belief”. I have a blog you are on with 50+ pages of support. That matters not to you. No matter how well I prove that evolution is bullshit, you indoctrinates will continue to staunchly believe without the slightest bit of skepticism or questioning. A very gullible group of people. More gullible than any religious people I know

    • stevebee92653 said,

      And why did Little Red Riding Hood go see gramma by herself? She didn’t need to. But the fact is she did. Further, big bad wolves don’t eat grammas. But this wolf did. Nor do they put on grammas’ cape. But this wolf did. You can’t prove she didn’t. And you can’t dispute that fact because you weren’t there. How do you know the wolf didn’t eat gramma, and put on her cape to fool Little Red Riding Hood. You don’t know that for sure. You have no proof it didn’t happen.

  7. Steve Vowles said,

    Just a teeny point here, only having skimmed the OP.
    .
    “Since no vertebrate with a micro-brain is capable of making tools, ”
    .
    Leaving aside the fact that many mammals make tools, there is plenty of evidence that some Corvids are also toolmakers.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      And birds make nests which are far more complex than a stick or broken rock. And?

      • Steve Vowles said,

        And , yet again, you failed to address the point.
        “..no vertebrate with a micro-brain is capable of making tools.”
        Corvids make tools.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Right. I already corrected myself. Birds make nests which are tools. There you go. That proves that you are an ape. And you evolved from a single bacterium. You win.

    • Steve Vowles said,

      Nests aren’t tools.
      Hooks, however are tools.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        How fascinating. Well, whatever you think nests are, they are far more complex than hooks. Which means what in the scheme of things?

    • Steve Vowles said,

      You really are world class at getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.
      Nests are instinctive – building a nest, no matter how complicated does not require forward planning, just the repetition of a few simple steps. Making a hook from a straight piece of wire to solve a specific problem is much more demanding.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        World class? Thanks! I am just as impressed as you are about those hooks. But what’s your point? To find one statement that might be wrong? Do you want to argue bird hooks? Will birds eventually go to the moon and eventually make their own computers? I have no idea what your point is.

  8. Dennis Feenstra said,

    ” a trite and very dumb way of trying to make yourself look smart, do a little research. Java man was thought to be a large gibbon”
    Only by one man’s erroneous interpretations and lack of actual comparative anatomy. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gibbon.html

    “The argument raged for several years until it was decided that the cranium was from a hominid for some strange reason. ”
    There never was an actual argument. I’ve already stated a number of the obvious reasons why Java Man clearly is not a Gibbon. I can add another argument: The skull cap overlaps with every (nearly)complete Homo Erectus skull. Combined with the previous points, there is no reason to believe it is a gibbon.

    “The big question is why, since humans supposedly came out of Africa. What a one in a trillion dig. Did he know something? Or have something in his pocket?”
    Dubois was convinced humanity evolved in Asia, and when finding fossils of ancient hominids, he gave it an eroneous spin which was rejected by all scientists thereafter for the obvious reason: It’s clearly not a Gibbon.

    “Human are apes too? Try going to South Chicago and make that announcement. ”
    Do you think I care what emotional baggage laymen add to the Ape term? It doesn’t matter what you want to believe. Humans are apes by cladistic definition. All you’re doing is appealing to emotion whilst tap dancing around the fact.

    ” I do choose to see “people are apes” for what it is,. Complete bullshit. Laughable bullshit.”
    Your admission of being unable to actually adress anything I say, whilst you keep on emotionally appealing to how “bullshit” it is, without providing a shred of actual argument, data or evidence, is enough for me.

    “See how many fables you have to believe and defend with all your might?”
    Your conclusion of something being a fable relies on ignoring the argument, misrepresenting the argument, misrepresenting basic cladistics whilst appealing to conspiracy whenever no other argument holds any water.

    “I don’t really give a shit if you are impressed by me. I am certainly not by you”
    And yet you failed to adress anything I said directly. Tap dancing is all you did.

    ” You are just another run of the mill evolution indoctrinate who believes without question. Pretty sad. ”
    I think it’s sad your only method of attacking evolution concerns misrepresenting it. It’s kind of a creationist thing, I know.

    “I have a blog you are on with 50+ pages of support. ”
    If those 50+ pages are as bad as this one and your Naledi rambling, It’ll be some comedy gold; that’s for sure.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      You should let Dubois know that Dennis doesn’t think his discovery is a gibbon. He or his descendants will certainly be happy to hear that. My research says there was a debate, you say not. Ho hum. Your “only one man” thought it was a gibbon was the discoverer. Not just “one man”. You’ve “already stated” it’s not a gibbon? HAR HAR HAR You think you are really that important?
      Cladistics are groups of animals put together by man. Ergo anyone can say anything, group anything. Eye of the beholder. And if enough people believe/accept, it becomes fact. Believe what you want. I will think you’re an ape if that’s what you want, so all is good.
      Ah, so Dubois mistakenly dug where there were no hominids and came up with… a hominid! Odds of one in trillions. And another fable for you to believe. How amazing.

      • Dennis Feenstra said,

        You seem to be very, very desperate. Steve, Dubois supported human evolution. His views on it being a Gibbon is irrelevant when they’re demonstrably wrong. Steve, what you’re doing is an appeal to authority; an authority that uses [demonstrably false] arguments. I don’t care for authorities. I care for demonstrable evidence.

        Feel free to refute the following rebuttal. Java Man is not a Gibbon.
        – Java man has a cranial capacity of 900cc,
        – its frontal bone is clearly more rounded, both front to back.
        _ Its brow ridges are characteristic of Erectine skulls.
        – its occipital bun is oriented like that of homo erectus, not like that of gibbons.
        – The skull cap is a perfect match for any near complete homo erectus skull. It’s far from a perfect match for any gibbon skull. Demonstrate the flaws in my argument. Use actual evidence whilst doing so.

        “Cladistics are groups of animals put together by man. Ergo anyone can say anything, group anything. ”
        You can’t just group anything in whatever way you want. All members of the mammalian clade are all eukaryotes, all vertebrates, all tetrapods, all Synapsids, all mammaliaforms. There are no exceptions. All organisms are claded in nested sets. No exceptions.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Desperate? What a laugh. You are pure entertainment for me while I watch USC football. I am so far ahead of you it’s a joke. I made two videos that answer your “challenges”. On my first page here. Hominid skulls are just assembled ape skulls or models. Compare H. erectus (1 MYO) craniums with the A. ramidus cranium. (3 MYO) They are the same, and both are in my vids. There is no sign of a human cranium/forehead forming. If you want to believe there is, which you will, fine with me. My suggestion: get yourself some skepticism. Quit being so gullible.
        BTW, For your 900cc. hominid cranium to evolve to a 1400 cc. human cranium evolution would have to create 500,000 new brain neurons per generation, plus 500,000 glial cells, plus billions of dendrite connections, plus hundreds of feet of blood vessels, a larger cranium/forehead via thousands of new osteocytes to house the growing prefrontal cortex, plus, plus… I’m certain before you even respond you believe that happened. No question. And you will challenge me to “Prove it didn’t happen. You weren’t there. So how do you know.”

  9. Dennis Feenstra said,

    “On my first page here. Hominid skulls are just assembled ape skulls or models. Compare H. erectus (1 MYO) craniums with the A. ramidus cranium. (3 MYO) They are the same, and both are in my vids. ”

    How about this. I’ve got them in 3D. Like literally in 3D. All of them. Australopithecus, Erectus, Heidelbergensis. I can overlap them in mere seconds when I get on my main PC tomorrow.

    Still wanna claim they’re the same?

    “get yourself some skepticism. ”
    If skepticism equates to your misrepresentations and lies, then no, thanks.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Oh. Wow. 3D? Curses. Who made the models? Mattel? I notice you DO think evolution made all of those human brain parts and cells, since you skipped commenting. BTW, heidelbergensis was another fake; just a mandible. Added to by bones from far distant locations. You wasted your money.

      • Dennis Feenstra said,

        Okay, Steve, Buddy.
        -> 3D models are accurate lasser scanning results. They’re not made by hand. They contain millions of polygons. You don’t do that by hand.

        -> Yes, I did skip something. Maybe you haven’t noticed, Steve, but you’ve skipped nearly everything I said. I am not going to follow your random gish-gallop arguments and adress every single little thing you can possibly think of. I am already off topic by choosing to adress your nonsensical claims about erectine and ardipithecus skulls being identical.

        You’re like every creationist out there. Get challenged on your original claims, ignore the counter arguments, throw in a bunch of unrelated arguments as a diversion, scream “Victory” when your opponent doesn’t adress one of the diversion arguments.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You don’t have any counter arguments.” Identical”? Did I say that? Gish-gallop? Wow. “Discussing” with people like you is a hopeless endeavor. You believe a man-concocted fable, the greatest scientific scam in history. And you believe all of it, 100%, absolutely. Without question. Lock step. I find that so interesting. The fact that you can’t even consider a question about your belief is astounding. You either avoid answers, (the fantastic increase in brain cells, et al, being huge and avoided by you) or come up with answers you make up. Then you say I don’t answer. This blog is full of answers, as are my vids. So I don’t repeat stuff in my replies that I have already addressed. Have you ever discussed with someone that adamantly believes the flood and Noah and his wooden boat? Discussing with you is exactly the same. You both believe preposterous fables and never question.

      • Dennis Feenstra said,

        “BTW, heidelbergensis was another fake; just a mandible.”
        Really? Just a mandible? Huh. So that’s why there are a few dozen heidelberg skulls, mandibles and skeletal fragments from Atapuerca?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Really. Stick with me, Dennis, I will educate you. The only bone found at the Heidelberg site by a gravel pit worker was a large mandible that fit no other bones. The rest of the bones were munched together from vastly different locations in Europe and Africa. You can do the research yourself. See how they fool you?

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        “Really. Stick with me, Dennis, I will educate you. The only bone found at the Heidelberg site by a gravel pit worker was a large mandible that fit no other bones. The rest of the bones were munched together from vastly different locations in Europe and Africa. You can do the research yourself. See how they fool you?”

        Citations Please !!! 🤦🏽

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        ” You either avoid answers, (the fantastic increase in brain cells, et al, being huge and avoided by you) or come up with answers you make up.”

        We already went over this “fantastic increase” in brain size Steve. I showed you that your “fantastic” numbers were not so fantastic. I discussed how dogs evolved varying brain sizes, and craniums to match. Then you outright denied that dogs are related (never explained why).

        That’s why I then asked you if bears are related (as shown in your blog), but you never answered the question. They too a varying brain and cranium sizes. So if you accept that they are related ,then you will also have to accept that brain size and cranial shape can change as well.

        So the original question comes again: Are Polar bears, Brown bears, and Panda bears related????

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You keep proving me right about you. In answering the question of evolution being able to increase on average (I emphasize “on average” because that’s a concept you have trouble with) the brain size of hominids by adding 500,000 neurons, 500,000 glial cells, hundreds of feet of blood vessels, billions of dendrite connections, intelligence and consciousness per generations… you answer by telling me dogs have different size brains. And you think that’s an answer. There is no point at all in discussing with you for the same reason I said before. You have no idea what you don’t know or how bad your answers are.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Again with the big numbers. For example, just by adding a kilogram or so of fat, your body produces an additional 7 Miles of blood vessels to “feed” it. So its not so “impressive” to hear that hundreds of feet of blood is needed on average per generation to accomplish human evolution.

        Same goes for the glial cells, and the neurons. An average of 500K per generation is less than 0.002% increase per generation. When taken into consideration that the variation in brain size (number of cells etc) amount modern adult humans can vary around 10%, an increase of about 0.002% per generation is not impossible.

        Just calling large numbers mean nothing unless you can contrast it with what is possible,…… Only then you can argue that its impossible.

    • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

      Lol I told you guys Stevebee92653 was a special case 😂.

      He is not going to answer any direct questions, nor is he going to use any data or give citations to back ANY of his arguments.
      He thinks citing his own work counts as valid refutation of established science.

      If you disagree with him, he calls you “stupid” “uneducated” “indoctrinated”.

      But its fun to see others taking a crack at exposing his “arguments” for what they really are 💩💩💩.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Well you are stupid, uneducated, and indoctrinated. And you are still here? Why? It’s fun for you to see other indoctrinated losers? I can’t imagine why.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        “(ADHOM): Ad hominem attack. A personal attack on a questioner. Usually used when an evolutionaut is defending his position, and he is asked a question he can’t answer.”

        Cut the name calling Steve.

        Can we get back to our discussion on the “population paradox” please.

        You never really explained in detail WHY you think this “population paradox” its a problem for evolution, and HOW it will affect it.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Read p. 33, 33a

  10. Dennis Feenstra said,

    You say: “You don’t have any counter arguments.” Identical”? Did I say that?”
    Fine. “Same”. The point is, they’re not “the same”, and they do demonstrate numerous ways in which they are transitional between chimpanzees and modern day humans.

    You say: “You either avoid answers, (the fantastic increase in brain cells, et al, being huge and avoided by you) or come up with answers you make up.”
    Maybe you’ve got short term memory, but I’ve already stated by I’ve ignored that question. On the other hand, you’ve ignored practically everything I said. Scroll up and see how much you deliberately ignored. Oh, and you even said this to someone else:

    [1. What’s truly funny is you are overtly cocky when you don’t know shit.
    2. You have no idea what my points are, what the discussion is, no matter how many times I try to explain. You skip to another subject when you get stuck.]

    Steve. You ignored me trying to explain cladistics. Yes, humans are apes by definition. No rebuttal.

    You ignored all the rebuttals I gave to your six points. None of them are even remotely plausible. No rebuttal.

    You continue to claim Java Man is a gibbon. I gave you a handful of points that utterly refute it. I challenged you to debunk those points. No rebuttal.

    You then use diversion tactics to move onto brain development, and comparing erectine and ardipithecine skulls.

    Sounds like you’re a bit hypocritical there, Steve. You are quite cocky yourself when you don’t know what you’re talking about. You then skip to another subject when I repeat myself and ask you to directly answer it.

    [Really. Stick with me, Dennis, I will educate you. The only bone found at the Heidelberg site by a gravel pit worker was a large mandible that fit no other bones.]

    Do you know how type specimens work? The mandible was clearly human (genus). Remember the posterior dental arches? That’s not a trait variation associated between apes and humans, but a trait variation specific to the homo genus.

    The type specimen was clearly homo genus, but it didn’t fit ANY modern human population. Reisetagebuch eines Fossils: [“The anatomy is clearly more primitive than that of Neanderthal, but the harmoniously rounded dental arch and the complete row of teeth…already typically human.”]

    Do you know this neat thing called comparative anatomy? You can find more specimens and compare them! Oh hey, Atapuercans were quite closely related to the Heidelbergensis type specimen!

    But let’s say we didn’t have the Heidelberg mandible, and instead called them Homo Atapuerca? Now you’ve got to find a new excuse, Steve.

    • Dennis Feenstra said,

      Correction: “That’s not a trait variation associated between apes and humans, but a trait variation specific to the homo genus.”

      Should be: “That’s not a trait variation to differentiate between apes and humans; but a trait variation to clarify genus.”

    • stevebee92653 said,

      “Yes, humans are apes by definition. No rebuttal.” No rebuttal? Then what’s the point in “discussing”? You know all, and that’s it. Your rebuttals to my “six possibilities” have been absolutely verified by… you. So what would you like me to do? Restate them? They stand even though you have declared yourself 100% right. I wrote them as possibilities for bone/fossil finds not considered by evolution “scientists”. You can add #7: They came from early ape/humans. The least likely by light years is #7.
      So a guy found a mandible in a gravel pit in Heidelberg. You are certain that is sure evidence that we evolved from apes. Great. If you want to be that easy, I can’t help you. This site is for people who have the ability to question their beliefs, which you 100% don’t.

      • Dennis Feenstra said,

        “No rebuttal? Then what’s the point in “discussing”? You know all, and that’s it.”

        Had you been right you would’ve been able to demonstrate why I am wrong. It wouldn’t have mattered what I said since you had evidence.

        “Your rebuttals to my “six possibilities” have been absolutely verified by… you.”

        Point 1 & 5: Are you willing to support your OWN argument that pressure, decomposition and other destructive forces are capable of non-uniformly changing fossils in such a way, it changes some distinct characteristics in the bone shape and structure, producing fossils at intermediate stages of an expected evolutionary pattern?

        Here are my counter arguments:
        – Permineralized bones are so fragile, they’re more likely to break and cut whilst experiencing pressure.
        – Pressure produced by sedimenation doesn’t mold things like you would mold clay with your hands. If it were to ‘mold’ a skull, it would non-uniformly change its entire shape like stamping on a tin can.
        – Pressure will not change/replace some derived features for some features found in a sister clade or in a clade intermediate between the two. Even less likely is pressure doing this symmetrically on both sides of the skull, many times in the exact same way as to produce intraspecies variation within a number of fossil skulls found.

        Point 2: Explain how this point excludes extinct populations intermediate in anatomy between two extant populations.

        Point 3: Demonstrate any shred of evidence of foul play concerning hundreds of discoveries made by dozens and dozens of paleontologists, cavers and amateurs.

        Point 4: Explain in detail why expert paleoanthropologists would mistake non-primate bones for primate bones. Give examples of this happening and explain what animal the fossils belong to.

        Point 6: Explain how genetic diseases, like microphaly, reducing brain and cranium growth, somehow maintain all other modern sapiens features, whilst in all fossil skulls microphaly magically replaced those modern day features with archaic features entirely absent in modern day human skulls. There are no genetic diseases that turn modern human skulls into neanderthal, heidelberg or naledi skulls.

        Also feel free to explain how genetic diseases, which become more prominent in large population sizes, somehow ran rampant in small ancient populations 600,000 – 200,000 years ago.

        ” So what would you like me to do? Restate them? ”
        If you’re so sure they’re valid explanations, you wouldn’t be able to wait to demonstrate how valid and relevant they are. Since you don’t and admit the only thing you can do is restate them, it shows really how little faith you have in them to begin with.

        “You can add #7: They came from early ape/humans. The least likely by light years is #7.”

        What about #8 There existed a population of apes that was morphologically intermediate to modern day man and chimpanzee, without stating anything on their common ancestry? Admittedly, that would be the same as point 2, although more specifically phrased.

        How is point 7 LESS likely than random destructive forces incapable of molding something intelligently somehow shaping fossil skulls into entirely different species profiles? How is it less likely than elaborate hoaxes for which no evidence exists? How is it less likely than genetic diseases that don’t give the results you’re looking for? It boggles the mind.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Pressure and decomposition reshaping a skull into something else exists only in your mind, not on my list. Like your “identical”.
        Foul play/hoaxes: Nebraska man, H. nalidi, Piltdown man, Peking tooth-man, Heidelberg jaw, Java cranium man, headless Lucy, P. boisei with its sagittal crest… All of them actually.
        You have a major misconception Dennis. You think I give a shit what you think of my research and writing. I don’t. You are way too far programmed by your evo-trainers to have any chance of openly comprehending what I write. Feel free to read here all you want. Or to move on to some other site.

      • Dennis Feenstra said,

        You say: “exists only in your mind, not on my list”
        LOL. Look below.
        “Evo-illusionists declare nearly every ape-like bone and tooth dug out of the dirt to be a human precursor. Are there other possibilities that scientist should consider when fossils of supposed sub-humans are found?”

        “(1) It’s a modern ape skeleton that was damaged by moisture, pressure, and chemical decomposition.”
        “(5) They’re ancient bones of a true human that were crushed, broken, or disturbed in a way that makes them seem a like a human precursor.”

        Not on on your list, bahahahaha! Still no defence or evidence provided for your absurd six points.

        You say: “Foul play/hoaxes: Nebraska man, H. nalidi, Piltdown man, Peking tooth-man, Heidelberg jaw, Java cranium man, headless Lucy, P. boisei with its sagittal crest… All of them actually.”

        Good, now provide actual evidence they’re the product of hoaxes and foul play. I’ll wait. ACTUAL evidence, mind you.

        You say: “You have a major misconception Dennis. You think I give a shit what you think of my research and writing. I don’t. ”
        Of course you don’t. You’re just writing books to make money. You prefer a distortion of reality over providing actual facts.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Stupid response. Get some reading comprehension. And your BAHAHA bullshit is desperate and trite, done by so many gullible evo-believers. I would give that one up. I have an idea for you. Read my book, or do some serious research yourself. My book has all the references you need. I’m sure you won’t because that would be blaspheme in your religion. So do your own research. Quit begging for me to do it for you.

      • Dennis Feenstra said,

        And I will predict that the only solid evidence you’ll provide is
        – for Piltdown Man, an early 20th century hoax. Which by the way, was uncovered by scientists themselves as Piltdown was an outlier compared to all other fossil finds.

        – Or maybe you’ll quote Nebraska man; a misidentification, again, from the early 20th century, properly identified as peccary instead by scientists. Ergo, not a hoax or foul play.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Piltdown was the lead hominid, and an obvious hoax for almost half of a century. Nebraska man was just a single tooth, touted as the first hominid in North America. It only failed when the rest of the skeleton was found. It was a pig. But evos were so hungry for ANYTHING they could call a hominid that they fell for both. Which is still the case. H. nalidi is another hoax. Peking man with four teeth, Java man with just a cranium…. All hominids are fakes. They are all “evolved” by artists and modelers who transform ape bones into hominids so the gullible like you can believe.

      • Dennis Feenstra said,

        Steve once again, confirming something I predicted. The only statements provided was one confirmed hoax from the early 20th century, and a misindetification from the early 20th century.

        Steve, can you tell me what year it is? Can you tell me about how long the internet has existed? How long commercial airliners have existed? Can you tell me how young paleoanthroplogy was at the start of the 20th century?

        You’d might be surprised these three points are why you won’t find many more hoaxes of hominids or serious misinterpretations today.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Oh, they’re all hoaxes, Dennis. You think long lists will overwhelm me? Typical strategy of evo-indoctrinates. When the head of the New York Museum of Natural History saw the pig’s tooth, his response was, “Yep, that’s a hominid for sure!”. Or words to that effect. A pig’s tooth. What a laugh. Gee, of the two, which was the confirmed hoax and which was misidentified? The horribly assembled ape bones with Shinola shoe polish and teeth ground down with an electric drill? Or the pig’s tooth. This is a great science. Piltdown made all the paleo textbooks as a real human precursor for half of a century. The caveman concocted from the pig’s tooth made many front pages throughout the world. That ought to give you an idea of how honest your religion really is.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        No, the Smithsonian makes hoaxes regularly. Millions in taxpayer dollars are spent on these hoaxes. Right here in the 21st Century! In the United States! Really, these are worse than the Piltdown and Nebraska hoaxes. Just think. The Smithsonian, the most respected museum in the world. Fooling Dennis and his fellow gullibles. Amazing. Be sure and watch this vid:

      • Dennis Feenstra said,

        In case you won’t figure it out:
        – A lack of knowledge in paleoanthroplogy; that being a field early in development, is much easier fooled.
        – The internet allows for incredibly fast sharing of all the details in something need called a scientific journal.
        – Commercial airlines allows for paleontologists to travel and see the fossils themselves, rather than rely on the local paleontologists.

        We’re no longer in the early 20th century Steve. If you hadn’t noticed.

      • Dennis Feenstra said,

        ” All hominids are fakes.”
        That’s an interesting statement. All you’ve done is repeat the early 20th century hoax and the early 20th century misidentification. Please provide evidence why the following fossils are hoaxes and fake:

        -> Apidima Cranium
        -> Atapuerca fossils
        -> Balanica Mandible
        -> Crepano Cranium
        -> Gruta da Aoeira Cranium
        -> Mauer Mandible
        -> Petralona Skull
        -> Steinheim Skull
        -> Tautavel Arago XXI
        -> Dmanisi Skulls
        -> Kocabas Cranium
        -> Nadaouiyeh Erectus
        -> Zuttiyeh specimen
        -> Dali Man
        -> Denisovan
        -> Dongzi Man
        -> Floresiensis
        -> Hexian Man
        -> Java Man
        -> Jinnuishan Man
        -> Lantian Man
        -> Maba Cranium
        -> Mojokerto child
        -> Nanjing Man
        -> Narmada Valley Skull
        -> Peking Man
        -> Sambungmacan cranium
        -> Yunxian skull
        -> Little Foot (Australopithecus)
        -> Sediba (Australopithecus)
        -> AL 288-1 (Lucy)
        -> DIK-1-1
        -> KSD-VP-1-1
        -> STW 431
        -> STW 573
        -> KNM-WT 40000
        -> Taung
        -> Paranthropus
        -> Ardipithecus

        Demonstrate for each and every single one, along with in-depth detailed analysis on why each and every single one of these is according to you a hoax. Surely you don’t want to deceive your audience and not present evidence for this extraordinary claim of yours? And why hide the evidence of these being a hoax? Just share it here, with everyone.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Every single one on this list is on my list of 1 through 6. They amazingly have you so fooled. But that’s OK. There are millions of you out there, horribly fooled just like you are. You have lots of company. Every one of these bones is represented in my vid, How to Tell the Difference Between Human and Hominid Skulls. It’s on page one of this blog. I’m sure you didn’t watch because you keep coming up with the same nonsense.

  11. Dennis Feenstra (Grudge) said,

    “Every single one on this list is on my list of 1 through 6. They amazing1ly have you so fooled.”

    Because you say so? I asked you to show evidence steve. You are making an extraordinary claim. Surely you dont want to dissapoint your audience. Go through each one and demonstrate why it is either 1 through 6.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      How about you doing it? Oh, I forgot, according to Dennis, every bone or bone chip or tooth is a hominid for certain that proves humans evolved from apes.

      • Dennis Feenstra said,

        Doing what? Prove they’re fakes? Why would I?
        Prove they’re real? I’ve read all the reports, studied all the 3D scans, looked at their geologic context. All the information is available at your fingertips. There are no inconsistencies in their stories, no major errors in their assessments, no inherently faulty reconstructions.

        ” every bone or bone chip or tooth is a hominid for certain that proves humans evolved from apes.”
        I don’t even need to claim that. Every skeleton, partial skeleton, cranium, skull, pelvic region, teeth and set of stone tools attributed to the homo genus and australopithecus genus belong definitively to hominins unique from chimpanzees and unique from modern day humans, yet intermediate to both in some ways or more. I do not make any claims yet on their actual genetic relationship. It’s this pattern of similarity that scares you already, and I’ve yet to discuss homology. You’re hilarious.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        And you’re gullible.

      • Dennis Feenstra said,

        Still waiting on providing evidence they’re fakes and part of a hoax. Come on then, Steve. The peer review literature provides extensive evidence that challenges your claims. Maybe one of your cult followers can give some evidence?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I love peer reviewed papers! Check out: 5. Mountains of Peer Reviewed Papers: a Big Part of the Hoax

      • Dennis Feenstra said,

        Where is the evidence, Steve? Where is your evidence? You’ve made claims, now back them up. We can play this back and forth forever if you want to, but you’re the one stalling.

  12. stevebee92653 said,

    Forever? What a laugh.You don’t have that option. You are way past the boring stage. You have to verify your fable, that a bunch of dug up broken ape bones proves we evolved from apes. I have nothing to prove. One thing for sure is I am amazed that you, just an ape, have the ability to write such complex stuff! I think a TV special is in order.

    • Dennis Feenstra said,

      So you have no evidence. All I needed to know.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Let me get this straight. You are on my blog, with 54 pages and dozens of videos choc full of evidence, and you want me, in a tiny comment, to “give you evidence”? What a laugh. If this isn’t the most stupid comment I have ever had, I don’t know what is. Stunted is a genius compared to you. You indoctrinates are crazy. Your brain synapses have been permenantly blocked, sadly. And there is no cure. Sorry. Bye

      • stevebee92653 said,

    • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

      Not a single citation to back up his arguments. Not a single measurement to show that the models made by the Smithsonian was fraudulent. I guess Steve thinks superimposed photos with no respect to scale or angle, constitutes a valid argument. Unless you, or any other ID\creation proponent go out there and actually MEASURE these specimens and the models made off them, to show that fraudulent work is taking place at the Smithsonian…… I for one will not take your worthless arguments seriously.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Why would you think I would want someone as indoctrinated and naive as you to take my arguments seriously? What a laugh.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        More name calling…… No evidence.

        You’re like a child .
        Is that how you want to go about taking down established science?

  13. stevebee92653 said,

    Let me get this straight. You are on my blog, with 54 pages and dozens of videos choc full of evidence, and you want me, in a tiny comment, to “give you evidence”? What a laugh. If this isn’t the most stupid comment I have ever had, I don’t know what is. Dennis is a genius compared to you. You indoctrinates are crazy. Your brain synapses have been permenantly blocked, sadly. And there is no cure. Sorry. Bye

    • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

      No one cares how much content one has, its the quality of it. Your arguments are all fundamentally flawed. We tried pointing it out to you, but you don’t seem to care.

      For example, I’ve shown you how the head of Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy) was reconstructed,…… But instead of pointing to where YOU think extra cranium was added, you simply tried to insult me again.

      See here: https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=104927097135715&id=100028552740456&set=p.104927097135715&source=48

      So if you’re unwilling or unable to show where you think extra cranium was added in the reconstruction shown, and/or to give actual measurements showing that extra cranium was added to the model……. Then your argument is pointless.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        OK, Stunted, I made a page just for you. Actually more for the fun of it. I knew how this would turn out. This page will answer your laughable challenge. I’m sure you will come up with excuses galore. You can do this exercise yourself, and check my work if you have the ability, which I doubt.
        https://evoillusion.org/53-a-picture-for-emotionally-stunted/

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        This isn’t even worth the long response I had planned for it.

        Do YOU see any cranium being added there Stevebee92653???
        Or is that jaw muscles??
        What happened, you can’t tell the difference??

        I challenged you to show where extra CRANIUM was being added to the model. The CRANIUM remained the same. They added JAW MUSCLES, not CRANIUM.

        I guess if you see a gorilla skull and model, you will make the same silly argument.

        I’m definitely going to share this shit.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Ah, so you can’t even see the extra cranium added? What a laugh. They added big fat jaw muscles? Feel your own head and see how fat your temporalis muscles are. You are blinded by your belief. If the cranium were 100% larger you wouldn’t see it. Or 200%. It matters not, which makes discussion with you an absurd waste of time. Every person I showed your montage to immediately saw the cheating without me having to place the skull over the second step. It’s so goddam obvious. You didn’t understand population problems, you can’t see gross cranium fraud in your own picture. You can’t question. You only believe. Sad.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Muscles is not added cranium. You still fail to show where extra CRANIUM was added. Whoever you showed it to (which I doubt you did) can’t tell the difference between cranium and jaw muscles. And large jaw muscles is more of an ape feature, not a human one.

        Its like you looking at a gorilla skull next to a model and saying “hey hey hey, look how they added cranium to make the Gorilla head look larger”.
        No idiot, the gorilla head is much larger than the skull because it has large jaw muscles…… And the same goes for Lucy.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Bye again Stunted. Thanks for the fun. You really don’t know enough to hold a good argument. BTW, where did you get your montage? I added a bit to your page. Feel free to have a look.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Still blocked.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        OK unblocked. Anyway.

        Humans are apes by definition, regardless of if we are related to other apes or not. In the same way we are mammals, and in the same way we are vertebrates.
        We are apes by derivation as well, as evidenced by our physiological and molecular similarities…. But not just the similarities, but the patterns of the similarities.

        And who said T-Rex evolved into Birds? What?
        Please quote competent evolutionary biologist saying anything to that effect.

        Or did you just made that up yourself?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        So I guess we can conclude you are incapable of googling “T. rex evolved into birds”?

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        I said quote a biologist saying so.
        Seems like you have difficulty answering basic questions.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        So just to make my self crystal clear…… Quote any Evolutionary Biologist or Paleontologist making the claim, or supporting the idea that “T-Rex evolved into birds”.

        I’m getting tired of you making claim after claim, without a single citation to back them up. #Note: citing yourself as a source doesn’t count.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You are getting tired? HAR HAR HAR You’re really fun.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Steve just prove the quote please thanks.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        The only problem is there is no such thing as a “competent evolutionary biologist” any more than there is a competent alchemist.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        It doesn’t matter how competent you think they are/aren’t

        Quote an evolutionary biologist making the claim and or supporting the idea that “T-Rex evolved into birds”.

        …… Because if no evolutionary biologist ever made this claim, then you’re not arguing against evolution, ….you’re only arguing against your misunderstanding of it.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Anyway, let’s not get off topic. Where did you get the idea that “T-Rex evolved into birds”?

        Cite a source or quote a biologist saying so.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Here you go Stunted. I can’t wait to see how you slither out of this one, which I am 100% sure you will try. “Oh, there were many species in between. See, T. rex didn’t evolve into birds.” Or, “See, the lines aren’t direct…” Or… Which one will you use? I can’t wait to see.
        https://evoillusion.org/53-a-picture-for-emotionally-stunted/

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        I said provide a quote. You have a Cladogram with no QUOTES and or CITATIONS. Not even a God damn link to where the picture came from.

        So one more time:
        QUOTE any Evolutionary Biologist or Paleontologist making the claim, or supporting the idea that “T-Rex evolved into birds”.

        Thank you.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        “T. Rex’s evolved into birds”- Richard Dawkins

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Still can’t seem to find the source of that quote. Too small of an excerpt.
        Quote me the entire paragraph of that excerpt, and or give a link to where it came from.
        Thank you.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Managed to track down the source of the cladogram you presented (I could bet you never cared to read the source).
        Other than the misleading title that was not written by an Evolutionary biologist nor Paleontologist, nowhere does it indicate that “T-Rex evolved into birds”. It said they are distant relatives, and thats it.
        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/dinosaurs/11122181/Graphic-How-Tyrannosaurus-rex-evolved-into-modern-bird.html

        Still can’t track down the Dawkins quote. Please provide the paragraph it was taken from, and cite the source of it. Thank you.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You actually tracked it down! Pretty impressive Stunted. I thought you couldn’t google. But alas, you CAN! And DISTANT relatives? Like maybe T. rex is a great great uncle of birds? This stuff just gets more interesting all the time. Well we all came from one single bacteria, so that’s amazing too. What’s more amazing is you believe it.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Quote paragraph please. Thank you.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Can’t seem to find that quote at all. Is this an actual quote, or are you just being a lying piece of shit?

        Please provide the paragraph and source of this quote, or admit that no Evolutionary biologist or Paleontologist agrees with your claim that “T-Rex evolved into birds”.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Well, Stunted. You just got blocked. I told you if you want to comment here, you have to have good manners. You just went way over the line. It’s far from your first time. I’ve been very patient with you, and nice. Evolution is one big fable, Stunted. I regard you like you believe Alice in Wonderland and argue it to the death. “Show me an Alice expert, and quote him saying the rabbit went down the hole.” The lines on a clade don’t matter. They are just put there by fable makers who decide which animals to use and where to put the lines. Just like the Smithsonian makes fake hominid models because they don’t exist in reality. You believe everything. I really hate to block anyone, but you knew the rules. Bye. By the way, my Dawkins quote was bullshit, but you are so serious and indoctrinated you can’t figure out when your chain is being pulled. Adios

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Block me .I don’t care.
        I will just send company over.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Anyway…..still waiting on you to show an evolutionary biologist that supports the idea that “T-Rex evolved into birds”.

        Or did you make that silly claim up just as you did with the Dawkins quote?

        Just forget it. No one said that, hence you cant prove it…so you’re criticizing your self.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        We really did stray from the original argument which was the “population paradox”. I remembered asking if Polar bears, brown bears and panda bears are related….. You never answered.

        So the question again: Are the bears related? And how do YOU tell?

      • Steve Vowles said,

        There you go again, waving the stick while firmly gripping the wrong end.
        The diagram you offer [“T. rex Was Ancestral to Birds (From the University of Edinburg):”] clearly shows that T.rex shares a common ancestor with birds, but was in no way ancestral to birds.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Ah. How fascinating. The whole thing is a fable. So any way you want your fable is fine with me.

  14. John Haithwaite said,

    Having read the first sentence I stopped reading as it was, simply, a lie. Scientists do NOT claim that we evolved “from” Apes. We are Apes, cousins to Chimps, Gorillas etc.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Oh, boy. I’m glad you stopped reading. You think you are an ape because someone said you were. I would hate to spoil your naivety. Good move.

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Organisms are grouped by their shared derived characters or synapomorphies. For example, an onion and a garlic are both Allium (genus) based on their shared characters. Same goes for humans and other apes.

        But oh I forgot, only when Stevebee92653 APPROVES a classification it is valid.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I approve that you are an ape Stunted. So we agree! Finally!

  15. Nick Hendley said,

    Wow, that is 15 minutes I will never see again.

    Stevebee: The arrogance of ignorance. Many thanks for proving a point for me

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Gee, I wish I could give back the 15 minutes. What kept you reading if it was arrogant and ignorant? I LOVE broad generalizations.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: