The Peking Man

I was watching a documentary last night on the national geographic channel entitled "Peking Man, humanity's missing link". The program's angle was that the remains of that prehistoric human were possibly the missing link in the evolutionary theory.

What surprised me was that the remains were apparently and very conveniently went missing and only copies of the bones remain today. Here is a discovery that could possibly prove the theory of evolution and it went missing!

Do you believe it was the missing link or something different like a species that could not possibly be categorised to conform to the theory?

More likely a hoax, just to try to fill a gap. Makes it impossible to say its a hoax when theres no original to examine. Typical tatic for evolution theory. And before the flaming starts, no, I'm not christian or anything of the sort. But I do find Darwin's theory to be downright insulting to any intelligent human being. Anyone who truly believe it either needs to educate themselves outside of the dogma, or need to learn to think in the first place. Diversify your knowledge of science, and you will see how disgusting it is to have such a lie perpetrated to us all. oh, and btw....I'm done ranting now!

I don't agree with Darwin's theory either, it just baffles me how such a prominent find can just be lost and only copies of the fragments exist, there is one in the States with the Museum of History.

I forget the date for peking man, and also for the loss of the artifacts. If you know, please provide. Also, I swear I read something not too long ago about the discoverer saying they were a hoax or some such? perhaps I am mistaken?

they discovered it in 1923. The documentary had this "expert" from this American Museum who apparently had made a replica of the skull remains. He indicated that according to the skull the Peking Man was human in characteristics but neither homo sapiens or homo erectus, the species in between.

it looked to be too easy. Evolutionists needed the missing link and they find it in China. At the time it was found also, China was in turmoil. If I remember correctly from the program, this Canadian was in charge of the digging. It had his great grandson on talking about it last night.

Ahh, Peking man...Sinanthropus pekinensis.

It is considered fortunate that the man who made the replicas did so. The original fossils were enroute to the USA around 1941 when it is believed the boat the were on was sunk. The fossils are there, somewhere on the bottom of the Pacific most likely. There was a little bit of a war going on.
The replicas were exact replicas down to the colour, weight, balance.
Weidenreich made them I think...

I'll have to find my Anthro text books.

Brilliant! Do you think that find is truly the missing link in evolutionary theory or just a glorified homo erectus, used to support Darwin's theory by evolutionists?

I think evoloution is bull plop.

I agree with Natural selection, Survival of the fittest and Adaptation, but as far as one species changing into a entierly different species is bull plop as far as I am concerned.

Agree, species do not evolve into completely different species. Evolution can only go as far as to explain the formation of sub species. Survival of the fittest is prevalent everywhere in nature. Weather paterns change, food sources change, if a species cannot adapt it becomes extint. It does not transform to a new species.

One interesting thing about the cave that the bones/fossils were found in is that in the mid to late 1990's studies have made the Peking man much less impressive then believed.

Steve Weiner's studies showed that anf fire in the cave was burnt after fossilization, The ash layers weren't really ash, hearths were holes made by water, and also at their time the only enterance to the cave would have been a vertical shaft "It wouldn't have been a shelter, it would have been a trap" Alison Brooks.

Essentials of Physical Anthropology 5th editition published by Wadsworth.

The problem would be, if the find was a hoax, it is now a matter of national pride for the chinese, as they view the Peking Man as their ancestor. It would be a very brave scientist to go, dig and later dispute a chinese national treasure. It is all politics when it comes to ancient history. Many of these politicians forget that nationalism was non existent with the ancients.

I think you'll find there's many missing links in Darwin's theory. In any case, more often than not, the ancestorship of one species to another is generally inferred by fitting the evidence to the theory and not the other way around.

Actually, I thought the Chinese have proposed Peking man was their ancestor, but not that of other peoples. Surprisingly, the idea of local evolution of humans has taken root. Obviously I'm missing specifics because I have no idea how it is possible for all the various groups of humans to evolve so similarly to each other over the proposed time spans.

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by hetman]

The olderst link found is in africa and it was a women the archaelogist name her lucy and she is also link to the first eva.

As far as Lucy goes take a gander at this

www.talkorigins.org...

Donald Johanson found the knee joint of "Lucy," a 40%-complete skeleton of the species Australopithecus afarensis, in a location "Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away"

*I think I smell Fish*

See, here's the thing....most of these "different species" of humans actually have modern counterparts, as in there are modern people who look just like them. So I think all you really have for "evidence" of such things is skeletons of ancient humans who were unfortunately ugly, and bipedal apes. There is no proof, in any realm of evolution, of one animal becoming another. It does not happen.
As for lucy, finding skeletal remains that far apart then piecing them together is common....it makes it easier to mix and match what you want. And I agree about Peking man, its impossible to do anything about, really, given that the original is gone, and it is so enshrined.

Originally posted by gvret
Agree, species do not evolve into completely different species. Evolution can only go as far as to explain the formation of sub species. Survival of the fittest is prevalent everywhere in nature. Weather paterns change, food sources change, if a species cannot adapt it becomes extint. It does not transform to a new species.

I found this an interesting statement, because of course a dog does not "transform" into a human, but a creature like say a monkey could certainly "adapt" by changing posture (to move faster from predators), growing a larger brain (for use of tools), losing hair (for warmer climates), etc, etc. That is evolution AND adaption.

The definition of Evolution is:
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

AND

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Zed -
Mod you may be, but you know, it is not constructive to a conversation such as this to interject dogma. You basically just said that because the theory of evolution states it, its true. But the post by gvret was saying that the evidence can not support such claims, and can only support adaptation within a group. Also, realize that a "new" species can be defined on minute criteria. We were talking one beast to another, like a fish to a lizard, not instantly, but over time, things of that sort. If you missed that, read more carefully. If you didnt, and said what you did still, then for the sake of intelligent discussion, please don't preach your faith. Thanks.

This just is a thought....

Why is it that Evolution (Natural Selection, Survival of the fittest, etc.) is fine, but when it comes to Social Darwinism it's wrong?

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Zed -
Mod you may be, but you know, it is not constructive to a conversation such as this to interject dogma. You basically just said that because the theory of evolution states it, its true. But the post by gvret was saying that the evidence can not support such claims, and can only support adaptation within a group. Also, realize that a "new" species can be defined on minute criteria. We were talking one beast to another, like a fish to a lizard, not instantly, but over time, things of that sort. If you missed that, read more carefully. If you didnt, and said what you did still, then for the sake of intelligent discussion, please don't preach your faith. Thanks.

I suppose there are semantics which I was pointing out regarding changing to a "new species" definition. I never said evolution is true, I simply provided a definition of the word states that "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."

You are correct, there is no conclusive "proof" of evolution, just like there is no conclusive "proof" of creation, but with two main ideas you believe in one and not the other. So what?

Now, if you wish to enhance your "intelligent discussion" by giving backhanded insults regarding my intellegence (or anyone elses for that matter that holds a different opinion to yours), I don't see that as productive either. Did I post for you to "not preach your faith"? Are your ideals so threatened that anyone that doesn't fully agree with you is speading "dogma"?

Conversation has a definition too, which is" The spoken exchange of thoughts, opinions, and feelings; talk.

Just because I am a Mod...I am still entitled to an opinion, which in this case never even disagreed with any statements here. But even if it did, so what? A person that doesn't agree with you cannot contribute to "intellegent discussion"?

I'd say god help us all, on this one, but I think you'd take that wrong too. My post was in reply to your portrayal of the definition of evolution as truth. I'm sure you'll say you were just "giving a definition," but your wording and presentation was neither constructive to the conversation nor a true reply to the statements all other members had posted on this thread. Also, rather than give reply to thoughts shared here by others, you put a twist on what was said to conform to your opinion. I could care less what your opinion is; however, I do not think your replies were in any way constructive to the conversation because they did not in any way contribute to the discussion, as they were not in reply to what was being discussed. I do not appreciate it when anyone on either side of a discussion does such a thing, and it is a very commen malady on this discussion board, and I was disappointed to see a moderator doing the same.
As I stated before, the structure and angle of your reply was not discussion, but preaching. Perhaps you did not mean it that way; perhaps your ability to express your thoughts in english not that great. I do realize that there are many people who do not speak english as a first language on here, and perhaps that was the issue. Doubtful, since you seemed to find insults that were not there in my reply, but possible. Personally, I am just tired of so many threads on this board turning into dogma vs. dogma, and I was hoping to at least see better from moderators. That being said, lets return to the discussion.

Zero -
I'd would say that is because the idea that humans descended from apes causes a conflicting reaction to the psyche of those who believe it. On one hand, if we are all just animals, then why not act like them? This aspect of the reaction is most often seen in the personal behavior of a believer, in such things as the lack of moral actions or in some cases even a lack of comprehension of morals. However, if that believer is also socially aware on a braod scale, the conflicting reaction arises. Seen as a whole, humans do not wish to be seen as similar to the "other" animals which they feel superior to. Thus what applies to nature for them, Darwinism, is not acceptable to them socially. Its their way to add a little meaning to their lives, perhaps. Maybe a justification for society? All in all, looking from the outside, it looks more like either ignorance or insanity. Maybe both.