Re: A Question I've Always Had About Evolution.

Paul Thibaudeau (
Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:13:42 GMT

Hi William,

Regarding your question about intermediate forms...there are some,
although, of course the differences are slight. Without blithering on
with various latin names, the early hominid (or human-like, if you prefer)
forms like Australopithecines are really quite "ape-like", with some
changes to a more bipedal stance. If you'd like a great article on this,
look for the write up the National Geographic did on "Dawn of Humans" for
February, 1997.
Oh, and don't worry too much about the supposed conspiracy that Ed
Conrad raves about. He's just upset that no believes his theory that
humans originated in fully modern form 225 million years ago, in a
Pennsylvanian coal mine layer. Never mind that the "bone" he found is not
bone, and that all the other evidence that has been properly debated
contradicts him about a thousand times over. What's important, William,
is that you read up on the evidence, look at Conrad's web site, and decide
for yourself.

Happy reading.

Paul Thibaudeau

On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Ed Conrad wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Raistlin Majere <>
> wrote to, etc.:
> > William DeMaree ( wrote:
> >>
> >> A question I've always had about evolution is where are all
> >> the creatures that are between men and monkeys? If there
> >> are thousands of monkeys, and millions of humans, shouldn't
> >> there also be many creatures that are only part way through
> >> the evolutionary process (from ape to man). Shouldn't there
> >> be many degrees of creatures going from man to ape such
> >> that it is impossible to say: "that is a man, or that is an
> >> ape"? I admit I am fairly ignorant of many evolutionary
> >> teachings, so this may apear to be a very sophomoric
> >> question.
> >>
> >> Please forgive that and enlighten me.
> >>
> >> William
> _____
> > There's a website for you to visit: The
> > archives. It's
> > You'll find your answers there.
> > -- raist
> ~~~~~~
> Then, William, after spending time at the archives and discovering
> that just about everything stated there about an ancestral link from
> monkey/apes to man is nothing more than rhetoric (hot air) -- lacking
> even the tiniest shred of undisputed physical evidence -- turn to
> >
> where you'll be greeted with a much better approximation of man's
> true origin and ancestry.
> An excellent follow-through, at that point, would be to click on
> >
> to get a grasp of the stubborn and downright deplorable opposition
> that has been -- and still is -- employed by the scientific
> establishment to protect its totally erroneous theory.