Re: A Question I've Always Had About Evolution.
Ed Conrad (edconrad@sunlink.net)
Sun, 26 Jan 1997 14:07:39 GMT
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Paul Thibaudeau <thibaud@scar.utoronto.ca>
wrote:
>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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi, Will, it's me again.
Yes! Take Paul Thibaudeau 's advice and read ``Dawn of Humans"
in the February 1997 National Geographic.
I haven't yet read it, but a dollar to a doughnut it follows the
scientific establishment's party line. National Geographic always
has and it always will.
But it's no wonder! Check the names of its editorial staff and members
of its board (and be acquainted with their particular affiliations).
There's no chance in the world that National Geographic
would deviate in any direction other than its long-time stance that
man evolved from an inhuman primate (continuing to play games
by offering a plethora of routes leading up the evolutionary ladder,
despite so many rungs being missing).
Still following Paul Thibaudeau's advice, turn to the web page
-- http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
-- and patiently look it over (including all of its links) while
trying to keep an open mind.
Then, if you've wondered why I've maintained such an unyielding
stance in this -- my 16th year battling the scientific establishment
about man's origin and ancestry -- kindly click on even more
controversy at
http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/contest1.htm
I stand solidly behind every word.
Same as the ridiculous ``Magic Bullet" theory that, for the longest
time, was presented as the conspiracy-destroying piece of ``evidence"
in the assassination of President Kennedy, the really bottom line here
is whether the cell structure of the specimens I insist are petrified
bone bear a dramatic resemblance to ``officially recognized" petrified
bone found elsewhere in the world.
I certainly am well aware that the howlers are there have long been
screaming that many -- if not all -- of my specimens don't look like
bones (or teeth, or soft organs, or tusks, or a handmade ax handle).
But what experience do ANY of them have identifying PETRIFIED bones,
PETRIFIED teeth, PETRIFIED soft organs -- or handling a piece of
petrified wood that had been carved into an ax handle and is now
covered with coal-like material?
Personally, I would really appreciate if you would take Paul
Thibaudeau's advice -- and mine -- and then arrive at YOUR own
conclusion.
Pro or con, your posting of your determination in these pertinent
news groups, for all of us to see, would be very, very welcome.
|