(January 27, 2015 at 5:41 pm)bob96 Wrote: Of course the statement about the skull being "described as archaic" would never be accepted in a peer reviewed journal. It was just his personal professional opinion.
Sure, and his opinion is more than the first sentence, too: he goes on to say why he thinks the skull is like that, and his ultimate conclusion agrees with evolution, and not with the "problem" you saw with it, making your citation completely pointless.
Quote:I never said he did.
So why quote him at all?
Quote: Why are there no fossilized chimpanzee skeletons? They are conspicuously absent from the fossil record.
Don't worry, your claim has only been completely incorrect for ten years.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!