|
|
 Up |
  |
Author: James StallionJames Stallion Date: Mar 16, 2008 06:30
A small yet singular fragment of skull had recently been discovered. It
was heralded as “the oldest human remains discovered in Europe and
Asia.” Calculating it to be between 900,000 and 1,600,000 years old,
some scientists expected it to usher in “a revolution in the study of
the human species.”
The fossil that generated all this enthusiasm was christened the “Man of
Orce”—after the village in the province of Granada, Spain, where it was
discovered.
June 11, 1983, saw the fossil’s public presentation in Spain. Prominent
Spanish, French, and British scientists had already vouched for its
authenticity, and political support was quickly forthcoming. A Spanish
monthly enthused: “Spain, and especially Granada, is now at the
forefront of [human] antiquity in the macrocontinent of Eurasia.”
|
| Show full article (2.04Kb) |
| 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: Darrell StecDarrell Stec Date: Mar 16, 2008 06:41
James Stallion wrote:
> On May 12, 1984, only two weeks before an international scientific
> seminar on the subject, serious doubts arose as to the fragment’s
> origin. After the meticulous removal of calcareous deposits from the
> interior part of the skull, the paleontologists found a disconcerting
> “crest.” Human skulls do not have such a crest. The seminar was postponed.
>
> The Madrid daily El País carried the headline, “Serious Indications That
> the Cranium of the ‘Man of Orce’ Belongs to an Ass.” Finally, in 1987, a
> scientific paper written by Jordi Agustí and Salvador Moyà, two of the
> paleontologists involved in the original discovery, declared that X-ray
> analysis had indeed confirmed that the fossil belonged to a kind of horse.
Imagine that. Scientists discover their mistake and correct it. When are
you going to correct the scientific mistakes of the bible and/or koran?
--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@ neo.rr.com
|
| Show full article (1.04Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: James StallionJames Stallion Date: Mar 16, 2008 07:06
Darrell Stec wrote:
> James Stallion wrote:
>
>> On May 12, 1984, only two weeks before an international scientific
>> seminar on the subject, serious doubts arose as to the fragment’s
>> origin. After the meticulous removal of calcareous deposits from the
>> interior part of the skull, the paleontologists found a disconcerting
>> “crest.” Human skulls do not have such a crest. The seminar was postponed.
>>
>> The Madrid daily El País carried the headline, “Serious Indications That
>> the Cranium of the ‘Man of Orce’ Belongs to an Ass.” Finally, in 1987, a
>> scientific paper written by Jordi Agustí and Salvador Moyà, two of the
>> paleontologists involved in the original discovery, declared that X-ray
>> analysis had indeed confirmed that the fossil belonged to a kind of horse.
>
> Imagine...
|
| Show full article (2.26Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ~ Säblë ~~ Säblë ~ Date: Mar 16, 2008 07:48
Dr. Salvador Moyà, honestly admitted: “Dr. Jordi Agustí and I found it
very difficult to accept that the fossil was not humanoid. However,
science is concerned with discovering the truth, even though it may not
be to our liking.”
The controversy that has surrounded the “Man of Orce” illustrates how
vexing a task it is for paleontology to unearth the truth concerning the
so-called evolution of man. Despite decades of digging, genuine remains
of man’s supposed simian ancestors have not come to light. Although it
may not be to the liking of some scientists, could it be that the dearth
of solid evidence points to the fact that man is not a product of
evolution after all?
An impartial observer might well ask himself if other renowned “ape-men”
are any more substantial than the “Man of Orce” has proved to be. As
history has amply demonstrated, science can lead men to the truth, but
scientists are by no means immune to error. This is especially so when
political, philosophical, and personal bias clouds the issue—and when so
little is used to try to explain so much.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ElmerElmer Date: Mar 16, 2008 08:36
James Stallion wrote:
> Darrell Stec wrote:
>> James Stallion wrote:
>>
>>> On May 12, 1984, only two weeks before an international scientific
>>> seminar on the subject, serious doubts arose as to the fragment’s
>>> origin. After the meticulous removal of calcareous deposits from the
>>> interior part of the skull, the paleontologists found a disconcerting
>>> “crest.” Human skulls do not have such a crest. The seminar was
>>> postponed.
>>>
>>> The Madrid daily El País carried the headline, “Serious Indications That
>>> the Cranium of the ‘Man of Orce’ Belongs to an Ass.” Finally, in 1987, a
>>> scientific paper written by Jordi Agustí and Salvador Moyà, two of the
>>> paleontologists involved in the original discovery, declared that X-ray
>>> analysis had indeed confirmed that the fossil belonged to a kind of
>>> horse.
>>
>> Imagine that. Scientists discover their mistake and correct it.
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.46Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Darrell StecDarrell Stec Date: Mar 16, 2008 08:53
James Stallion wrote:
> Darrell Stec wrote:
>> James Stallion wrote:
>>
>>> On May 12, 1984, only two weeks before an international scientific
>>> seminar on the subject, serious doubts arose as to the fragment’s
>>> origin...
|
| Show full article (4.32Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
