Is this something else for Creationists to think about?

[naomi24]

http://www.guardian.c...-people-species-human

[jomifl]

By the way Clanad my remarks were aimed at hominid fossils, not the fossils of the evolutionary lines of the many species of which a near complete record exists.

[jomifl]

Keyplus how many pixels do you know who are scientists?

[Clanad]

Thank you. I'm certainly refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.
Tell you what... I'll try being smarter if you try being nicer...

By the way, National Geographic Daily News apparently doesn't seem to share your enthusiasm :

""Nothing Extraordinary" About Mystery Humans

The team's suggestion that the Red Deer Cave people are somehow evolutionarily unique is receiving a skeptical reception from other scientists.

Physical anthropologist Erik Trinkaus described the findings as "an unfortunate overinterpretation and misinterpretation of robust early modern humans, probably with affinities to modern Melanesians"—indigenous peoples of Pacific islands stretching from New Guinea to Fiji (map).

"There is nothing extraordinary" about the newly announced fossil human, added Trinkaus, of Washington University in St. Louis, via email.

Philipp Gunz, of Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, isn't convinced by the study team's interpretation either.

"I would be surprised if it really was a new human group that was previously undiscovered," said, Gunz, also a physical anthropologist."

[WaldoMcFroog]

How about I'm nicer if you attempt to stop lying?

It's fascinating that you attempt to make capital out of my claim that it's an interesting and exciting find by quoting a couple of people saying, "Nah, it's not interesting" from an article that is considerably more balanced (the study team themselves being hesitant to commit themselves to declaring it a new species until the DNA work is done) and which actually bears the strapline "Chinese fossils hint at "new evolutionary line"—depending who you ask." Talk about confirmation bias!

We should also note that not one of those scientists thinks there is anything to upset evolutionary theory. Even if the Red Deer Cave people turn out to be modern humans, the best you've managed is to have a pop at some bloke on a website for saying it's exciting.

It must be so satisfying being a creationist.

[Clanad]

Only in the parralell universe known as "Wally's World" can one be accused of lying by simply quoting acredited, credentialed researchers from their published, peer reviewed research papers as well as equally as competent researchers giving an 'anti' view in a news report.

Often time, in this section of AB alone, I see posts decrying the lack of response from those of various faiths... perhaps this exchange can give an inkling as to why. Disagreement as to views is always welcome, but for some reason, that soon degenerates into ad hominum attacks.

Fact is, none of us... including Wally, can do anything but attempt to interpret the various scientific data available. I'll gladly step up and state that my intrepretations are influenced by my worldview... just as I'm sure most other's are. The one thing to remember, however, is for every well researched, published paper by those that devote their lives to such work, alternate views are readily available, equally as well researched, etc.

My CV would not include the depth of knowledge concerning the current point of discussion derived from such dedicated life's work and it may well work out at some point that a preponderence of evidence supports a view that I don't hold at present... at which point I will say..."so be it..."

It is a little creepy though that Wally can be absent for months on end and one posting in this Section and this Section only rings his klaxson... But then, that's just my view...

Birdie... I'll get back to you, but duty calls...

[WaldoMcFroog]

You're accused of lying because you have a well-established history on this website of falsely presenting established science in order to attempt to back up your religious convictions. It's not that you're a creationist, it's that you dishonestly represent the other side's position. I'm paying you a back handed compliment; I think you're clever enough that you need not resort to this, yet you do.

In this instance, you used a quote by Gould and implied that it made it impossible that the Red Deer Cave people could exist if evolution were true, despite the fact that you know very well why this claim is gibberish.

Are you going to claim you're unaware of the notion of common descent?

Didn't think so. It is, after all, Evolution 101.

I find it amusing that you whine about ad homs and then call me creepy.