This entry claims, based on the words of a handful of scientists and without meaningful independent review, that Mungo Man is "fossil of a human being." Later in the entry it talks about 175 bones being assembled to make a similar claim.
Most evolutionists, not to mention creationists, dispute the authenticity of Mungo Man and his age. It confounds "out of Africa" theories.
Can be more factual here in this entry, or back up factual claims better?--Aschlafly 09:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
- The first discovery ("Mungo woman") was 175 fragments, but as far as I know, Mungo Man was an intact skeleton. And as I mentioned in my edit comment, as far as I know, nobody—evolutionist or creationist—disputes that the fossil is of an essentially modern human. What is disputed is (a) its age, and (b) its support for either of the two main secular views of human origins. (And neither am I aware of any dispute over the identity of the 175-piece Mungo woman.)
- The other comments I put then struck out on your talk page were:
- The citation for it being "fully human" is not to its discoverers anyway, but to the opposing group.
- Your addition about the other controversy over the fossil—which theory of human origins it supposedly supports—is something that I was already thinking should be in there. Even more could probably be said about that.
- Philip J. Rayment 10:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)