I'm sure they are real. The issue is, it is a fossil of just one part of the creatures body. All it proves is that a creature with such a skull existed. All else is speculation. It is an ASSUMPTION that the thing is indicative of a common ancestor. It is an ASSUMPTION that it possessed an ape or humanlike body, without finding the rest of the skeleton to prove it so.
Call me a cynic, but I need to see facts, not guesswork, assumptions and speculations before changing a position.
|