Talk:Java Man

Requested move

• Pithecanthropus erectus → Java Man – The article is about remains of a hominid found in Java, which is, AFAIK, universally called "Java Man". When it was first found, it was classified as Pithecanthropus erectus; after decades of debate, it is now Homo erectus. Since the article is about the skeleton, not an obsolete species classification, this should be at Java Man. Compare Peking Man or Piltdown Man. --Saforrest 07:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

age of skulls

Moved from article: So how old is the Java man skulls????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.44.8.82 (talk • contribs)

What are the ages of these specimens? Badagnani 22:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating and its related factors aren't very reliable, and anything that has to do with creationism (and less accepted theories) would just be refuted and removed. (I realise this is old, but the article still needs work.) --60.240.118.139 02:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Massive rewrite needed

This article needs a huge amount of work, in part because Asian Homo erectus are no longer considered direct human ancestors, and haven't been for quite some time. In particular the second-hand references attributed to Marvin Lubenow, writing a creationist book, should all be confirmed by examining the original sources. I'm also concerned about the quotation attributed to a Time magazine article, ""[Java Man] is a legimate evolutionary ancestor"--just what was in place of the bracketed phrase "Java Man" in the original sentence??? If it said "Homo erectus", then it's not nearly as damning as the person who inserted this sentence thinks. (Edited to add: I'm removing that sentence entirely; the article is online at [1] and that sentence does not appear anywhere in the article.) MrDarwin 13:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted some cleanup, but I am wary of the statement about the alleged "342 page report" and also the various claims I have flagged as needing citations. 82.33.152.5 14:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC) --- And all that stuff about "missing link" seems highly biologically naive - a braver editor than me might consider just dumping that whole sentence. 82.33.152.5 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Keith

I have removed the following para entirely:

Sir Arthur Keith, an anatomist of from Cambridge University, later claimed that the skull cap itself, "[is] distinctly human and reflected a brain capacity well within the range of humans living today", thus refuting Eugene Dubois's original claim that "Java man represents a stage in the devolopment of modern man from a smaller-brained ancestor".

... unless a better source for Keith can be found than Lubenow!

82.33.152.5 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fairness

Is it really fair to state that it's a specimen of homo erectus, when the discoverer himself later said that it was just an a normal gibbon?

That is not what Dubois said, not even close; I've edited the sentence in the article to make it clear that such claims are not only misleading but completely false. Follow the referenced link in the article for more information. MrDarwin 15:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we use the primary source for this one instead of a website that sources dubois? (R2d2rox245 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Pictures, more neutrality

This article needs un-edited pictures (like fill ins that somehow prove it), and less "CREATIONIST IS STUPID DURR" that plagues everything that has to do with evolution and creation. --60.240.118.139 02:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This was scienticialy proven as a fraud. I demand that that is said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.26.124 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Creationism has no place in a legitimate science article because it is not at this point legitimate science, find a source for your claim or shut up --Opcnup (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Creationism has every right to be considered in any article which deals with the origins of man. The evidence, if you only but knew it, for any of the evolutionary community's over-blown claims regarding the genesis of the human race is so thin on the ground that it's quite remarkable it gets the credence it does - it's not so much a missing link as a missing chain. The amount of bones found in the last 100 years which might be capable of being attributed to some sort of early model human would not, in fact, fill a single coffin and if people in general would stop rushing to condemn with such zeal everything that smacks of religion - if they would instead begin to question the astounding lack of evidence for the theories they've been force-fed since childhood - then we might all draw a little nearer to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.247.125 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you specify what scientific data you can provide about the Java Man?Jeff5102 (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's just it, isn't it...a couple of teeth, a femur and a skullcap which turned out to belong to a plain old gibbon, if I recall right. Yet, the scientific community gives Java Man a catchy name and shows us what he probably looked like and slots him in to the evolutionary chain - but based on what? A couple of teeth and a femur? And that's the point, these discussion pages are full of people raging against creationist thinking while failing to realise the astounding number of gaps in their own theories.81.156.0.191 (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

India then?

I dont know if I misunderstood then, if I did sorry then, but on the history of Indonesia it suggests that the Java man came from India here. But here I think it implies that it came from Africa here. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)