"Another problem I have that feeds this preconceived notion assertion is the mislabeling of these allegedly ancient fossils by referring to them as Java MAN , Peking MAN , Neanderthal MAN when they were n't absolutely , necessarily men at all , but simply primates that are assumed once again , to be related to us ."
"But would you understand what I was talking about if I referred to AL 288-1 , Trinil 2 , Sangiran 17 , KNM-ER 1813 , OH 13 , KNM-WT 15000 , or Saccopastore 1 ? You know so little that you do n't even realize that the names to which you object are not scientific names but names popularized by the press for people , like you , who know so little about it . Scientifically , both Java Man and Peking Man are Homo erectus . They are classified as such because there are no significant differences between them . In fact , there is little difference between Java Man ( Trinil 2 ) and the skull of Nariokotome Boy ( KNM-WT 15000 ) , from Africa , or KNM-ER 3733 for that matter . But you are obsessed with the words . You are so bent out of shape because transitional species between ape-like ancestors and us , that walked upright and used tools are called `` man `` . And they are n't assumed to be ancestral . Why do n't you learn what you are talking about before you speak . You make yourself look foolish when you speak from ignorance . ] quote ] Regarding the Java Man , How is this skull cap evidence of anything concrete ? [ /quote ] How is it that you think that evidence against your mythology based point of view supports your mythology ?"
"I have that feeds this preconceived notion assertion is the mislabeling of these allegedly ancient fossils by referring to them as Java MAN"
"But would you understand what I was talking about if I referred to AL 288-1 , Trinil 2 , Sangiran 17"