diablodelmar said:
Neanderthal Man (homo neanderthalensis)
In about 1860, about the time that Darwin published his book on evolution, the first few fragments (strange isn't it? that we only found them once people started claiming we'd evolved) of Neanderthal Man were found in the Neaderthal Valley, in Germany. They were a lot like humans except they had flatter skulls and they (or rather, one of them) walked hunched over - indicating that they were half evolved into humans.
A famous anatomist, Dr. Rudolph Virchow, found out that the primitive features of the Neaderthal were due to the fact that the specimens found all had rickets, a disease of the bones which deforms them because they are very weak. The one that walked hunched over, also had (clinically proven) arthritis which forced him to walk bent over. What further proves this is that not all of the Neadethals were hunched over in this position. Furthermore, several scientists showed that if a neaderthal was given treatment for rickets, a shave, haircut and a shower he would look just like any normal human being.
Interesting mix of truth and falsehoods.
Indeed, neanderthals did not walk hunched over, unless bent with age. No, neanderthalism isn't caused by rickets. Neanderthals didn't have weak bones - they had big, thick and strong bones, paired with massive muscles; quite the opposite of people with rickets.
More here.
A neanderthal with modern clothes and a faddish haircut certainly wouldn't look like "any normal human" being - the weak chin, heavy jaws, massive browridges, and stout, short but heavy and broad built would make for a quite distinct appearance.
Oh, and the original Neandertal find was in 1856; three years before the publication of
Origin of Species.
Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus)
Amusingly, the Nebraska man theory was formed from the discovery of a single tooth (!?!) in west Nebraska. Leading scientists and experts declared, in their desperation for evidence, that it had certain characteristics that lead them to present it as evidence that man evolved from ape.
That's a lie. Some leading anatomists (notably Osborn) did think the tooth belong to an anthropoid (human, ape or monkey), but nobody claimed is as evidence of human descent from apes (which was already well established at that point).
A mere few years after the massive uproar, the rest of the skeleton was found; that of a pig.
Simply not true. What was found was evidence suggesting the tooth actually belonged to a
peccary. No material confidently referable to the same individual was found.
It should perhaps be mentioned that pig and peccary teeth are quite similar to those of humans and apes, and that the Nebraska tooth was quite worn.
Similar discoveries were made to disprove the Ramapithecus when it was found to be an orangutan.
It was indeed widely believed that "Ramapithecus" was close to the human ancestry, a position which nobody would take today. Neither, however, is it an orangutan - its now known to belong to the
Sivapithecus, a genus that likely includes the lineal ancestor of the orangutan, but is a modern orangutan no more than any
Australopithecus is a modern human.
So, to take stock, you've got two honest mistakes you can't even report correctly, and a mixture of lies and irrelevancies about neanderthals. Do you have anything about the other species that have been mentioned here, all much more relevant than "Ramapithecus" and
Hesperopithecus.
And did people repeat my links both times? 
