Conquer Club

Cambodian 'jungle woman' flees back to wild
Cambodia's "jungle woman", who spent 18 years living in a dense forest, has fled back to the wild after struggling to adapt to society.


This photo taken on October 29, 2009 shows Cambodia's 'jungle woman' Rochom P'ngieng (C) sitting with help from her parents at a hospital in Ratanak Kiri province Photo: AFP/GETTY

Rochom P'ngieng, now 29-years-old, first disappeared into thick hilly jungle in 1989 when she was a little girl. She was "discovered" in early 2007 and reunited with her family.

However, attempts to reintegrate her have failed. She has not learnt either of the local languages, Khmer or Phnang, prefers to crawl rather than walk, refuses to wear clothes and has made several attempts to return to the forest where she grew up.

Her father, Sal Lou, a policeman, said that she had been making progress recently, but disappeared on Tuesday evening. "She took off her clothes and ran away from the house without saying a word to any of our family members," Mr Lou said.

"Even the day before she fled the house, she still helped the family pick vegetables. She must have gone back to the forest and we still cannot find her." The dramatic reappearance and attempted reintegration of the "jungle girl" has gripped Cambodia, where she is also known as the "half-animal girl" because of her hunched appearance and the fact she makes animal noises rather than speaking.

Mr Lou blames his daughter's second disappearance on "forest spirits". In a society shrouded in mystic beliefs, he has also enlisted a fortune teller to help with the search. He is saving up for an offering of one wild ox, one pig, one chicken and four jugs of wine, which, the mystic assures him, will secure his daughter's return.

A separate theory was offered by local rights group, Ad hoc, which believes that the woman struggled to readapt to society and suffers from stress. "She must have experienced traumatic events in the jungle that have affected her ability to speak," said Penn Bunna.

Rochom first disappeared in 1989 while herding water buffalo with her sister in the province of Ratanakkiri, 400 miles north-east of Phnom Penh.

Her sister has never been found, but Rochom emerged from the jungle, filthy, naked, scared and "looking like a monkey" in February 2007.

She was caught stealing food from a farmer's lunch box after a stakeout.

Locals reported sightings of her with a naked man carrying a sword, who they believe to be a jungle spirit. (Bad Ass!)

Her parents, who had long given up hope of seeing their daughters again, identified her from a scar on her arm and welcomed her back into the family.

However, Mr Lou refused a DNA test. A Cambodian non-governmental organisation believes that it is impossible that a girl of eight could survive in the jungle and that she was actually brought up in captivity.

Neighbours and local authorities are helping the family with the search, but the jungles of Ratanakkiri are among Cambodia's wildest and most isolated.

In November 2004, 34 people from a pro-Khmer Rouge tribe emerged from the jungle where they had been hiding since the fall of the regime in 1979.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -wild.html

I'd hit it!

Thats a sad story in so many ways.

And we're supposed to buy evolution. This is a strong case against it.

mgconstruction wrote:I'd hit it!

That says more for you than her lol

jay_a2j wrote:And we're supposed to buy evolution. This is a strong case against it.

How so?

jay_a2j wrote:And we're supposed to buy evolution. This is a strong case against it.

Guess what, I saw carrots growing in the dirt. This is a strong case against milk coming from cows.

GabonX wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:And we're supposed to buy evolution. This is a strong case against it.

How so?

She lives in the wild.
She is found years later.
She doesn't speak.
She makes animal sounds.
She goes back into the wild.


But somehow, an animal developed a language all by themselves, stuck with it and passed it on to their kids. (and some believe that THIS is more probable than there being a God? )

jay_a2j wrote:She lives in the wild.
She is found years later.
She doesn't speak.
She makes animal sounds.
She goes back into the wild.


But somehow, an animal developed a language all by themselves, stuck with it and passed it on to their kids. (and some believe that THIS is more probable than there being a God? )

That's like saying that a random person back in the 1600's didn't invent the lightbulb, so the lightbulb must be handed down from God.

jay_a2j wrote:

She lives in the wild.
She is found years later.
She doesn't speak.
She makes animal sounds.
She goes back into the wild.

Sounds like the average South London bird

jay_a2j wrote:But somehow, an animal developed a language all by themselves, stuck with it and passed it on to their kids. (and some believe that THIS is more probable than there being a God? )

Never mind the scientifical evidence, as usual with you jay.

When kids are isolated from normal human society, and are forced to live in the wild, the learned social behaviour will be forgotten. We need human contact to develop social skills such as language, interaction with other humans etc. When a human is deprived of human contact during years that are critical to his development, no social skills are learned. Furthermore, depending on the age of the child when he was isolated, already learned social skills can also be forgotten.

Evolution from animals to humans didn't happen overnight, jay. Incidents such as these can in no way disprove evolution. It does raise some fascinating points about our cognitive skills, and how our brains work wrt. learning & social behaviour, but that's it.

But alas, judging from past interaction with you... it's no use telling this to you. You will continue shoving your head in sand and believing what you want to believe, seeing only what you want to see.

I'm so going to hell now, aren't I.

I kind of forgot about it but now you guys are talking about this primitive woman.

There was suposed to have been a bunch of people that left with their families and moved somewhere to start a comune of some sort. Three generations later they became a primitive tribe with limited lauguage skills and no writing. I might google and see if there's anything about it. I'm pretty lazy and apathetic though so don't wait up.

natty_dread wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:But somehow, an animal developed a language all by themselves, stuck with it and passed it on to their kids. (and some believe that THIS is more probable than there being a God? )

Never mind the scientifical evidence, as usual with you jay.

It does raise some fascinating points about our cognitive skills, and how our brains work wrt. learning & social behaviour, but that's it.



I'm so going to hell now, aren't I.

More to the point, it seems to reinforce the deevolution of the cognitave skills and how the brain works in an individual who refuses to live in the real world. I'll see you in hell Mr. Dread.

One person can not evolve, or devolve. It happens over many, many generations. It's ridiculous to claim this story says anything about evolution.

Timminz wrote:One person can not evolve, or devolve. It happens over many, many generations. It's ridiculous to claim this story says anything about evolution.

PROVE IT!


Oh, that's right, you can't.


Man I hate when people talk about evolution as if it were a fact. It shows how ignorant and single tracked minded they really are.

jay_a2j wrote:

Timminz wrote:One person can not evolve, or devolve. It happens over many, many generations. It's ridiculous to claim this story says anything about evolution.

PROVE IT!


Oh, that's right, you can't.


Man I hate when people talk about evolution as if it were a fact. It shows how ignorant and single tracked minded they really are.

Heard of fossils?

Now prove that god exists, oh wait that's right - there is no proof...

If you're going to continue to claim such foolishness, perhaps you should understand something, anything, about what evolution actually is (or is claimed to be).

nagerous wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Timminz wrote:One person can not evolve, or devolve. It happens over many, many generations. It's ridiculous to claim this story says anything about evolution.

PROVE IT!


Oh, that's right, you can't.


Man I hate when people talk about evolution as if it were a fact. It shows how ignorant and single tracked minded they really are.

Heard of fossils?

Now prove that god exists, oh wait that's right - there is no proof...

Fossils to not prove evolution. It just proves something died.

What do fossils say about evolution?

NG leads readers to believe that Darwin thought the fossil record supported his theory. But actually he admitted more than once in his famous book6 that the fossil record is an embarrassment to his theory of descent from a common ancestor. He knew that if his theory was true, there should be countless numbers of transitional forms (e.g., 100% reptile, 75% reptile-25% bird, 50% reptile-50%bird, 25% reptile-75%bird, 100% bird and many transitional forms between each of those). Darwin attributed the lack of evidence to our ignorance of the fossil record. But today our museums are loaded with fossils and the missing links are still missing.

As the late Harvard evolutionary geologist, Stephen Gould, put it:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.7

In a 1979 letter responding to the late creationist, Luther Sunderland, Colin Patterson, then Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, concurred:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? ... You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.8

Richard Dawkins’ evolutionist disciple at Oxford University, Mark Ridley, is emphatic:

However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.9 [emphasis in the original]

That's missing one or more hyperlink and including numbers that should be raised up and smaller and it's a misquote maybe... you might want to go here and compare... http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

jay_a2j wrote:

Timminz wrote:One person can not evolve, or devolve. It happens over many, many generations. It's ridiculous to claim this story says anything about evolution.

PROVE IT!


Oh, that's right, you can't.


Man I hate when people talk about evolution as if it were a fact. It shows how ignorant and single tracked minded they really are.

Jay, you should ask to borrow Woody's mirror when he's done with it.

jonesthecurl wrote:Jay, you should ask to borrow Woody's mirror when he's done with it.

By the time he is done with it they will be obsolete.

For anyone who isn't Jay, there's some interesting stuff about Bushmen and how their language might be more how our earlier languages sounded on the web. Khoisan languages are really interesting.

Lionz wrote:What do fossils say about evolution?

NG leads readers to believe that Darwin thought the fossil record supported his theory. But actually he admitted more than once in his famous book6 that the fossil record is an embarrassment to his theory of descent from a common ancestor. He knew that if his theory was true, there should be countless numbers of transitional forms (e.g., 100% reptile, 75% reptile-25% bird, 50% reptile-50%bird, 25% reptile-75%bird, 100% bird and many transitional forms between each of those). Darwin attributed the lack of evidence to our ignorance of the fossil record. But today our museums are loaded with fossils and the missing links are still missing.

As the late Harvard evolutionary geologist, Stephen Gould, put it:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.7

In a 1979 letter responding to the late creationist, Luther Sunderland, Colin Patterson, then Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, concurred:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? ... You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.8

Richard Dawkins’ evolutionist disciple at Oxford University, Mark Ridley, is emphatic:

However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.9 [emphasis in the original]

That's missing one or more hyperlink and including numbers that should be raised up and smaller and it's a misquote maybe... you might want to go here and compare... http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

A tragic example of what happens when Lazy right wing Christian mothers home school their kids via the internet.

I have no issue with you folks believing whatever you wish to believe, but to discount 2 centuries of science with bullshit publications, posted on nut bag websites, just highlights your ignorance.

Ever consider that perhaps evolution is one of the many tools on God's workbench?

Oh...sorry....if it wasn't written down 2000 years ago in a misquoted, archaic, obsolete book that’s been butchered in translation 2 dozen times then GTFO....it didn't happen.

JRock

You might make some false assumptions JRock.

What if I told you that I was at least kind of raised in a new age and eastern spirituality and Native American appreciation type family and that I even got into witchcraft? And told you that I went to public school for about twenty years and got a degree from the University of Georgia after getting A's in at least a couple of science courses there?

Evolution has occured and occurs depending on definition at least perhaps, but perhaps we shouldn't see different breeds of dogs and then jump to the conclusion that dogs and bananas share common ancestry as a result of that. There were several original kinds created that have brought forth variety after their kinds maybe. What suggests to you otherwise? Fossils? Are there not famous evolutionists quoted there regardless of what we consider to be a bullshit publication?

And if we can personally study the LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls for ourselves, how much of an argument centered around translations can you really make?

I repeat:
Ever consider that evolution is one of many tools on God's workbench?

Bananas and Dogs? Why not? Originaly we were all microbes. But the forks of the genetic path along the way from then to now have been too numerous to count.

If you break us down chemicaly, how different are we then?



So what happened the Lionz? I've seen your illogical posts on Nephim and your classical education seems to have been laid by the wayside. And you can study all of the scrolls you wish, brother. Vague, open to multiple interpretations and like the bible, not to be taken literally.


jRock