[jennyp]

Perhaps this chart demonstrates that the circumstantial evidence of skulls is inconclusive.

Yes, but why would the skulls be inconclusive? Even the professional creationist scholars (who were writing about the whole skeletons, not just the skulls pictured here) can't make up their minds which ones are "just an ape" vs. those that are "just an old/arthritic/outlier human". This only makes sense if these are, indeed, transitional species.

[FreedomProtector]

Of coarse the most outstanding detectives in the world certainly never ever disagree when examining circumstantial evidence at a crime scene.

Of coarse the evolutionist can always determine exactly what the exact animal was when they examine any circumstantial evidence. Thus two independent evolutionists will never disagree on any circumstantial evidence.

I think you may be on to something here.

Thanks for the ping, jennyp.