The creationist lie that there are no transitionals is ludicrous, and quote-mined repetition won't make it any better.
You write, "It's quite clear that GoldSchmidt represents that majority of evolutionary scientific thought."
Sorry, that is absolutely false and if you did any research at all you would know better. But your research consists of quote mining from creationist websites. That is the deliberately ignorant leading the willfully blind.
For the lurkers, as you won't accept any evidence that contradicts your a priori beliefs, here is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the right center):
Fossil: KNM-ER 3733
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
Source
LOL- Coyoteman- that skull and ALL the subsequent skulls you post have been refuted as transitionals- do a little research before posting such nonsense- huh? K? Alrighty then.
[[Sorry, that is absolutely false and if you did any research at all you would know better. But your research consists of quote mining from creationist websites. That is the deliberately ignorant leading the willfully blind.]]
What’s the3 difference between what you write and what I wrote? You post nonsense about ID and creationism, and sit around as though what you posted were fact- You get refuted time and tiome again, yet you sdtill post the same nonsense again and again- So in that light- I’ll simply post the same kind of stuff- What I posted is fact as far as I’m concerned, and I could care less what you post to ‘refute it’- I’ll simply do as you- ignore it and keep posting.
For hte lurkers who care anyhtign about hte actual science about suppsoed ‘transitions’, here are the facts:
KNM-ER 3733 IS NOT A TRANSITIONAL:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c029.html
“Another interesting erectus specimen is skull KNM- ER 3733 dating from about 1.7 mya. It also possesses, along with other ‘ancient’ erectus forms, much the same type of cranial morphology as did Java, Peking and WT 15000, and has an ECV of approximately 850 - 900cc.21,22 (See Figure 4.)23 ER 3733’s cranium is dolichocephalic, a feature also found in many Neanderthals, and it is thick, as are most erectus and Neanderthal specimens. The four erectus specimens so far mentioned are the main subject of this paper. According to Lubenow, the entire ECV range of known erectus forms runs from 700cc for a Javan infant to 1200cc - the largest Peking skull.24 However, the capacity of the previously-mentioned Vertesszöllos fragment from Hungary and dated at about 350,000ya, is estimated at about 1400cc, which is high for an erectus specimen.25
Figure 4. Skull profile of erectus specimen KNM-ER 3733. This fossil human is of similar geological age to WT 15000.
The finding of ER 3733 and WT 15000 therefore appears to strongly reinforce the validity of Java and Peking Man. The clear similarities shared by all four (where skeletal and cranial material is available), render untenable any claims that the two Asian specimens are nothing more than exceptionally large apes. Further, their affinities with both archaic sapiens and Neanderthal sapiens are so strong that it can hardly be denied that all are closely related human beings.
The question of course is - are erectus forms proof of an evolutionary progression from the apes, or are they simply temporal, regional, climatic, dietary or pathological variants of human beings?”