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?”
Those ‘creationist sites’ are far better sourced than anything Yote puts out.
Does six years of graduate school, with half of my time spent studying evolution, fossil man, human races, osteology, anatomy and a lot of closely related subjects count as "a little research?" Or should I have saved myself all that trouble by just checking out the latest creationist literature?
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
Sorry, nothing there that shows that H. ergaster is not a transitional. And in a scientific debate, why would you post a link to a creationist website? If they are like most creationist websites they have a statement of beliefs that prohibits them from any finding that contradicts the bible. That makes them apologists, and the opposite of scientists. As such, they have no credible role in a scientific discussion.
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.
OK, this paragraph supports the claim that H. ergaster is a transitional. (Don't you read the passages that you post?)
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?”
Homo erectus is indeed a variety of human, which is why it has the genus Homo. And the proper question at this point is whether Homo ergaster is a proper transitional in the progression of forms--as is what we were discussing. The experts have assigned it as genus Homo, but given it a different species name, as the evidence suggests that it is indeed a transitional.
You better find a more suitable creationist site to cut and paste from; this one has not done you very much good.