[b_sharp]

"I live in the United States, and I assume my cranium is comprised of eight bones. I also assume your cranium has the same number. Also the craniums of all the people who live in Ethiopia. Also the cranium of this supposed "missing link" that has tools strewn about its proximity."

I assume you are trying to point out that only humans have 8 cranial bones because you believe this will verify that there is a sharp delineation somewhere in among the many fossils between our Pan-Homo common ancestor and Homo s. s. that will divide them in to two distinct groups?

If at that delineation point there are features other than the number of cranial bones that place the 'ape' in with 'Homo', which feature(s) takes precedence?

[Fester Chugabrew]

It would not surprise me in the least if primates also have 8 cranial bones. It would surprise me if we came across a historic case (other than through the interpretation of bones) where the distinction between primate and human is difficult to make. With Helen Thomas and James Carville evolutionists may indeed have a point, but I don't think it would be in anyone's favor.

. . . which feature(s) takes precedence?

Human morphology undergoes dramatic change in the history of an individual. Comparative morphology, if it is dealing with specimens of the same age, should reveal consistencies in bone structure, but these consistencies need be no more rigid than comparisons between Shaq and a dwarf. I think number and shape of bones is a good rule of thumb. What else do we have to work with after decay has had its way?