Replies

Oh, give me a break. I do statistical forecasting in my line of business, so I am very familiar with the math as I do the calcs on a daily basis. Just to let you know, you need a decent POPULATION to study before you can CALL something an outlier. The point I was making was that when the number of skeletons are few, calculations can NOT be exact enough to say whether you are dealing with a representative population, or you are dealing strictly with outliers.

OBVIOUSLY, the three I mentioned were outliers, which is my point! Scientists, in their zeal to find a missing link, would much rather declare new species for the three examples than to say there was a possibility they were all the same species. Get it?

Well, there certainly are ongoing debates between those who would assign a new species to each find vs. those who assign them to an existing species, yes. In this case, they haven't published a definitive analysis yet, much less proposed a taxonomic classification for it. So far they're only saying that it looks Homo erectus, but with characteristics that are more like modern humans than the average H. erectus.

Anyway, the main question for creationists these days is which of the various hominid fossils (a small sample of which you can see in post 50) are merely diverse individuals of the ape-kind vs. the human-kind. Most of the skulls have links to other pages that describe them in more detail. Care to take a stand on which created kind those skulls belong to?

Scientists, in their zeal to find a missing link, would much rather declare new species for the three examples than to say there was a possibility they were all the same species. Get it?

No. I don't get it. You're making a false assumption based on a fabricated scenario and jumping to an unscientific conclusion.