[Tribune7]

"None of the above" is very hard to reconcile with the evidence,

Oh but it's not. It's just looking at the evidence with a stricter and more skeptical set of assumptions.

You find fossils in a particular strata and if you believe in evolution you assume those fossils were the ancestor of something. If you don't believe in evolution, you might consider that those fossils belonged to something that never evolved but went extinct. Or you might think some evolution occurred but it is still basically the same creature as one still with us.

[VadeRetro]

You find fossils in a particular strata and if you believe in evolution you assume those fossils were the ancestor of something. If you don't believe in evolution, you might consider that those fossils belonged to something that never evolved but went extinct. Or you might think some evolution occurred but it is still basically the same creature as one still with us.

A scientist finds a fossil and he has questions for it. A creationist finds a fossil and he has dismissals for it.

Creationism has nothing to teach us.

[Virginia-American]

So what conclusion can be drawn from the fact that the creationists are unable to decide whether H. habilis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, et al are human or non-human?

The conclusion that I draw is that they are clearly neither one nor the other, that they are in fact intermediate.

These aren't biologists with their funky assumptions who can't fit them in one bin or the other; these are creationists, who claim it can be done, but are in fact unable to do so. (Actually, they can, it's just that they don't agree!)