Replies

But the biggest problem evolutionists have are the lack of real transitional fossils. We have a plethora of ape fossils (supposedly the early stages, according to evolutionists) and a plethora of human fossils (supposedly the latter stages) but nothing in between. That should be quite telling, or what happened to all those middle generations supposedly spanning tens of thousands of years (seeing that we have what supposedly came before them)?

Nonsense. Typical fundamentalist nonsense not backed up by the facts.

This guy 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

There is not a lot of information out there on your transitional as you call it. For instance how many fragments is the reconstruction based on and over how large of a area were the fragments gathered from and how long did it take to gather all the fragments together.

I see that the fossil has an estimated age based on 4 separate dating methods, is any one method used as a control for the others? How will we confirm any of this?

Paleo-Anthropologist's have unusual definitions for what constitutes a fossil, at one extreme a tooth or two and a few shards of bone is enough, and at the other end of the envelope reconstructions built up of dissociated fragments well over a hundred can be 'a fossil', such as what KNM-ER 3733 looks to be.

And then there is yet another problem (among many) in the field of paleo-anthropology, and that is the issue of reconstruction. The Rise and Fall of KNM-ER 1470 is a good example.

Your facts as you call them are based on beliefs.

Exceprts from the article in LiveScience The skull in question, KNM-ER 1470, is arguably the most controversial fossil in the history of anthropology. When it was first discovered in northern Kenya in 1972, it was initially dated to nearly 3 million years old. Yet the skull—which scientists painstakingly pieced together from hundreds of bone fragments—had a large brain and a flat face, features reminiscent of modern humans but completely unlike any hominid known to exist at the time.

So troublesome was the skull that famed paleo-anthropologist Richard Leakey, the leader of the team that discovered it, once told reporters: “Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man. It simply fits no models of human beginnings.”

Impossible face
Bromage said the original reconstruction relied on preconceptions about how early humans looked that are now known to be incorrect. The result, he said, was a skull that shared several features in common with modern humans, including a relatively flat face and a large brain case.

In the original KNM-ER 1470 reconstruction, this angle was between 60 and 75 degrees, Bromage said. “It was absolutely incompatible with life,” he said. “The jaw would have been positioned so far back in the skull that there would have been no room for an airway or esophagus. It couldn’t breathe or eat.”

js is right that creationists do draw a line between them. But it’s for a very good reason. No conclusive ones that are in tact show uniquely human and uniquely ape characteristics together. The one you highlight has uniquely ape features. See also this link, I know that the source has a stated agenda (unlike the evolutionists at talk origins, who deny their agenda, but who go about purporting it in the most vicious of ways).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
“one of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.”

See this link as well, even more problems raised http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/problems-with-the-fossil-record.htm

See also some commentary that hits the nail on the head about the tactics of many evolutionists to suppress scientific debate http://www.discovery.org/a/2321