Replies

"IOW, you do not have the intellect to distill and summarize. You can only throw spagetti at the wall. Yes, perhaps some of us are descendants of caged chimps."

Like Virginia-American, I did a quickie search. Here’s an abstract from the Journal of Anatomy regarding a statistical analysis of adult mandibles of 317 modern humans and 91 great apes. “Analysis of interspecific differences revealed some pairs of variables with a tight linear relationship and others where Homo and the great apes pulled apart from one another due to shape differences.”

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9747

And here’s an abstract of an article dealing with statistical analysis of human mandible growth using “a set of 31 three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) scans” to “model the temporal shape and size of the human mandible for analysis, simulation, and prediction purposes.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14561548&query_hl=2

As you well know, bvw, my objection is to your repeated use of a standard, irritating, and highly disingenuous creationist tactic.

First, you demand that information be spoon fed to you. When it is, you find some place where the information provided is incomplete. You then declare that the incompleteness of the information given to you is proof that the information does not exist at all, and proof that stupid scientists are just making stuff up.

When you are given additional information to rebut your histrionics, you just repeat the process with some new (or, as likely, some old and tired) deficiency in the information provided to you.

All of this horse-hockey is engaged in so that you can make idiotic declarations like "...a claim of a novel human species or subspecies based on only one artifact -- one teeny toe bone! Wow! Such wonderful *science*!"

If you had any kind of genuine interest at all, you'd do some modicum of personal research instead of demanding that everything be be laid at your feet. Then you could argue real, instead of fanciful and fraudulent, informational gaps.