I would like to know what are the empirically tested rules for the interpretation of bones. I rather think they may compare to the empirically tested rules of astrology.
If the posterior superior angle of the left parietal bone is more pronounced in one skull than in another, may we conclude the former individual was more block-headed, and hence more primitive, than the other? I put it crassly, but what are the empirically tested rules for interpreting a find? What are the emprically tested rules for interpreting the strata in which they are found?
It seems to me there is enough variation in bone morphology of the current human population that, if any or all happened to be found buried in sediment at various levels, they could be rendered as having a history ranging over millions of years.
Bone evidence is most often denigrated after a certain scenario is played out. We did it again on this thread.
The progression we see in the fossil record can't be explained that way. We see apelike things outside the range of human variation becoming more humanlike until they fall within the range of human variation AS YOU COME FORWARD IN TIME. We see what you would see if we evolved from apes.
Darwin didn't have this evidence in 1859. Nevertheless, his theory meant such forms must have existed. Now we have found many. That's a good prediction for which creationists studiously avoid giving him credit, nor do they attempt to address how he did it if he's supposed to be such a charlatan.