[fortheDeclaration]

Gee, only a 300,000 year gap between the assumed date of the skull.

And the skull is assumed to be a hominid, something that cannot even be proven to have existed.

What great science.

[jennyp]

And the skull is assumed to be a hominid, something that cannot even be proven to have existed.

What great science.

Hominids cannot be proven to have existed??? That's an intriguing statement. Care to try your hand at deciding which of the fossils in post 50 belong in the ape-kind vs. the human-kind? Could it be possible that any of those are actually transitionals related to both kinds?

[Stultis]

And the skull is assumed to be a hominid, something that cannot even be proven to have existed.

You've just claimed that mankind can't be proven to exist! Technically human beings are "hominids". A hominid is any advanced primate that is bipedal (walks on two legs). There are several species preceding humans for which we have excellent and effectively conclusive evidence for bipedalism. So, no, even leaving humans themselves aside it is not "assumed" that hominids existed. It is KNOWN that they existed.

[Oztrich Boy]

And the skull is assumed to be a hominid, something that cannot even be proven to have existed.

Johannes Beringer, is that you?