[bvw]

VR, you realize, of course, that the carefully worded pharse "intermediate in morphology" does NOT imply evolutionary descent. Each artifact in the series of shapes can not be assumed to be a biological descendant of the prior. The artifacts may be totally unrelated in ancestral lineage, not cousins, not even banches of some old family tree.

However to be able to produce such fine obviously step-wise evolution of morphological classificatiuon (ordering by shape chateristics) amoung artifacts -- where those artifacts were to be man-made, say arrow-heads, or watches made by watchmakers -- is a strong indicator of design evolution, where designers share and evolve designs for some purpose. Thus by a rule of logic and science know as induction, to have such an morphologically evolving step porgression of skulls is an indicator of DESIGN.

[VadeRetro]

VR, you realize, of course, that the carefully worded pharse "intermediate in morphology" does NOT imply evolutionary descent. Each artifact in the series of shapes can not be assumed to be a biological descendant of the prior. The artifacts may be totally unrelated in ancestral lineage, not cousins, not even banches of some old family tree.

If you were right, there would be no paleontology at all, as nothing means anything. But when, starting in the 60s and gathering momentum through the present, we generated molecular phylogenies, they wonderfully matched the "don't mean a thing" morphological phylogenies based on the mere physical shapes of extant and fossil life. If there were nothing going on, that wouldn't have happened.

All you're showing is that there is no amount whatsoever of real-world data that will make a witch doctor give up his mask and rattle.

[b_sharp]

Your entire argument is based on 'Assuming your conclusion'.