[King Prout]

I'm reasonably comfortable with the analyses done by experts in the field. I'm not particularly pleased with the occasional uber-extrapolation from one chunk of occipital bone into a fully-fleshed organism, nay! tribe, etc... but those are exceptions to the rule.

while not an osteologist, I do have some familiarity with the standards of the trade, and know that they are carefully measuring and comparing hundreds of specific and interrelated "landmark" features, not simply eyeballing them and making grand pronouncements - that latter's the Scientific Creationist's method, not the scientist's.

[Antoninus]

while not an osteologist, I do have some familiarity with the standards of the trade, and know that they are carefully measuring and comparing hundreds of specific and interrelated "landmark" features, not simply eyeballing them and making grand pronouncements - that latter's the Scientific Creationist's method, not the scientist's.

Perhaps. But comparing hundreds of interrelated features is still speculation when it comes do determining if two fossilized skulls were actually of the same species/genus/family/class etc. If we could genetically compare them somehow, THAT would be proof. I believe that we someday we will develop the technology to do so, thus putting a lot of this stuff to rest.