[Coyoteman]

Then you can show me an ape that is a man or even part man. Then when you finish that, oh, never mind. I know it's impossible because even in old bones they just don't exist.

This is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[fish hawk]

Well now, a chart that some believing Darwinist professor drew up. Yep, you got me there, man came from an ape. All the proof I need.

[RunningWolf]

That is a nicely drawn flow chart, but as it states, it is a 'best guess'

But to your KNM-ER 3733. Looking at that image, the rear skull section is certainly not from the same creature.

And when you take into account all the fragments the entire composite is made up of, with the noted dating methods noted applied to each fragment, I am amazed at the researchers audacity to build up such a composite, much less attempt to place it as evidence for a theory that they assert as fact.


W.