And that helps your case how? You were claiming that the fossils in the sequence picture were "all the Evos have." That was wrong. It helps my case to point out that there's a constellation of other data, about what one would expect if the Earth were old and humans had gradually evolved from apes. So that's what I did. Is it clearer now?
1470 is skull F, not even the one I asked you about. That's the one you're talking about because that's the one you had another article about. Once again on this thread, no matter what you are asked, the answer is another article from AiG or ICR. Are you reading or key-word scanning? OK, let's pretend I said "F."
A closer look at 1470.
From here:
If 1470 was an ape, it would be a truly extraordinary one. The brain is far larger than that of any ape, with the possible exception of extremely large male gorillas. The braincase is far more rounded and gracile than that of any ape, and the brain has a human rather than an apelike pattern (Tobias 1987)....
"ER 1470 is Homo in many respects and it has a phenomenally large brain for its time."
...
Lubenow [creationist writer: "Bones of Contention," etc.--VR] concludes that 1470 is fully human.
It may have been reconstructed in a somewhat more apelike manner in the 90s. (I'm too lazy to check what really happened. That doesn't mean for one second that I believe the creationist spin.) That doesn't make it an ape. It's in genus
Homo. What would that ordinarily mean to you as a taxon-lawyering creationist? I'm not arguing that the classification overrides the data. I'm saying the data still point to something more humanlike than any modern ape and more apelike than any modern human. Otherwise it would be in genus
Australopithecus, where some have argued for placing it. That's the sign of a transitional; it straddles the borderline. But no non-idiot has argued for placement in genus
Pan, or
Pongo, or whatever.
In your flailing, you've thrown at least one article by Lubenow up on this thread, citing him as an authority that every fossil offered as part of "the hominid progression" is either fully ape or fully human. But you're saying F is an ape. Why did you cite as authoritative the opinion of a dumb cluck who can't tell a plain old ape from a plain old human?
Of course, any way you go on 1470, half of the creationist community will agree with you and half will say you're nuts.
Creationist Classifications of Hominid Fossils
| Specimen |
Cuozzo
(1998) |
Gish
(1985) |
Mehlert
(1996) |
Bowden
(1981)
Menton
(1988)
Taylor
(1992)
Gish
(1979) |
Baker
(1976)
Taylor
and Van
Bebber
(1995) |
Taylor
(1996)
Lubenow
(1992) |
 |
ER 1813
(510 cc) |
Ape |
Ape |
Ape |
Ape |
Ape |
Ape |
 |
Java
(940 cc) |
Ape |
Ape |
Human |
Ape |
Ape |
Human |
 |
Peking
(915-
1225 cc) |
Ape |
Ape |
Human |
Ape |
Human |
Human |
 |
ER 1470
(750 cc) |
Ape |
Ape |
Ape |
Human |
Human |
Human |
 |
ER 3733
(850 cc) |
Ape |
Human |
Human |
Human |
Human |
Human |
 |
WT 15000
(880 cc) |
Ape |
Human |
Human |
Human |
Human |
Human |
Once again with feeling from here.
Funny how it's that hard to tell an ape from a human, given that the kinds are so immutable.
