There seems to be a correlation between anti-evolutionism and oil-from-sandism. Interesting convergence, no?
Coyoteman posts the skull chart, so here's the debunking.
When examined, there's not a single candidate for a transitional in the whole bunch!! All you have is FLUFF!
Evo's post that chart without any disclaimers every time someone says there are no ape to man transitionals. But as I will show this is FREUDENSCIENCE at it's best.
Let's remove the clutter, the normalization of size, and the skulls that were so badly damaged they could have been reconstructed into anything and see what's left....
And I do mean clutter.
- G-N are all human skulls and all within the range of modern human variability.
- (A) is a modern chimp, neither ancestral to humans or Australopithecus.
- B,C,D, & F are all Australopithecus apes, also not ancestral to humans.
- And E, like F, was in so bad of shape when found that it could have been reconstructed to be almost anything.
That's the best you could do? Please!!! If you aren't embarrassed already, then you are unshameable! But wait there's more....
To rely on them as a support for transitionals is more imagination than hard evidence. The fact that you have to rely on such pitiful specimens as I will show them to be, speaks volumes about how little evidence for ape to human transitionals there is.
Skull E
Habilis skull E, that was found crushed totally flat under a layer of limestone and underwent extensive reconstruction, massive warping of the individual parts is acknowledged. It's probably either an Australopithecus or a Boisei like the other skull that was found in the same location. A skull that damaged is a blank slate for an Evo's imagination to run wild with.
Smithsonian on Skull E.
(E) OH62 was initially assigned to Habilis because of the similarity of the palate to that of skull Stw53, However, Kuman and Clarke list several major morphological traits of Stw 53 that they believe warrant its inclusion in the genus Australopithecus, including teeth that are very large and a braincase that is frontally narrow and restricted. So if Stw53 is a Austalopithecus, then OH62 probably is too. However scans of the inner ear, seemed to indicate human. So I'll grant you that there is ambiguity about E, but the specimen is so damaged that it shouldn't be considered evidence of anything except evolutionist desperation.
Skull F 1470
D and F weren't initially recognized as Australopithicus. F is skull ER-1470, which was reconstructed out of 100 pieces. In true evo bias fashion, it was first reconstructed to have a flat human like face, making it a "transitional", every evo's heart's desire.> But once the Creationist, Christopher Hummer, was finally allowed to examine it and started pointing out similarities to Austraopithecus skulls, it was reconstructed again and determined to be nothing but a large brained Australopithecus.
The Rise and Fall of skull 1470
Skull D
Inner ear scans of D (Skull 1813) and F indicate that both were knuckle walkers like Australopithicus. That puts them squarely back into the camp of Australopithicus and out of the Habilis category.
Human Skulls G-N
Why so many human skulls? It's called FLUFFING. Put enough human skulls in the chart, and maybe people will think you have a transition going on. You could find as much variability in Human skulls using 21th century skulls as you have demonstrated here. Nevertheless, let's take a closer look.
Skull G - Erectus
There are 17 defining traits for Erectus. All 17 can still be found in the human population. A group of over 200 modern Australian Aborigines were found to share 14 of those 17 traits with Erectus. Except for the presumed age of Erectus skulls, there's really no reason to consider them to be different from Modern Humans. How different is the cranial-vault thickness of Homo erectus from modern man?
Skull I - Broken Hill #1 aka Rhodesia Man.
I especially like the inclusion of (I) the badly diseased Bunker Hill skull. Even the Smithsonian acknowledges the skull is diseased. Dr. Jack Cuozzo examined and x-rayed the skull and says the skull "cries out disease" and is thickened from severe acromegaly (excess secretion of growth hormone in adulthood).
What's more Dr. Cuozzo says the hole in the skull appears to be an 8mm gunshot wound complete with exit wound, which would make the skull a modern skull. (It was found at the bottom of a well.) Originally that skull was thought to be less than 40,000 years old, then it was promoted to 125,000 years old. And a French museum now promotes it as 400,000 years old. If Dr. Cuozzo is right, it's less than 100 years old. The British Museum hasn't conceded yet to Cuozzo's finding about the bullet hole. However, the diseased state of the skull is acknowledged by all. And Cuozzo points to evidence that the British Museum appears to have published pictures that hides the evidence of how badly diseased the skull is.
Whether or not there's a bullet hole, to include a badly diseased skull in a visual chart like this as representative of anything is FauxEvoImagery.
Dr. Cuozzo on the Broken Hill skull 1
Neanderthals - Skulls J-L
Why are there 3 Neanderthals, when they are considered human and not ancestral to modern human? They've lost their special status as their own species, along with the Evo fauximagery of hairy stooped over men. They had larger craniums than modern humans a fact that you can't tell because of the deceptive normalization in your skull chart.
There are 3 due to Fluffing. There are 3 Neanderthals, for the same reason that there are 8 human skulls. Because without Fluffing, your chart reduces to nothing, except the crushed remains of evolutionist dreams.
Is this really the best you can do? Two skulls (E&F) crushed beyond recognition painstakingly reconstructed and one skull (I) so diseased, it's inclusion in a visual chart like this is ludicrous.
Other Characteristics.
A review of other characteristics show that all fossils are either clearly in the ape category or clearly in the human category. Brain size is the only category that appears to approach intermediate between the Australopithecus ape and modern humans. Link for the article from which the following table is pulled follows:
Table 1: Summary of the results of analyses of characteristics of fossil Homo species [After Table 7 in Wood and Collard, Ref. 3]. 1) body size, 2) body shape, 3) locomotion, 4) jaws and teeth, 5) development and 6) brain size. H = like modern humans, A = australopith-like, I = intermediate ? = data unavailable.
|
Species name |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
H. rudolfensis |
? |
? |
? |
A |
A |
A |
|
H. habilis |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
H. ergaster |
H |
H |
H |
H |
H |
A |
|
H. erectus |
H |
? |
H |
H |
? |
I |
|
H. heidelbergensis |
H |
? |
H |
H |
? |
A |
|
H neanderthalensis |
H |
H |
H |
H |
H |
H |
In order to fend off the usual bogus anti-creationist accusations of quoting out of context, Table 1 (above) has been reproduced from Table 7 in Wood and Collard exactly as it appears in their work. As can be seen, only one major constellation of traits in the specimens in question is in fact characterized as I (intermediate) between australopiths and Homo sapiens. All of the others are either unknown, clear-cut australopith in morphology, or clear-cut Homo sapiens in morphology. Now, had the hominins actually been a series of transitional forms gradually progressing from australopith to modern Homo sapiens (as commonly portrayed in textbooks), many if not most of the entries in Table 1 would instead be I (intermediate).
But it gets even worse for the evolutionist. Note that the individual hominins do not even qualify as a mosaic of australopith and Homo sapiens attributes. There is no increase in the number of human traits in the ‘series’. Most or all of the six constellations of traits dichotomize sharply along the lines of all-australopith or all Homo sapiens in terms of morphology.
The non-transitions in human evolution - on evolutionist' terms
Conclusion
That chart reduces to australopithicus ape fossils and human fossils with no evidence of intermediaries. Somewhere there is a quote of evolutionists admitting that australopithicus is more distinct from both humans and chimps than humans and chimps are from each other.
Without tricks like normalizing the skulls and fluffing, you would never dare post a chart like this. That you have, should embarrass you to no end.
This isn't representative of "transitionals". It is however, representative of the sloppy work of Dr. Theobold, who published this farce as part of his alleged 29 evidences, which are every bit as flimsy.
For Reference - FauxEvoImagery
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
