Replies

"Interpretation:
* Juvenile (3 years old based on deciduous teeth, first permanent molars) (1, 3, 4, 7)
* Bipedal hominid (based on position of foremen magnum, brain endocast, small canines) (1, 3, 4, 7)
* Killed possibly by bird of prey (based on fractures and puncture marks on skull) (1, 10) "

It is an INTERPRETATION , and nothing else! What about my interpretation : "Killed possibly by fallen rocks( based on fractures and puncture marks on skull)" .Which interpretation is good ?
An interpretation is based on subjective judgment.

It is an INTERPRETATION , and nothing else! What about my interpretation : "Killed possibly by fallen rocks( based on fractures and puncture marks on skull)" .Which interpretation is good ? An interpretation is based on subjective judgment.

Is that the new creationist talking point? You can have the data but I have my own interpretation?

"Which interpretation is good?" Well, I would surely trust the interpretation made by experts who have examined the fossil over yours. Even my own interpretation is better than yours, as I have some training in that field and I spent several hours with a cast of this specimen in grad school.

Gee, I guess not all interpretations are of equal value, eh?

Meanwhile, here is another of my favorite specimens.

Fossil: Sts 5

Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

See, here's some info for you.....Coyote, with as much info you pump into these threads, there's an equal amount of information out there to contradict it.

Here are five special reasons why mankind *did not* descend from apes. We cover several of these in detail in other chapters:

"1. Abrupt appearance of fossil forms separated by systematic gaps between fossil forms. 2. Distinctness of DNA, chemical components, and pattern (design) of morphological similarities. 3. Laws of Mendel: combination, recombination always results in easily recognized plant, animal forms; conclusive evidence of fixed reproductive patterns (designs). 4. Distinctness of human self-conscious awareness, and metaphysical concerns. 5. Distinctness of human personality involving moral and ethical concern; reflective, symbolic, abstract, conceptual thought."—John N. Moore, "Teaching about Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 184 (emphasis his).

From here:

http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-13a.htm