I can't stand it anymore. Did these skulls come with labels that said "transitional ape-humans?" The premise that these skulls are transitional ape-humans is based upon a world-view that is predisposed to evolution. Are there any other plausible explanations for these skulls other than that they are "transitional ape-humans?" I think the answer to this is yes.
I have my own non-evolutionary explanation for these skulls, and I am very satisfied with it. I simply don't have the time to get into a long, drawn-out debate on the subject.
In all the posts I've seen so far, however, there are a couple of points I haven't seen made that are worth making. One is that a belief in Creationism is not at odds with either micro-evolution or natural selection. Just because I don't believe in millions of years of evolution on Earth, doesn't mean that everything evolutions say is without merit.
Creationism, like evolution, is a position that is based on evidence. The difference is how the two camps choose to interpret the evidence.
They didn't need to. They have features which are unmistakably either combinations of traits that today are found either *only* in humans or *only* in apes, and/or combine ape-only features and human-only features together on the same skull.
In addition, the age and gelogic locations of the specimens are consistent with being transitional (time-wise and location-wise) between prior and latter species, plus their features are logical modifications of fossils which are found even earlier. Finally, DNA analysis of modern men, apes, and other species is entirely consistent with the "family tree" implied by the fossil finds.
And so on, and so on, and...
When looked at via an evolutionary model, the literally millions of pieces of evidence all fit smoothly together like a well-crafted jigsaw puzzle forming a coherent picture. When looked at via any other model, they are just a messy jumble of random finds, and/or self-contradictory.
The premise that these skulls are transitional ape-humans is based upon a world-view that is predisposed to evolution.
Not really, no. See above. Their very existence makes the most sense if they are the products of evolution.
Creationists like to bray about one of the few dishonest scandals in the history of paleontology, the Piltdown hoax, but it's interesting to note that even before it was proven to be a forgery, the two Piltdown skulls were relegated to a "what the hell?" status precisely *because* they stood out as anomalies and didn't "fit" smoothly into the jigsaw puzzle of the evolutionary model, LIKE ALL THE GENUINE FOSSILS DO. That's strong food for thought -- why would real specimens fit nicely into the evolutionary model when a forgery didn't? If evolution weren't true, then *many* natural specimens would be a "square peg" fit. And yet, they're not. Additionally, the fact that the forgery *didn't* fit indicates that the evolutionary model isn't just so loose as to make room for any old "discovery".
Are there any other plausible explanations for these skulls other than that they are "transitional ape-humans?" I think the answer to this is yes.
Go for it. I have my own non-evolutionary explanation for these skulls, and I am very satisfied with it. I simply don't have the time to get into a long, drawn-out debate on the subject.
Gah -- another "I win but I won't show you my cards" post. How... convenient.
One is that a belief in Creationism is not at odds with either micro-evolution or natural selection.
Correct, although many Creationists would argue with you on that.
Creationism, like evolution, is a position that is based on evidence. The difference is how the two camps choose to interpret the evidence.
That's not entirely accurate -- creationists are famous for outright rejecting a lot of evidence they find uncomfortable, and/or flat-out distorting or lying about it.
Not all of them, I hasten to add. But a significant number do -- enough that it's a well-known problem.