[Coyoteman]

No, you posted more blather that is trump up to look like evidence. Using the language of science does not prove a thing. You can talk circles around the issue all you want, but the proof is in the pudding so to speak. You've used pretty language, but nothing which could be described as parimonious to the discussion.

I posted data and theory, that is, photographs and summary descriptions of actual fossils hominids, along with an interpretive chart.

You have countered with hand waving and verbiage, but no data, theory, or even an attempt at a rebuttal. Your argument comes down to "It ain't so and you can't make me believe it nohow 'cuz I says so."

Well, you'll be waving half the night over this next one (watch out you don't reach V1).

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(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

[SoldierDad]

OOOh, a bunch of pretty pictures which mean exactly jack. Where in all those skulls is the proof of your theory?