“Nothing wrong with that, it’s the way things should be.”
Nothing wrong with that unless you make unsubstantiated claims based on the flimsy evidence, and then portray to the public that those claims are scientific conclusions.
“”Not many”? Again, this listing includes dozens of different sites, some of which produced many ancient bones.”
For “not many” out of the various types of hominids do we actually have anything like a nearly complete skelton. I don’t care if you have 300 sets of neanderthal skeletons, that doesn’t help you reconstruct any other hominids.
From your own link:
“As there are thousands of fossils, mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth with complete skulls and skeletons rare”
“The skulls are arranged not according to just “some property”, but by estimated age, oldest-to-youngest, beginning with the second skull, after the first modern chimpanzee.”
Yes, but as the estimated ages are derived from a somewhat subjective standard, it makes it just another arbitrary property upon which to arrange your meaningless visual display.
I could take a bunch of skulls of creatures that evolutionists don’t speculate have common descent, arrange them in the same way, and make it look like there is a progression, but that would not demonstrate any actual progression ever happened.
“So, your “hand waving” argument here notwithstanding, the photo provides a reasonable answer for those who demand to see “intermediate forms”.”
No “hand waving”, just common sense. By evolutionist’s own standards, we know that morphological similarity is not necessarily an indicator of common descent. So, arranging a bunch of skulls that have perceived morphological similarity demonstrates nothing, other than that you can arrange some skulls nicely.
Most all of your assertions here are mere hand-waving.
Also, you try to define a straw-man "science" to suit your own purposes, then beat it down with hand-waving assertions.
Not much serious argument there, FRiend.
Boogieman: "Yes, but as the estimated ages are derived from a somewhat subjective standard, it makes it just another arbitrary property upon which to arrange your meaningless visual display."
More hand-waving at a photograph you keep insisting, over and over and over, is "meaningless".
Methinks you doth protest too much...
In fact, all such age estimates are as "objective" as scientists know how to be, considering geological strata, radiometric results and other known fossils.
So, if you claim such estimated ages are somehow wrong, what scientific evidence can you present of their actual ages?
Boogieman: "I could take a bunch of skulls of creatures that evolutionists don’t speculate have common descent, arrange them in the same way, and make it look like there is a progression, but that would not demonstrate any actual progression ever happened."
First of all, evolution theory tells us all large creatures are thought to have common ancestors, be it millions or hundreds of millions of years ago.
So, right out of the box, your premise is wrong.
Of course, science does not know which fossils actually descended from which ancestors, and so cannot say for sure if one skull was the actual ancestor of another.
But the progression over time is striking, and morphological similarities strongly suggest close relationships -- just as they do today with living creatures.
Indeed, if we look at morphological similarities of living creatures, and then compare their DNAs, we see that one strongly correlates to the other.
This is one basis for concluding how much ancient fossils were more, or less, closely related.