Replies

The problem with that skull chart is that it's a lot like lining up cars and saying they evolved from each other.

"A" is a modern chimpanzee skull. They aren't considered by evolutionists to be human ancestry, so why is it even there?

"B,C,D,E,&F" are all an extinct ape named arithopicenes(sp). They aren't considered ancestral to or from chimpanzees. F is skull 1470 which was originally found in 100 pieces and reconstructed to have a flat face like a human. After Creationist Scientists were allowed to examine it and started pointing out features that were clearly arithopicenes in nature, it was reconstructed with a sloping face and reclassed into the ape category.

Skull G is considered human but looks to be a terrible specimen. I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions fro it.

"H" and "I" are considered early humans.

"M&N" are modern humans. "J,K,L" Are all Neanderthal skulls. Neanderathals aren't considered to be ancestral to modern humans either. They were contemporaries of modern humans and actually lived with modern humans. Their skulls were on average larger than modern humans, but you can't tell that from your chart, making me think they either aren't representative or aren't to scale.

Bottom line is you have a row of ape skulls and a row of human skulls. You don't really have the progression that's intended to portray.

The problem with that skull chart is that it's a lot like lining up cars and saying they evolved from each other.

I can't imagine a transitional series such as evolution actually predicts which cannot be dismissed as evidence by this kind of lawyering. Clearly, you will happily do this indefinitely.

Look at me, Zippy! This is important.

When you claim "The lack of transitionals is evidence against evolution," you imply that there is fossil record evidence you would willingly accept which is both reasonably expected and missing. You are lying.

You don't accept any such evidence. You intend never to do so.

Furthermore, almost as an aside, let me add that what is reasonably expected from the fossil record isn't missing. What is missing isn't reasonably expected. We have about the fossil record we would expect from what we know of evolution and geology in 2005.

"B,C,D,E,&F" are all an extinct ape named arithopicenes(sp). They aren't considered ancestral to or from chimpanzees.

The common ancestors of humans and chimpanzees looked a lot more like chimps than they do humans, or than humans look like chimps. Yes, A is a modern chimp. B is an australopithecine. You are supposed to notice they look a lot alike.

Did you really not understand that? You just made a point of seemingly not understanding that. You're willing to play that dumb and then claim you have a superior science to the accumulated knowledge of the last 146 years. You'll thus excuse me if I check out another thread without giving the rest of your post the detailed going-over it doesn't deserve anyway.