[JohnnyM]

I have a question on "Claim CB801" dealing with classifying human fossils vs ape fossils.

Wouldn't the question of classification be put to rest if you saw the actual living specimen represented by the fossilized bones. For example, if you saw an ape and a human, you could tell the two apart very easily, but if you saw an ape skull and a human skull without their "outer shell" it would be much harder to classify. Is it fair to absolutely classify a specimen when you are missing the very information that makes distinct classification possible?

Also, in many of these cases, scientists only have a small portion of the skeleton. The may only have a skull, a hand, or other bone, and without the full skeleton, which would better help in classification, aren't they just making educated guesses?

JM

[Sofa King]

"For example, if you saw an ape and a human, you could tell the two apart very easily, but if you saw an ape skull and a human skull without their "outer shell" it would be much harder to classify."

Taking aside structural differences between a human and a chimp which can be judge from a skeleton, what is the major difference between a human's "outer shell" and an chip's "outer shell" aside from a greater amount of hair?