Replies

I have answered your question. However, since you missed it - here it is - again: a transitional fossil would have to show CLEAR transition between one species to another - without a doubt. The fact that evolutionists cannot decide if something is human or ape means that it is not clear that one is becoming the other. There have been many hoaxes and many so-called links which have proven to be made of composite fossils: i.e. fossils which are made up of bones from more than one species. This is not a transitional fossil, obviously. Nor can one call a transitional fossil something which one cannot clearly identify. An objective scientist would have to be able to authenticate that 1) the fossil was an intact fossil and not a composite, and 2) that it shows CLEAR transition from one species to another - not that it resembled one or more species. I am not seeking to abandon the topic, but this is as clear an answer as it is possible to make on the subject. While you may disagree with me (which is fine), please do not claim I have not answered your question.

I can only conclude that you don't understand my question. It's like I keep asking you "what would something transitional between a circle and a square look like?" and you keep answering "you know, something that's clearly between a circle and a square." I'm asking for the equivalent of "a square with rounded corners" or "a circle with slightly flattened sides."

See, it seems to me that a fossil that can't clearly be assigned to ape or man but looks kinda like both, is exactly what one would expect from a transitional fossil between the ape line and the human line. You seem to want something else but will not or cannot say exactly what that is.