[Coyoteman]

I think this explains why pictures of transitional forms are not used, including in the link by Non-Sequitur, because a good common sense look at the general morphology of these animals would demonstrate the vastness of unfilled physical gaps and unanswered questions.

I posted a picture of H. ergaster in post 47, upthread.

And don't worry overmuch about laymen having to apply "common sense" looks at the general morphology of these specimens.

Scientists are applying very detailed looks, as well as multivariate statistics to remove the subjectivity.

I think all your post proves is that when it comes to science and the interpretations therein, it is no use listening to creationists.

[reasonisfaith]

Evolutionists are too defensive. Most if not all posts by evolutionists require some sort of character defamation against creationists—associate creationism with an emotional response, because the more rational consideration it gets, the more believable it is.

To those who haven’t made up their minds, I would say look at both sides of the argument. Read everyone from Darwin up to the contemporary biologists. And of course Gish and Behe.

I would recommend listening to Perry Marshall and what he has to say about information theory:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm