Replies

Thank you, Sopater, for your contribution to the ongoing Ape or Human scientific research survey. Could we please have your expert opinion on these other fossil species?

Which of the following are "just an old ape" and which are "just an old human"? Try it, it's fun!

Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison
(only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). [CLICK HERE] for larger photo.
(Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man", 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

We know that A) is a modern chimpanzee and N) is a modern human. Everyone agrees that M) was a modern human as well. Your challenge is to fill in these blanks:

Fossil	Just an ape	Ape-like transitional	Human-like transitional	Just a human	Not related at all to apes or humans
B	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
C	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
D	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
E	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
F	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
G	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
H	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
I	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
J	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
K	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
L	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]

The Responses So Far:

Person	A Pan troglodytes (modern chimp)	B, C Australopithecus africanus	D Homo habilis	E Homo habilis	F Homo rudolfensis	G Homo erectus	H Homo ergaster	I Homo heidelbergensis	J, K Homo sapiens neanderthalensis	L, M Homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon, modern human)
Mainstream scientists	ape	ape-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans, human	human
Published creationists...
Bowden, Malcolm	ape		human		human		human			human
Brown, Walt	ape	ape	ape	ape				human	human	human
Gish, Duane (1979)	ape		human		human		human			human
Gish, Duane (1985)	ape		ape		human		human			human
Luskin, Casey	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human	human	human	human
Mehlert, A. W.	ape		ape		human		human			human
Menton, David	ape		human		human		human			human
Taylor, Paul	ape		human		human		human			human
Amateur creationists...
DannyTN	ape	ape	ape		ape	human	human	human	human	human
editor-surveyor	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
Elsie	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
Michael_Michaelangelo	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
MississippiMan	ape							ape		human
Sopater	ape		human	human						human
taxesareforever	human	human	human	human	human	human	human	human	human	human
vetsvette	ape					human				human

You can put DaveLoneRanger down for H. erectus being human. While trumpting that he was "debunking man-to-human evolution" he linked an AiG paper by Mehlert which asserts such.

Now we just have to watch and see if he ever posts one of the creationist opinions which contradicts Mehlert.

Thanks jennyp, but as you have more correctly noted in the table below, I don't claim to have an expert opinion, but I will be happy to provide my amateur creationist opinion, provided that you can answer a couple of questions.

1. Do you post this somewhere?

2. Do all ameteur evolutionists agree with the results attributed to Mainstream scientists?

3. Do all expert/published evolutionists agree with the mainstream scientists?

4. If a previously expert/published scientist doesn't agree with the mainstream scientists, are they no longer considered an expert nor a scientist?

I just noticed that there are no results for evolutionists, amateurs or otherwise, giving the impression that all evolutionists agree, and I know that that is not true.

I'll take the survey, but I'll only provide my amateur opinions to you if you answer my questions and agree to survey some amateur and published evolutionists individually, and then tell me where the results are posted. This looks like a great idea.

All I can say is there are some who have just too much time on their hands.