Astridhere,
If you reject the fossils that have been proposed as being intermediate, then please tell us what criteria you are using to determine which fossils are intermediate and which are not.
I have! .and many here are going around in circles.
You have few that are anything more than single bones. I have spoken to my criteria many times.
You appear to be requesting more than you yourself can provide in being clear what's what. Your Java man debarkle, Ardi and Lucy biting the dust etc etc are examples. Maybe, perhaps and outlandish scenarios do not give any theory merit.Also, please tell us what features a real transitional would have.
Umm, You may not have realised that I am a creationist. Hence you are requesting that I provide a description of a mythical creature. You have over 100 years of changing theories and reclassifications. How should I describe what a mythical creature should look like? Can you or should you have to describe God or Nephalim for evolutionary theory to be robust?.[/quote]
What is it about this description below that you and others keep missing?
"The stark and obvious difference between mankind and beast is not in the sharing of 4 similar limbs and a head. It is about mankinds highly sophisticated language, superior reasoning ability and perception including the ability to percieve of a Creator and pay homage to a God. No beast has the perceptual ability to give praise to God as only mankind was created in Gods image and given this privelidge."
Here is another. Extreme sexual dimorphism. Homo Erectus dispalys more primitive features than previously thought. Again more evidence that Erectus was a variety of ape, on top of all the ape features listed in this mornings post as well as Erectus' ape head.
New Kenyan Fossils Challenge Established Views On Early Evolution Of Our Genus Homo
Therefore the above data demonstrates Erectus is discontinuous (Baramins, previously discussed) with Mankind and outside the range of variability of humans. The truth does not lie in anyones ability to answer every question. The truth more likely lies in the plausability of possibilities put forward and how they may align with or explain the evidence. I do not need to best guess what the first created ape looked like and you have no idea what the chimp/human common ancestor looked like either. This is your mistake to make unvalidated assumptions that build theories of straw that tumble quickly. Because of evolutionists assumptions they have ended up in the mess they are currently in with virtually no direct human ancestors to speak to. Do not expect me to make similar mistakes by basing criteria on unnecessary assumptions. It is foley.
An example of foley below. Out of Africa..going going gone, and dating methods as clear as mud.
Human ancestor older than previously thought; Finding offers new insights into evolution
It is not about which researcher is right or wrong. It is about your irrefutable evidence for common descent and dating methods being as clear as mud.
Apes are not capable of lighting fires and controlling them. There were no lighters or matches then. It is a complex task that relates to cognitive ability as described above.
I note you conveniently evaded the points I made by posing more questions.
If Ardi and Lucy are no longer direct human ancestors. If Ardi and Lucy had the bipedalism your reseachers purported they had, then are some apes today likely descendant from bipedal apes?
Do you accept the research re Ardi and Lucy not being human ancestors, I posted? If not, please refute it and your own researchers as best you can?
What wildly non plausable scenario do you think your researchers will propose to mop up this mess? I say that if these creatures were bipedal it is possible that the first created ape was somewhat more bipedal before the fall. Then again, if this is recanted, they go back to simply being varieties of apes.
What about my point that these supposed half ape heads, Erectus, worked out how to use flint stone or stick rubbing... did they? I say this is a wild scenario born of desperation as erectus did not have the perceptive ability to light and control fire.
What about my point that a curved fingered, 3ft tall, ape that resembles a Bornean Orang left very human footprints. What say you? Apart from this being another far fetched scenario, I say it demonstrates that mankind and apes coexisted and that's about all.
Ancient footprints show human-like walking began nearly 4 million years ago
So there you have it, science as it supports creation. OR Non plausable philosophies, unfalsifiable theories and scenarios about how the evidence for creation is meant to support evolution.
The evidence clearly supports the creation as it stands, as I have demonstrated. This is science, ...not evolutionists wild and fantastic scenarios proposed to side step the falsification of the theory of common descent.
.