Actually, pretty much most of your intermediates are misrepresentations.
You know, if you had a sense or irony...
Remember how Neanderthal once looked like an ape man.
No, because I wasn't alive in the mid-1800s when such misconceptions and the now anachronistic concept of a "missing link" ruled paleoanthropology.
There were no new discoveries that morphed Neanderthal into a human indiscernable from the variety of humans today.
Completely untrue. It was the discovery of many other tranistional hominids that dispelled the 19th Century misconceptions about Neanderthal as well as paleoanthropological finds that gave us insight into their primative culture (relative to us and Cro-Magnon H. sapiens). Neanderthals also are
not indiscernable from "the variety of humans today". They have a number of unique characteristics that definatively qualify them as a separate or subspecies of genus Homo.
It was DNA. Hence, thank the Lord, he gave us this evidence and folley that demonstrates just how biased your representations can be.
Yes, DNA showed them conclusively to
not be modern H sapiens. How then is the NDNA Project supposed to support your assertions?
Here is your (F) Rudolfensis, above...an ape.
You base that on those simple profile drawings? How trained are you in primate anatomy and how much intimate knowledge do you have about Rudolphensis anatomy specfically?
Lluc, the flat faced ape 12myo.
And did you read the whole article, including this part:
"The detailed morphological study of the cranial remains of Lluc showed that, together with the modern anatomical features of hominids (e.g., nasal aperture wide at the base, high zygomatic rood, deep palate), it displays a set of primitive features, such as thick dental enamel, teeth with globulous cusps, very robust mandible and very procumbent premaxilla. These features characterize a group of primitive hominoids from the African Middle Miocene, known as afropithecids.
Interestingly, in addition to having a mixture of hominid and primitive afropithecid features, Lluc displays other characteristics, such as a very anterior position of the zygomatic, a very strong mandibular torus and, especially, a very reduced maxillary sinus. These are features shared with kenyapithecines believed to have dispersed outside the African continent and colonized the Mediterranean region, by about 15 million years ago."
So, Lluc has a surprisingly reduced prognathism, but every other characteristic in his head resembles other hominids and primative pre-hominids. You can't just look at one characteristic or look at a profile drawing and go on gut instinct. There are professional anatomists that are much more qualified to make classifications of these fossils than you or I.
Lucy
Lucy: The First Hominid Skeleton
Above is Lucy, with curved fingers, no heavy eye brow ridging...and still an ape.
This is why you should know what the heck you're talking about and not rely on search engine results. The photo on the left not only isn't Lucy, it's not even an Australopithecine. It looks to me like a modern human who has been ritually buried or, perhaps a sacrifice or murder victim. The photo on the right isn't Lucy either - as I've already pointed out to you - but is instead Salem and I think I figured out how you messed up. Salem is popularly referred to as "Lucy's child" despite being a couple hundred thousand years older than she is. That's probably how you got the incorrect search result that you did.
Above is Turkana Boy, Erectus or eragaster, they haven't made up their mind...as you see the side view shows...an ape...and an ape with heavy eyebrow ridging. If you square his chin up by tilting the head back a little even more does he look like an ape.
{snip a lot of bluster by someone who clearly doesn't know the most basic facts about the topic upon which she's lecuring people}
Turkana Boy, since he lived in Africa, is ergaster. And I've already pointed out that you need to not only look at all the characteristics of the skull, you also need to look at the body and it clearly isn't "ape".
