What it shows is that the evidence we have, and how we have interpreted it, has improved. Evidence arrives in piecemeal fashion. E.g. we find new fossils. We develop genetic sequencing techniques, and acquire genomes of more and more creatures. That science is based upon questioning everything leads to us finding out more information, which allows us to more and more accurately reveal what happened in the past, predict the future, etc.
You paint the way that scientific theories change and evolve over time as a bad thing, but it's actually a very good thing. If we look at physics, then Newton did extremely well for things of reasonable sizes which travel at modest speeds. E.g. even nowdays Newtonian physics can be used to design roller coasters. However, Newtonian physics predicts that with sufficient energy, you could propel a ship faster than the speed of light. Which we now believe that we can't. Albert Einstein came along and came up with a better physics which is more accurate than Newton's physics. But that doesn't mean that Newton was "wrong", just that his laws were only a very accurate approximation of the truth. Einstein's laws are a better approximation of the truth, and development of physics since then has improved things further. But this doesn't invalidate what Newton did. He did a very good job, it's just that today we can do better.
Early depictions of early man are probably less accurate than current predictions, because we've learnt more about early man and have learnt more about how to extract knowledge from the available evidence. But, early predictions weren't just 100% wrong. E.g. they didn't depict early man as giant starfish with purple wings.
Creationists often quote the way that scientific theories change over time as something "wrong" with them. But what's wrong with continual reevaluation and improvement?
You describe science working as it should do, with further discoveries and academic argument leading to a refinement of theories about what H. erectus was like. Then you suddenly say that Erectus is no more human than a modern gorilla. There is evidence that H. erectus used stone tools, and possibly even fire. This I think makes Erectus more human than a gorilla. Though given the skull shape, Erectus probably wouldn't look pretty to our eyes.
And you also say that "evolutionists have nothing more than biased misrepresentations to present at best". Why would you say this? The evidence we have is still being acquired, which will allow us to say with increasing accuracy what Erectus was like. But why would you suddenly discount what has been learned about Erectus. Theories will improve over time, but you appear to be wanting to discount everything we know because it probably isn't a perfect knowledge of what Erectus was like.
These all look like good papers that illustrate science in action as competing theories are compared and evaluated, which over time will improve our knowledge.
And what's wrong with that? Unless we invent a time machine nobody can know exactly what went on that long ago, and we need to make theories about what happened. Examining how science works show that in all fields our knowledge and the quality of our theories has improved over time. So, why should this advancement be seen as a bad thing in studies on evolution and human evolution?
There is evidence of chimpanzees and even baboons engaging in abstract thought. E.g.
Baboons Show Signs of Abstract Thought, a Human Trait
Erectus had fire, but that does not mean that Erectus could make fire. I'm not personally aware of strong evidence about whether Erectus could make fire as you describe it, and think that the evidence is still light for Erectus having controlled fire of any sort. Hence I think that any conclusions about the humanity of Erectus based on control of fire is premature, and it's possible that we may never find sufficient evidence of the fine details of how Erectus used fire, and hence may never know with any certainty things such as this.
Brain size calculations are just one piece of information about species that we use to build theories about what sort of species they were and how they acted. How are they "ridiculous" and "biased"?
If you want to claim that you'll need evidence. A number of extinct species show characteristics closer to modern humans than apes. And for some not necessarily on a line to us (e.g. Neanderthals) we even have genetic evidence. Homo heidelbergensis had a brain case much larger than modern gorillas and overlapping the size of modern humans. They also used stone tools, etc. Are you saying that Homo heidelbergensis is also on the path to
Example evidence you could raise would be to show that there are no fossils of extinct proto-humans who are more human than ape-like. But, I think you'll find the existing evidence suggests the opposite.
Once again, this is an excellent example of how science works. Looking at the paper this is saying that certain fossils may have been misinterpreted. Scientists who found the bones are claiming one thing, other scientists are claiming something else, and further analysis and research will be required to solve the dispute. The work involved in solving the dispute will address something we don't know - the range of human and non-human species present at the time of the fossils, and the result will most likely be a step forward in our understanding.
Well, you can say that. But you haven't supported that. You've talked specifically about evidence for human evolution, and you've referenced papers which show science in the active pursuit of better understanding, better evidence, and hence better theories. But then you seem to say that because the theories aren't set in stone, but are reevaluated and improved as our knowledge progresses, that there is something "wrong" with this, and we should then ignore all evidence and say we have none. That's a non-sequitur, and doesn't really argue against the sum total of evidence for evolution itself.
As a biblical creationist I see evidence of transistion from one form of non human ape to another eg Lucy to chimp or gorilla. There is no credible and substantiated evidence of any transition from common ancestor to mankind.
Do you have evidence that this creature wasn't on or near to the evolutionary line that produced whales?
You've got to be more precise about what you mean by "wrong". There's a difference between out-and-out wrong, and something which is an approximation but not exact. Newton was "wrong" but his laws of physics were very good for a lot of things, such as designing roller coasters, predicting braking distance of cars, etc. For object sizes and speeds that Newton was dealing with, he got it right. It's just that later we found better approximations, that can also predict for huge or very tiny objects, or objects travelling close to the speed of light.
The same applies for evolution. We now understand and have very good evidence for the basic principles, particularly after genetic studies were able to much more directly examine the relationships between different species, genus, and taxa. If people say that our current understanding of evolution will change over time, that doesn't mean that our current understanding is bad, just that we will improve it. And there's nothing wrong with that at all.
What you say seems to be "knowledge obtained by science isn't perfect, could be improved, therefore it's useless". Like Newton's laws of physics, it doesn't work like this. Approximations tell use something close to the truth, and further work gets us even closer to the truth. And that process will continue.
