Perhaps you can answer the quandry of how your fossil evidence supports ancestry to chimp like as well a ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp?
Perhaps you can outline this for us? What fossils support ancestry from a chimp-like ancestor?
Loudmouth has gone on and on about my putting up a description of an intermediate.
And that challenge has gone unmet.
Now I again challenge you evolutionists to do the same thing yourselves. After all this is your scenario of human evolution.
A transitional is a fossil having a mixture of characteristics from two divergent taxa. Australopithecines fit this criteria. They have features more like those of modern humans (e.g. pelvis and femur) and features more like those found in chimps (cranium size, prognathus, brow ridges).
So now it is your turn. Define transitional.
Are intermediates supposed to have a mix of chimp/human characteristics now that your researchers know the common ancestor was not chimp-like?
Sorry, but bipedal is not the same as "not chimp-like". You are equivocating. The common ancestor would have features found in chimps that are not found in modern humans, including a prognathus, brow ridges, and reduced cranial capacity. There are other features I can list as well.
Perhaps you wil go with ape like. In this case which ape? Mankind shares more morphology with an orangutan than a chimp.
Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests
Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps
The scientific community disagrees with these studies, and you already know that.
African skulls find throws story of human evolution into disarray
Nothing in this article puts the transitional nature of H. erectus or H. habilis in doubt. The only question is what the precise line of descent was. They are still transitional.
Homo Erectus is much more primitive than once thought due to new finding on sexual dimorphism akin to Gorillas.
Why does this exclude H. erectus as a transitional?
There is no order in the fossil record of human ancestry at all.
Yes, there is. There is a consistent increase in cranium size throughout the hominid fossil record.
You evolutionists also have no fossil evidence to demonstrate chimp ancestry back to any common human/chimp ancestor.
Moving the goal posts are we? The transitionals between us an the common ancestor is enough to falsify creationism.
You go right ahead and defend your science. None of you will be able to is my expectation. I predict more excuses and no resolution.
You have done nothing to refute the transitional nature of any of the fossils. They continue to have a mixture of human and chimp features just as a transitional should have. They are transitional.
At present the research supports creationist paradigms.
In order for that research to exist you need a definition for transitional. Where is it?
Homo erectus is very primitive and ape like.
Why does this exclude H. erectus from being a transitional?
I have already spoken to Turkana Boy and his ape features that demonstrate discontinuity with mankind. Huge ape like sexual dimorphism further supports my claim. Habilis was not the ancestor of erectus as the two coexisted for millions of years apparently and according to your current thinking. Now you need another ancestor 2-3mya. Was it Lucy, Afarensis? Lucy is a 3.5ft ape with curved fingers and likely not the maker of the Laetoli footprints. It is also unlikely that the human femor and human metatarsel belonged to her.
Why do any of these features exclude these fossils from being transitional? You keep pointing to the ape-like features in these fossils. Those are the exact features that make them transitional.
Now you or any evo please tell me what you look for in human intermediates that suggest mankind evolved from a question mark.
A mixture of modern human and basal ape features like those found in H. erectus.
