How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY)

"If we reject the natural explanation of hereditary descent from a common ancestry, we can only suppose that the Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous pains to make him in the image of the ape. This, I say, is a matter of undeniable fact -- supposing the creation theory true -- and as a matter of fact, therefore, it calls for explanation. Why should God have thus conditioned man as an elaborate copy of the ape, when we know from the rest of creation how endless are His resources in the invention of types?"
George J. Romanes, 1882

Find me an engineer whose designs fall into a nested hierarchy.Also, engineers recycle old designs and old code because of time and resource constraints. An omniscient and omnipotent supernatural deity who resides outside of time with access to infinite resources would not need to recycle designs. For such an entity starting from scratch would require the same effort as recycling old designs.

Lucy isn't the only Australopithecus in existence. Dikika child, for example, is nearly complete. There are also other nearly complete known Australopiths. Hardly.

How does creationism explain the trend in morphology? Why do modern human features slowly emerge in hominid fossils over time?

Perhaps you forgot that Chapter 9 of "Origin of Species" is entitled "On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record". Darwin goes to lengths to explain why we do not see numerous transitional fossils and why the geologic record is missing strata throughout. You are making the assumption that everything that lived also turned into a fossil that is preserved to this day and is accessible to scientists. This is a very, very poor assumption.

You will have a point when cars start having babies.

ICAN'T,You still have not shed light on how creationism explains the morphological trends in the hominid transitional fossils. As we go through time modern human features become more pronounced while more primitive ape features become less pronounced. These are the undeniable facts. How does creationism explain this?

I can imagine the conversation now . . .God's Boss: Hey Yahweh, what seems to be going wrong?YHWH: The brain seems big enough but the little buggers can't talk very well.GB: Did you check the FoxP2 gene?YHWH: You know, I didn't. How dumb of me.GB: Don't worry. Beginner's mistake.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

What if only 10% of those fossils escaped erosion and subduction? What if only 1% of those 10% are accessible to scientists in strata that are easily searched? What if scientists have only searched 0.0000001% of the strata that is accessible to them that carries these fossils?Added by edit:At one time the passenger pigeon population in North America numbered in the billions yet only a handful of passenger pigeon fossils are known. If a numerous and recent species only has a handful of fossil examples what does this say about more ancient and less numerous species.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

No living person looks like H. erectus. In H. erectus we see primitive ape features not seen in modern humans.So once again, why do modern human features slowly emerge in hominid fossils over time?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Chuck Norris, obviously.

Or this: Or this: One of the key differences between these two species (H. habilis and H. erectus respectively) and modern humans is the protruding jaw, large brow ridges, and sloping forehead. For H. habilis and H. erectus try and figure out how they could wear a baseball cap. They lack the forehead for it.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I still have not seen any creationist explanation as to why we see the emergence of modern human features over time in the hominid fossil record. Anyone?

How do you determine if one critter has become another critter? What are the criteria you are using? Isn't a chihuahua a different critter than wolves?I am different from both my parents, so does that qualify me as a different critter? Chimps are apes. Humans are apes. Our common ancestor was an ape. It is just apes turning into apes. This is microevolution, right? 330 different species = 330 different critters, does it not? If they were all the same critter then how could there be 330 different species? A common ancestor between humans and chimps has been validated:"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
Just a moment...Humans and chimps share thousands of these retroviral insertions at the same spot in their genomes. Therefore, common ancestry between humans and chimps has been validated. Add to that the fossil hominids being discussed in this thread.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Based on what criteria? Humans and chimps are classified as the same critter, an ape. Humans and bears are classified as the same critter, a mammal. Humans and fish are classified as the same critter, a vertebrate. Humans and amoeba are classified as the same critter, a eukaryote.So is this the extent of your criteria, the ability to describe two species with the same word? "Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
Just a moment...The paper goes on to show that humans and other apes do share the same ERV's at the same locations in their genomes which validates shared ancestry.And I still have not seen any creationist explanation as to why we see the emergence of modern human features over time in the hominid fossil record. Anyone?