The Definition and Description of a "Transitional"

Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolutionorTransitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQor29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

It is better if you see some pictures. I see that Loudmouth has given some information. When you see them all lined up it there is a nice gradient and it is very hard to draw the line between what is an ape and what is a human.Ned's reply is also very important. It is not just the physical differences that we see but also the fact that the fossils date going back farther and farther into the past AS the physical differences get more and more ape like. No one is just putting a bunch of skulls into a sequence that they think looks like evolution, the order is really how we found them.

Forget about time. They are laid out in depth.

Are you talking about modern apes? If so then I suppose someone who is not a palentologist might mistake an ape an a human skull but I don't know.The thing about these skulls though is that you can't put them definitivly into either category from a paleoanthropic perspective.Creationists are very fond of putting samples that are closer to ape and closer to human in distinctive human and ape categories but then have trouble with the ones right near the middle of the gradient.I would expect that under study the distinction between two ends of the gradient would be clear.

Except for the fact that many samples for some of these in-between species have been found. If there only was 1 you might be able to dismiss it as a deformity but there are many. They all would have to of had the same deformity.Also, why would this deformity be correlated with depth in the geologic column? Why would this pervasive deformity cause humans to look more and more like apes as you go down in the column?This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-16-2004 01:37 PM

I am sure you can find information either at those links or by doing your own searches. You will have to understand that they are probably going to be giving you information about depth via an age determination against the geologic column and not actual depth from the particular surface of the earth where the fossils were found. The depth I am talking about is geochronological depth (i.e. Lucy is never found past a certain layer or below a certain layer).Regular geologists associate this with time which you probably disagree with. You cannot dismiss the relative positioning though, it is a fact.