"If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"

No, my original point was that the fossil ancestors discovered have dimensions that often fall well within the range of modern humans.My point was that the evidence that RAZD provided was unacceptable. If he has some real evidence perhaps he could share it with us. Perhaps he would like to start by giving us the full range of variation amongst the present human population.

You haven't given any coherent rationale why this should be so. I understand that you personally refuse to accept it but you haven't really provided any reason why well characterised fossils which have been studied by professional paleontologists and are part of the Smithsonian collection should be discounted as not being 'real' evidence. for a good overview of the sort of criteria that are used to identify new fossil hominin species have a look at "The hominin fossil record: taxa, grades and clades" (Wood and Lonergan, 2008)Presumably you would accept that some of those skulls fall outside the range of modern human variation. And RAZD's entire point is that there is a gradual cline of morphological features so we would expect a number of the non modern Homo skulls to also fall within that range of variation for some features.So what do you consider would constitute 'real' evidence? Which skulls do you think should be entirely outside the range of human variation?TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : Added Wood and Lonergan paper.

Hi again Big_Al35, Curiously that is not at all what you said. If you had started with this comment then we wouldn't have had the rather silly, imho, discussion about extra teeth, and your amusing assertion that it only occurred in old people.So you now admit that supernumerary teeth are not evidence of any belief you happen to have regarding people. Good. Now you waffle on to another point. So you are now saying that ALL the skulls in the picture repeated below are for modern humans? And you also agree that all the skeletons shown in that post are also for modern humans? Because these also "fall well within the range of modern humans" yes?Is this the skeleton of a modern human?

quote:

---

http://www.boneroom.com/casts/bcloneprimate.html

---

Enjoy.

You are definitely going to need evidence to back up this assertion. Then you need to supply something to back up this claim. As far as I can tell, fossils with a mixture of modern human and primitive ape characteristics is exactly the kind of evidence we should see if evolution is true. If you are looking for a different type of evidence then please tell us what it is.

While single dimensions from fossils usually fall within the range of modern humans, that means nothing. Skulls and bones are three-dimensional shapes, and single dimensions simply can't describe their complex shapes.For that you need multivariate statistics, and that's what the professionals use. I started using those statistics in the mid-70s in graduate school, and successfully differentiated among several closely related Native American groups.Here are a few random article titles from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that include multiple discriminant function analysis:

--The Maka femur and its bearing on the antiquity of human walking: Applying contemporary concepts of morphogenesis to the human fossil record
--Discriminant function analysis of the central portion of the innominate
--Morphological and taxonomic affinities of the Olduvai ulna (OH 36)
--Is Central Asia the eastern outpost of the Neandertal range? A reassessment of the Teshik-Tash child
--Cranial shape in fruit, nectar, and exudate feeders: Implications for interpreting the fossil record

Here is more evidence that you could ever want. This is the online link to the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. (It is one of many hundred such journals.)Just a moment...You can examine the titles and abstracts of all issues to get an idea of what is really going on in the evolution field.So don't tell us we have no evidence!

I'm no RAZD, but how about looking at the range of variation in cranial capacity as an example?
The image below plots the cranial capacity of all fossil Hominins and compares them to the range of variation in cranial capacity of modern humans, as shown on the far left. Also shown is variation in cranial capacity of modern Chimpanzees, and as you can see the further back you go the cranial capacity of these fossils tend towards the range seen in chimps. Source including references

When your data refers to Cro Magnon or Homo Sapiens Sapiens,
It is not clear if this data includes the following groups;Cranial capacity for: northern and southern europeans, tribes of africa including masai, zulu, pygmy etc, northern and southern indians, chinese, japanese, phillipeno, thai, native northern and southern americans. Maybe we should assess the variance in cranial capacity for modern races today?

Hi again Big_Al35, You mean not all of them are Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Would you like to point out which ones are not included?Meanwhile there are some other questions you have not answered: If they are not all modern humans then where do you draw the line?Enjoy.

Hi Big Al,This is from the Wikipedia article on Cranial Capacity: It provides these ranges for existing species: --Percy

I never said that. I asked you for the average cranial capacities of the peoples identified. A simple question. Why avoid it with claims of discrimination?

I think the point everyone is making is that you're not addressing any information provided to you. All you do is ask for more information. That's why RAZD keeps repeating his question.You haven't explicitly stated your position, but your questions make clear that you believe hominid fossils all fit within the range of modern human variation. Clearly this cannot be true, e.g., this image of an Australopithicus africanus skull: This skull is clearly outside the range of modern human variation, so RAZD is asking where you draw the line.Also, cranial capacity information has now been presented to you. Are you going to discuss the data, or will you just continue asking more questions?--Percy

White mans skull Black mans skull Asian man skull Homo erectus Skull Yea its just normal variation you can plainly see rofl

Look at the erectus skull provided by RAZD and yours frako they are completely different. One of you must be wrong.Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.

U sure? What post?
A noter H erectus for you So what do you think does this account for you variation within kinds theory? Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Here is one for you. As you can see homo erectus looks nothing like your image. Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.