The Missing Link

Huh?As you said in that other thread: "What makes you think that I can be insulted and blackmailed into participating in this new topic?" Me... escape you... oh ho ho! Good one! ROTFLMFAO! Oh I do apologise! There was me thinking it was you who had just about all of my posts still to reply to... and it seems I've missed something. My, erm, 'bad'. Could you link to the scientific evidence that you have posted please? I'd hate for you to think I was ignoring you. Come again? Yep. I haven't joined in because the others have already covered it pretty well. You Americans can merrily post away during what is, for me, the evening and all through night. So I find a fully-formed thread the next morning.I do note, however, that you are still not grasping what I told you ages ago about the Pilbeam quote: that it's talking about the path of hominin evolution, not whether it occurred. I see that others have said the same thing. Till you can understand that, there's little else to say.Tell you what: you link to whatever evidence you think I've not responded to, and I'll rustle up a half-dozen threads on all the matters you still have outstanding. Sound good?DT

YES I AGREE - they were discussing the path of hominin evolution AND not whether it happened.This path leads to the "fossil void " to use the phrase Leakey chose, and it is in this context that Pilbeam describes the amount of evidence in the void as "meagre".Milton and I contend that Pilbeam's statement was an honest assessment of the amount of evidence in existence at the time of the quote. Leakey/Pilbeam are simply saying that there isn't enough evidence to claim victory even though they obviously believe the ToE.If you want top jump this entire post and your reply over to the other topic than please do so.I also have cited you in a response I gave in the Evolution category and challenged you post number 12 (Top Ten Reasons.....)

I have been following the issue on skull types and want to add another to the collection, dolichocephalous skulls. I had followed a discussion about them on another forum (since deleted) with many web site references to them. I had saved one reference and am trying to search for the others. The following URL has dolichocephalous skulls in stone, at the Cairo Museum.http://www.ra-horakhty.co.uk/malta/dec002.htmThe deleted forum also had references and gifs of these skull types found in South America. Definitely a different cranial capacity.Added 12-29-2003:
Found the original article that prompted the discussion of dolichocephalous skulls.http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/maltaskulls.htmThe paleopolice insist the skulls do not exist, since they do not fit within their conclusions on human evolution. I would think that paleoanthropologists would want to do a little DNA checking just to find an explanation for their existence.[This message has been edited by FrankM, 12-29-2003]

But, again, WT, where is the void? What are the end points of the void in terms of species and times?------------------
Common sense isn't

I would first like to say I have loved this thread. I am a crustacean biologist with a great interest in human evolution. In contrast to DT, I tend to be a lumper when it comes to human fossils. The differences between fossils of hominoids and extant species pales when compared to congeners in decapod crustaceans (my specialty). I suspect that we (as a species) recognize differences on a different scale than we hold to other animals.For example, I am currently working on a species description of a pinnotherid crab. This crab lives in association with a tubiculous polychaete. It is most similar to a species that is free-living or associated with holothuroids (sea cucumbers) or ophioroids (brittle stars). This crab lacks the frontal notch of the related species and has rows of corneous spines on its dactyls (leg tips). It also varies in carapace length to width, amount and structure of setae, and elongation of the fourth walking leg. My argument is that I think these differences in morphology and habitat warrant species designation, but several colleagues of mine disagree (with some valid reasons) and claim that this is an ecotype of the related species. I apologize for the long crustacean description but the point is that the differences between my species and the other are debatable points in Brachyuran crab taxonomy and are far more significant than many differences between Hominoid species.I think this point is well illustrated in Johanson and Edey's book. They discuss the taxonomy of their fossils in Plattian terms, describing the possibles and elimating the impossibles. So they propose that the fossils are Homo, Austalopithecus, or something else. Why don't they include Pan? I am not saying that Pan is a valid assumption, but leaving it out of the analysis is not valid either.As an aside, I sent a letter to Kent Hovind several years ago detailing the evolution of Lithodid Crabs (Alaskan king crab, as well as many other species of economic importance). I showed the evolutionary continuum between Lithodids and hermit crabs (their ancestors). His reply (no surprise) "This change, if true, only shows microevolution" So if any of you find yourselves at the beach, pick up a hermit crab and ponder God's wonder in creating the hermit crab kind that would microevolve into the Alaskan King Crab. - Aaron

Hi L-M, welcome to EvCforum!I enjoyed your first post here. It never ceases to amaze me how much evolution YECs are willing to stuff into "microevolution", while still denying "macroevolution" occurs. I once had a YEC claim that trilobites were all still trilobites (i.e., microevolved), even though the class consists of four complete orders of organisms. Have you ever been able to get a cogent definition of what constitutes a "kind" from one of your YEC discussants? If so, could you post it in a new thread - 'cause some of us have been waiting for years...

Dear Lithodid-Man,I associate my enthousiasm with Quetzal, even if I was not waiting for that more than one year now.
I'll love to read an alternative definition of "kind" (genus).PS: I love fossil crabsDenesha

this is known as the "declare victory and run from the field" approach.perhaps if you had cited your source that you copied and pasted from on the original post on this thread the comments could have been better targeted.enjoy.

As per you suggestion I started a thread on YEC kinds,
Miscellaneous Topics in Creationism/Evolution --> "Kind"ly Creationism.
Thanks for the welcome!