So every transitional species should have existed for hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years yet we can not find a single complete
series showing a transformation from one species to the next.
Oh really? A and N belong to contemporary species, the rest are in chronological order.
That is quite a collection of ape and human skulls. You have just proven variation! I can prove that buy looking at more than one person or animal of
the same species at a time and observing that they are not identical. Furthermore we see it in the different kinds of cats, dogs and other animals.
Great variations of the same species. This of course is possible because the variations are all already in the "junk" dna. Animals were made to adapt
with many possible variations being possible to enable that end.
At least you have presented something though.
Here is the text that is posted under your photo on the website where I located it at. First admission is that the photo is misleading and I am sure
it was intended to be so that it could be used to fool the unwitting.
"Now the photo is slightly misleading in that it suggests a steady progression from chimps to humans. This is not how evolution happened. The chimp
and human lineages split about 5-7 million years ago and so predate the above photo. The chimp skull is just there for reference. The comparisons
should really be studied from B-N, that is from Australopithecus to humans. A similar diagram could be made tracking the evolution to the modern day
chimp, but the differences may be less obvious. In fact, at a glance, the modern chimp skull is actually quite similar to Australopithecus (although
there are many differences, look at the eye sockets).
Another thing to point out is that these particular skulls may not have belonged to individuals that were direct ancestors of modern humans, they may
well have been on other branches on the hominid evolutionary tree (see picture below). This is not really a problem though, as it is simply like
comparing similarities between aunts, uncles and cousins, instead of directly comparing parents and offspring. The point being that comparisons can
still be informative and a range of transitional features from modern day chimps to modern day humans is evident, indicative of common ancestry. Of
course, the fact still remains that many of the species above could have belonged to populations that were direct ancestors of modern day humans."
All of that is fine but only if you already believe that it happened. If it were being viewed unbiasedly the assumptions begin to point themselves
out. Either that picture was designed to be misleading it seems. Arbitrarily saying "This one is human, this one is ape" just to make it fit into what
you already "know" is a big problem for me. They date the skulls based on where it looks like it should fit into the preexisting model. This is not
science. Dating fossils based on layers and dating layers based on fossils I also have a problem with.
Something else to consider. Blatant dishonesty or just more jumping to conclusions.
Australopithecus AfarensisafarensisHuman Ancestral Frauds
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil
proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had
been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!
Nebraska Man from the Illustrated London NewsNebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between
man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.
Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three
teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak
skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of
Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)
Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year
later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17
year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source:
"Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)
Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like,
stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of
arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one
skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No.
If one were to take 5 skulls from each country in the world one would see great variations that might make one believe that they are from different
species or evolutionary steps, but that would not be true now would it.
Sorry if this is a bit incoherent, I am in a hurry today.
edit on 26-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)