A good summary of so called human evolution.

They therefore need to have the trolls pointed out to them quickly.Btw, the majority of the lurkers are likely to be robots, not people.

Damnit. There goes my innocence. Right down the drain of education.

Well, maybe we should get mike's opinion on this? Mikey, as the troll in question do you think we should (a) mock you (b) ignore you? Or do you think that's a personal decision that should be left up to the individual?

Or... (c) Mikey could participate in the threads he starts and respond to the rebuttals.** but I guess if he did that, he wouldn't be a troll so the question would be moot anyway.HBD

Do you believe you could have convinced that group of Trump voters to change their mind with a screenful or two of prose?

When you think about, this particular case is actually rather good evidence for evolution.There is by no means yet a consensus that H. habilis should be thrown out, though it is a viewpoint increasing in popularity. Does this mean, as the OP implies, that habilines do not belong in the human evolutionary story. Not at all, there is still a consensus that some of these fossils are either on, or very close to, our ancestral line.What's happened is that our fossil collections have grown. When you have very few fossils to work with; it's relatively easy to divide them typologically. This is an australopithecine, this is H. habilis; this is H. erectus. As we uncover and study more and more fossils, however, we fill in the gaps and our picture becomes more fine-grained. This has the obvious result of blurring the lines between taxonomic units. We realise that early H. erectus specimens have considerable overlap with habilines; just as habilines have considerable overlap with australopithecines. Some researchers start to notice that there are no features diagnostic of Homo habilis[/i]; and thus question whether it's a meaningful taxon.This is an issue for taxonomists, but not for human evolution. Doing away with the clear lines of distinction between fossil hominins is a sign that we're filling in the missing links and completing the picture. It's not a sign that there's something wrong with the story.

No. They can only read 140 characters at a time.

Yeah, that struck me too. It almost sounds as though they think that the fossils would disappear along with the classification, when what's actually disappeared is the last vestige of a boundary between apes and humans.

To be honest I was just giving a link to what I thought was a pretty good summary that, well, sums up human evolution if we cut away all of the conjecture. There was no guarantee I would even find this version of the topic. If I only post a link which is for people to read or not read, there is an explosion of attacks against mike, but there have been many links given in favour of evolution, and when I read them I don't unleash a thousand furious rebukes against those who give those links.Lol.In case people are wondering, a "PRATT", is a "point refuted a thousand times" (Argumentum Ad Nauseam).To be honest I don't really see any connection between a summary of human evolution when we look at the bare bones, pardon the pun, and making people look silly, me being a stupid spammer, etc....all I see it as is posting a link.Seems to me, "NoNukes" simply imposed some motives upon me, then those motives were granted. If people WANT to play the victim and throw melodramatic tantrums because I posted a link that didn't favour evolution, then I am afraid people are fighting phantom-mike.That is to say, people are getting all bent out of shape fighting a mike that is not there and a mike that is not after them. If they re-read the messages, they will see that they are the only ones who insulted mike and came after him because they seem to have become very emotional because someone does not accept the case for human evolution.As for mike's gratification, there was none. Here is what happened; Mike found a link that he thought pretty much summed up human evolution if folk are honest, then he posted it on EvC, knowing it wasn't meant for a debate since it was posted in links and information, then many members melodramatically and furiously signed mike's death warrant.So here is a tautology for you; a topic posted in the links and information forum is meant as a link to information, so naturally every person that posts a link in such a forum can be made to look like a spammer-troll, when he doesn't come back to debate it, but it should be rather obvious that if he posted it there, he never intended it as a debate, so of course he wouldn't come back. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

What you say might work. It sound fairly reasonable but what I would say is that the same evidence would fit if we were to say that in fact the homo habilis is a collection from individuals, "either" homo, "or", not.This is an implied logical disjunction, if we are to observe the law of the excluded middle.If you are not with me, I refer to a true dichotomy, as expressed by the, "either/or" category of mosaic features.In this regard, habilis could just be a phantom, there seems to be if my information is correct, few examples for that taxon. I could be wrong but that's the last I heard.But what I am saying really is that for a transition between a pithecine and a habiline, I would not expect mosaic features of, "either" pithecine, "or" homo, but rather I would expect transitional intermediate features BETWEEN pithecine and homo. To describe it as a "bush of mosaic features" can be another way of saying "these species are a bunch of chimeras, that don't actually show a direct evolutionary transition, even though that is what evolution claims".You can call them all, "bushes" but then at some stage, if evolution happened, you expect to see the actual transition between something evolution says became X, from P.To further understand through illustration, you may want to read message #3 and #4 of this thread;Bot VerificationSo as an example, I might expect rather than finding, "either" a human foot, "or" an ape/pithecine foot, something that was evolving into a human foot.Can you show any transitional bones that show this for example?Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Melodramatic alright 😂

All meant in good humour. Mike might use some colour in his posts, like a lone-soldier, because you are alone it can help to make an ostentatious display, by perhaps blowing a loud trumpet. That way the balrog may pause for a moment, just enough time for you to make your escape. At this time I feel the desire to proclaim a pigeon-chess victory.(before Dr A's eyes bulge out of his head with rage.....I'm only jesting folks) though strictly speaking I don't depart from debate to annoy people or to be a troll, I simply favour giving my arguments/opinions then leaving it to others to dispute. Why? Simply because I've learnt how futile it can be to argue with certain types of people, when a lot of the time they just want to fight and make the whole thing personal).I don't actually believe evolution is false to annoy you, I just can't make myself believe something I don't believe. Do you know anyone who can?Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Any creationist could do so; but as the process would involve looking at the actual evidence instead of copy-and-pasting nonsense from creationist websites, very few of them will.

So, like this then: "The assignment of OH 8 to Homo habilis is also controversial, as some believe the foot morphology is clearly Homo, while others believe it should be assigned to Australopithecus. For example, OH 8 talar morphology is "squat and foreshortened" like that of a quadruped. On the other hand, recent studies suggest that the foot exhibits morphology indicative of longitudinal arch that is more like Homo."Homo habilis: OH 8 | eFossils Resources

It isn't about believing; it's about accepting reality.