The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

So you think evidence equates to knowing. Interesting logic, but what a pity it's unscientific.Plz take the time to learn the difference between belief and knowledge.

How do you define "define"? And while you at it, how do you define "How"?

That reasoning is unknown to science.

You're an anti-science religious cannibal and Taq was being considerate to you in using the popular vernacular version of 'prove'. He was trying to not confuse you with the bigger concepts that would hurt your brain, like 'preponderance of evidence'. But, yes, at the philosophical heart of science we know we prove nothing. That's the fun. There is always more data to collect, analyze and confound the creationists.

Plz don't use the word "preponderance " again. It's much too big for my fragile, eggshell mind to digest and it's not even a real word. Grow up.

Science can't prove that your atheist evolution bedtime-story is true ... that's all I need to know.

Don't cha just luv the the way they claim they "know" when they can't prove they "know" and all they have is a theory that supports their atheism? They're either pathologically delusional or they're liars and con-men. Either way, they're full of it.

Funny one, sensei!!

You can't prove it scientifically, so stop talking like a liar and a fool.

Firstly, you can't prove that any of those skulls are "transitional". They're chosen and displayed in a manner that may look transitional to some.Secondly, please explain why none of the skeletons belonging to the non-human skulls in that image provide any evidence of being transitional. They're no closer to human than the skeletons of the non-human primates we see today. In other words, you got a huge gap between the skeletons of ancient non-human primates and those of humans.

Translation:
"We scientist like to claim it's 90-95% "junk" bcoz
(a) we don't know what its function is, and
(b) finding lots of "junk" DNA in genomes supports our beloved theory of evolution."

You're the one who reckons that science can't detect Satan. ID claims to be science. So according to you, ID cannot detect Satan, being "too puny". So it would seem to follow that if they can't detect Satan, they are not going to be able to detect God either, which rather defeats the point of ID.According to your logic, if the ID crowd think they've detected design, it can't be God.Mutate and Survive

Er ... yeah ... right.

We scientists have evidence that 90-95% of the genome is junk.
a) 90-95% of the genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift.
b) The theory of evolution takes no position on how much junk DNA there should be in any given genome. The bladderwort genome has less than 5% junk DNA, and it fits in just fine with the theory.

Yes, we can. It is proven that the skulls have a mixture of features common to both humans and other apes. That makes them transitional by definition. They are arranged by their age. Thank you for confirming that they look transitional. They do have a mixture of ape and human features. They are transitional by definition. You already said they look transitional."They're chosen and displayed in a manner that may look transitional to some."So what makes them look transitional? Please explain. What features are these skeletons missing that a real transitional would have?Also, the pelvises are quite obviously more human-like.Are you telling me that the two pelvises in the middle do not look more like the pelvis on the left than the pelvis on the right? Seriously?