Well, here is how I see it. Since Hablis is not a single creature - but a mixture of creatures - it can't be an ancestor and therefore is an invalid category for transitional status. With Hablis gone, there is no clear cut transmission between the Australopithecines and Homo Erectus.
Each hominid category is known by sets of fossils, and could also be called "a mixture of creatures" and with as much justification. Whether you call them one species or two or 15, those specimens still exist and still form a bridge from the past to the future. Your claim would imply that the fossils just vanish or magically transform into something else if the naming is in doubt, clearly a case of wishful thinking.
Q: For the record: do you believe H. habilis is an invalid taxon?
His response is basically saying that Habilis is not an ancsetor.
Another example of wishful thinking. He said it was valid, and then went on to say that whether
habilis is
Australopithicus or
Homo or something else it is still a valid class of fossils, eg - still an ancestor. It could well be that early specimens should be "
Australopithicus habilis" and the later specimens should be "
Homo habilis" for there is some point where one Genus becomes the next in a lineage. Ultimately the separation of species in the past come down to arbitrary divisions in groups and subgroups. As more information becomes available those divisions are likely to change, what will not change is the fossil evidence, what will change is our understanding of the evidence.
yes, most of my information came from "The Image of God".
Do you have a web link for this? It would be useful in determining their preconceptions and seeing the level of validity of their information.
used by creationists to suggest that they have science and actual evidence on their side."
This doesn't make any sense! Also note: the transcript stops here. Is there anymore to it? He doesn't refute the creationist "evidence on their side"
Let me parse the sentence for you: "used by creationists to suggest that they have science on their side." And " used by creationists to suggest that they have actual evidence on their side." In other words, in Dr. Spoor's opinion anyway, creationists have neither science nor evidence on their side, zero, zilch, nada.
The link is the talkorigins one that you have so much trouble with (your problem). I guess you are more comfortable with sites that continue to post lies and misrepresentations even after they have been shown to be lies and misrepresentations. Personally I prefer sites that correct mistakes.
Actually they were providing rather accurate information - some of which came from Dr Fred Spoors mouth.
Providing accurate information but misrepresenting the result means the website is still "not scrupulous about providing accurate information." I will bet that your website will not be correcting their misrepresenting of Dr. Spoor's material even if contacted directly by Dr. Spoor.
So where are the transitionals?
The old "god of the gaps" end run of the creationist. More of a failure to {understand \ see} than a problem of evidence. Shall we make a prediction? New fossils found in the appropriate age strata will fit into the "gaps" and further support the evolution of man from ape-like ancestor to modern human.
For the absence of evidence to be a problem, creationists need to explain the total absence of {fossil \ skeletal} evidence for the
Coelacanth between 65 million years ago and 1938 ... surely there should be some "transitionals" between the prehistoric and the historic specimens eh?
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just of not yet being found.
((added by edit))
Finally, how does this relate to "Nebraska man" being the result of some exuberant sensationalism that was later found to be erroneous -- by the scientists? All "Nebraska man" shows is the ability of science to correct mistakes, rather than become embedded in dogma the way it has in the creatortianista manifestoes ... the ones seemingly unable or unwilling to correct their errors.
Enjoy.
[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-16-2004]
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}