Next: Examples of Transitional Forms     Prev: Transitional Forms               TOC

Casey Wednesday, October 9, 2013 3:10 PM: Regarding Homo habilis, it is very much like the ape-like australopithecines, and not a transitional form between australopithecines and humans. I address this at:

Scott 5/22/14: From the above link…

 “… found that habilis is different from Homo in terms of body size, body shape, mode of locomotion, jaws and teeth, developmental patterns, and brain size, and should be reclassified within Australopithecus.”

“An analysis in Nature of the ear canals of habilis similarly found that its skull is most similar to baboons…”

“They concluded: ‘It is difficult to accept an evolutionary sequence in which Homo habilis, with less human-like locomotor adaptations, is intermediate between Australopithecus afaren[s]is ... and fully bipedal Homo erectus’"”

… Oh really…

Quick, the skull in the middle… does it look more like the top row or the bottom row? Go ahead. Click on the links and look at these skulls up close. Look at the enlarged pics. Study the links. Then hit the <back> button to come back to this page.

Description: chacma baboon skull

Enlarged pic



Enlarged pic

Chacma baboon


Astralopithecus afarensis


Description: homo habilis photo: Homo habilis Homohabilis.jpg

Enlarged pic




Homo habilis



Enlarged pic



Enlarged pic

Homo erectus


Homo sapiens

By just using the built-in heuristics that are already wired into your brain, you should do better than the clowns at the Discovery Institute. (See Cherry Picking to see discussion of Casey’s misuse of quotations.)

Here’s how I see it. Homo Habilis (HH) is clearly not a Baboon. That claim is false on its face. Unlike the Baboon, HH has a forehead. That one was easy.

The next one is harder, but you can do it. Look at the enlarged pics. HH has got a bigger brain case and smaller indentation behind the eye ridges for jaw muscles than Astralopithecus.

HH has a smaller brain case and possibly slightly larger indentation for jaw muscles than Homo erectus. He’s similar, but he’s different. And he’s clearly not human. He doesn’t belong in the top row. He doesn’t belong in the bottom row. So what is he?

Make your own decision. You have enough information to do so. But I say…

He is transitional!

In my mind, the referee in the black and white stripped shirt just whacked the mat with his hand. Match over. Pin!! Triumphalism… ringing the bells. I’m sorry. I just pinned the guy to the mat. I’m not worrying about keeping my circumspect scholarly demeanor. I’m jumping like a wild man with glee!!

If anyone can still think the ID theorists of the Discovery Institute to be anything but whacko… after this… well that person just needs to get some glasses.

So I could say,

You know how this wrestling match goes. Go home. Read Dawkin’s TGSOE and you can have a joyful time not having to read whacko material like what the DI web site just subjected us to. You can really get a good handle on evolution and on the weaknesses of ID.

But, ­­­­­some of us want to see the whole wrestling match just because we want to see a good match… or we want to see somebody get slaughtered. So feel free to hang around and enjoy. I’m just getting started. :^)

Besides, this book is less about evolution and ID than it is, really, about arriving at truth. And it’s about the mind of an individual who believes in ID and why such a person believes that way. This might be a better source for that than most.

The hand has already slapped the mat. I’m not going to respond to the following link as of this writing.

Casey Wednesday, October 9, 2013 3:10 PM:

So habilis in fact too young to be ancestral to Homo. 

The evidence regarding habilis is so spotty that it’s pretty much impossible to claim with any confidence that habilis “evolved from other apes”. So I don’t know on what basis you’re making that claim. Habilis is ape-like, but for all you know, it might be another ape species that was independently and separately designed from other apes, and didn’t “evolve from other apes.”

Scott 5/26/14: Ok, there’s a hole in my argument here. I have not addressed Casey’s idea that Homo Habilis (HH) was independently “designed”. “Scotty, beam us to the planet!” Yes, I admit that some deity or some near-deity (that is some sufficiently advanced alien species that the DI will not discuss) may have “beamed” our dear HH down. And I cannot prove that that did not happen. However, I examine this question in detail because it is a central feature of ID. See Engineering and Design and Designing Deities for this part of the discussion.

But if Casey wants to claim HH was beamed down, he has to show us a space ship, a rocket motor, an alien fossil (not an old ape), or even an alien computer chip. But he cannot make such an outrageous claim with no evidence at all… unless he is honest with us and calls it religion. At this point, no such claim can be remotely considered within the domain of science… Pin!!



Scott 5/21/14: Casey’s argument and evidence was an outrageous denial of easily obtained evidence and is full of misleading quotations.

This would placate the typical church-goer. When I went to church, I backed off when they gave me patronizing arguments because I wanted to have a place in the social hierarchy of the church. ‘no longer… See Quest For the Unbroken Chain for more on this.

Elsewhere, I could swear Luskin claims Homo habilis is identical to human in this discussion. But I don’t know where this total flip-flop is as of this writing.

See Homo habilis for Bryan Hunt’s similarly strange ideas on the species.

Next: Examples of Transitional Forms     Prev: Transitional Forms               TOC