I'm not going to bother to respond to your detailed analysis of the minutiae involving paleontological dentistry. It is all subjective, and the teeth and jaw structure of many of the "hominid mistakes" we briefly discussed earlier actually originated in this type of "evidence." What I will address is this:What "widely-held view"? Paleontology is a respectable, well-established field of study that shares substantial overlap with various fields of biology.[/quote]Not really, though I'm sure that's what they'd like you to believe, and knowing your age, I know you have nothing more than an "in-depth surface acquaintance" with the field. You don't have your degree, you may have immersed yourself in the undergraduate level subjects leading to a more rounded education int he field, but you're not a paleontologist yourself, unless you're a paleontological prodigy. That's doubtful.
In almost every debate about origins, the first argument given by the evolutionists is an appeal to authority. The National Academy of Sciences flatly asserts, "While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve."
We are supposed to respect these scientists because science has proven so powerful. But the people who preach evolution didn’t discover gravity or pasteurization or semiconductors. They just call themselves by the same name, "scientist." They can't show us evidence of evolution because "it occurs too slowly to observe" but it exists nonetheless. It contradicts itself in explanations, such as the peacock's heavy plummage being proof of its strength in surviving and therefore being a good mate, but can't explain how the heavier, more beautiful plummage helps them survive.
In the case of our "new discovery," where does it fit in a fossil record that is inconsistent at best and all but non-existent at worst? Paleontologists have been arguing over the Precambrian Period's end coming with an explosion of multi-celled and hard-shelled animals that "just appeared overnight," in "evolutionary" terms. You have this elaborate explanation detailing tooth proximity, density, etc., but most of the other examples that are labeled "hominid" have no consistency whatsoever with this supposed established order, but are still urgently labeled "hominid" in order to continue the fairy tale.
Need I point out the contrived "family tree" of the horse? Supporters of the theory juxtapositioned ever-increasingly larger horse-like creatures and labeled their progression "the evolution of the horse" when, in reality, as biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, "the family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks."
Paleontologists and other evolutionists choose to ignore the fact that their theory requires the violation of well-established law of science that life cannot arise from any source but other life. The fact that all the experimental evidence of the past 200 years contradicts their theory is irrelevant, because they speculate that it’s possible that there is some experiment that no one has yet tried where it might work. Well, anything is possible. But something like this is so highly unlikely as to be laughable.
And yet they persist, picking up fossilized jawbones of God-knows-what, telling a story about it, and pronouncing it "science" and the jawbone "the latest startling discovering 'proving' evolution." You want to swim in such B/S, I won't try to stop you. But realize that calling B/S "swimming pool water" doesn't make it any less B/S.
