The Fossil Record Provides Scientific Evidence for Macroevolution

My opponent's latest post is predominantly nothing more than a repitition of his earlier arguments, all of which I believe I've effectively refuted in previous rounds; however, despite this fact, I shall nevertheless attempt to debunk such arguments yet again.Sustaining the Evolution of Horses:Again, my opponent states that some modern-day horses are born with three toes, and therefore concludes that such a characteristic is nothing more than variation within the horse "kind." Unfortunately, despite my previous statements, my opponent has once again failed to define what a "kind" even is, as it certainly isn't a scientific taxonomical classification. As far as I know, my opponent's definition of a "kind" could refer to anything as limited as a species to as broad as a kingdom.Moreover, as I've stated previously, the fact that all modern horses in the miocene epoch exhibit multiple digits while only a rare few exhibit such a characteristic today is best explained by atavisms.Furthermore, seeing as how my opponent hasn't actually provided any examples of modern-day three-toed horses, we are unable to examine the limbs in detail. Of course, multiple digits aren't the only difference which exist between modern horses and their predecessors; rather, the "foot" as a whole is significantly different, as can be seen in the following image:Figure 1.0 Provided by http://www.wikipedia.com... with some alterations made by me.Therefore, even if a rare amount of horses happen to exhibit atavistic digits, I highly doubt their limbs fully resemble that of their predecessors, as I have been unable to find any examples of such.And again, not even limbs were the only things different about ancient horses, as they also exhibited arched backs, shorter necks, smaller snouts, shorter legs, and longer tails, as well as lesser speed, agility, and intelligence [1].Ultimately however, I believe my opponent's argument ultimately boils down to an unfailing tendency to reject the transitional legitimacy of any and all fossils, despite how highly indicative they are of macroevolution. Indeed, it seems that no matter how impressively smooth and progressive the fossil record is, creationists will claim (in the case of humans, for example) that a fossil is either a nothing more than a variation within the human "kind," or simply a full ape altogether. We see this especially with Homo erectus -- a fossil of which creationists have yet to come to a conclusive consensus on, as some claim it is human, while others claim it is simian; therefore, I will leave it to the voters themselves to decide whether or not they believe the fossil evidence presented herein is indicative of macroevolution.Sustaining the Transitional Status of Habilines:Throughout this debate, my opponent has sought to uphold the position that Habilines are actually humans; to accomplish this feat, he has made continuous claims that the cranial features exhibited in homo habilis are actually consistent with some modern day humans.While it's certainly no secret that particular groups of humans exhibit cranial features somewhat comparable to that of habilines (we are, after all, biologically related to them), the similarities aren't nearly as comparable as my opponent seems to insinuate. In all actuality, Habiline and human skulls (including the skulls of blacks/aborigines) exhibit incredible differences, as can be seen from the image below:Figure 1.1 Images provided by http://anthro.palomar.edu... and http://www.skullsunlimited.com...As I assume anyone will be able to see from the above image, Homo habilis and Homo sapiens sapiens are significantly dissimilar. No modern human exhibits characteristics entirely consistent with Habilines; for my opponent to suggest otherwise is odd, to say the least.Sustaining the Transitional Status of A. Afarensis:Teeth:Here my opponent lists a few ape-like characteristics in the jaws and teeth of A. Afarensis in an attempt to demonstrate that such a species was nothing more than an ape. Again, by doing this, my opponent has once again completely ignored the human-like characteristics of A. Afarensis teeth. Obviously you can't determine whether or not a fossil is truly transitional simply by focusing on morphological aspects which are ape-like while completely ignoring the aspects which are human-like.As I said before, the Australian Museum specifically lists the human-like aspects of A. Afarensis teeth [2], including the fact that the canine size is intermediate between apes and humans, and that the back molar teeth are human-like inasmuch as they have a ‘Y-5’ pattern.Feet:My opponent quotes Susman and Stern to make the case that A. Afarensis possessed too curved a foot to be bipedal. I couldn't find much information on my opponent's source; however, the obvious problem with his assertion is that Susman and Stern (as I've stated before) are of the position that A. Afarensis was indeed bipedal [3].Moreover, although my opponent has raised this contention more than once, I never really undetood his point. In all actuality, the very fact that A. Afarensis didn't possess a flat foot is compelling evidence in and of itself that it was bipedal. As Science magazine states:"A 3.2-million-year-old foot bone from a member of Lucy's species, Australopithecus afarensis, reveals that this hominin was no flat foot: It had already evolved arches and a stiff midfoot similar to living humans. That means if Lucy were alive today, she could fit in high heels or march for miles without breaking her feet [4]."Skull:Here my opponent goes back to using Solly Zuckerman as a way to justify his position that A. Afarensis lacked bipedality. As I've stated previously, Zuckerman's views are outdated and no longer accepted within the scientific community [5]; when my opponent presented scientists which he claimed subscribed to Zuckerman's views, I effectively revealed that they in fact did not. Apparently, my opponent has decided to blissfully ignore the evidence and simply restate his claims.As to my opponents New York Times Article, it is incredibly outdated; although he cites the article as being written in 2009, it was actually written in 1983 [6]. Today, I know not of even one scientist who contests the bipedality of A. Afarensis, as there is simply too much evidence to suggest otherwise.Sustaining the Transitional Status of Neanderthals:Again, my opponent simply repeats his previous claims and blissfully shrugs off my previous contentions. Allow me to quote myself from the previous round:"This argument completely ignores the point at hand. If Neanderthals are truly Homo sapiens sapiens as my opponent suggests, then why are their genes significantly different? Whether or not the said genes of both species are expressed in a similar fashion is completely irrelevant to the fact that the genes themselves differ to such an extent as to conclusively demonstrate separateness of species. It's as simple as that. Is my opponent truly making the case that despite considerable gene differences (not to mention anatomical dissimilarities), Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens are actually the same type of human? With all due respect, such an assertion is simply absurd, which is precisely why no reputable scientist subscribes to such an idea."As I've nearly reached the end of my character limit, I would like to lastly thank my opponent for engaging in this delightful and intellectually stimulating debate. Thank you :)________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] http://www.talkorigins.org...[2] http://australianmuseum.net.au...[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...[4] http://news.sciencemag.org...[5] http://www.talkorigins.org...[6] http://www.nytimes.com...