A simple challenge for atheists

[Esquilax]

One issue I have with evolution is the interpretation of skulls. There is enormous variation of size and shape in the human skull.

Well, then it's a good thing that Neanderthals are more than just skulls, and that we use more than simply cranial morphology to determine that they're different from humans, isn't it? It's a good thing that there's actual thought going into these determinations, that we have a record of the Neanderthal's genetics with which to clarify these things, and a detailed morphological analysis of entire specimens and not just the skulls to go off of.

It's also a good thing that major scientific theories, especially the ones most supported by mountains of evidence across multiple disciplines and species, aren't thrown into doubt because a layman takes issue with a single example using little more than an intuitive "this looks like this, therefore it's the same," reasoning that falls so far below the standards of the sciences that it would be almost laughable, if the layman making this an issue wasn't totally serious.

To claim that Neanderthal was a less evolved human is simply not objective science.

Where did you get your science degree, again?

Oh, and while I'm at it, I'd surely love to know why you thought that attempting to circumvent our 30/30 rules the way you did here, after we've had this issue with you before, while replying to a moderator directly, seemed like a good idea to you.