Summations Only

It seems to me that your case is very weak. The paper you cite only deals with current function which is largely irrelevant. Trying to undermine the case that these bones are a reduced pelvis - which can only be partially successful in that there is evidence for that view - is not sufficient to establish that they are not. Further, the paper you cite implies that the identification of these bones as a reduced pelvis goes back to 1820 so it is unlikely that evolution was a concern.So I'm not sure why you're bothering to argue this case. You've got very little evidence, the paper you chose doesn't directly support you, and the support that you claim is weak and far from the primary focus. Really, why don't you hit the books and come up with references that directly address your points before trying to argue ?

I appreciate the alert but it wasn't really necessary. When your main arguments are semantic games which pretty much concede the point it's pretty clear that your claim to have "proof" was thoroughly fraudulent.

quote:

---

Everything in these forums is a semantic game, but some are better than others at it. How are you fairing?

---

If all this forum had to offer was semantic games I wouldn't be here.Anyway, since you've essentially conceded the point on this "easy" example, I guess it's time to move on.

I wondered if the leg had already been stripped of flesh and blubber leaving the bone. That would make it both whiter and shorter. Is that a possibility ?

quote:

---

Evolutionists of course claim that mutations save this from happening. They can't and I've tried to show why but it's hard to get it said clearly.

---

Faith, the fact that you cannot come up with an objection that makes sense demonstrates that you have no basis for your assertion.It's just something you made up, like your weird ideas about speciation.

In other words you reject the facts because they contradict the inventions of your "fallen human mind".Antibiotic resistance is a simple and clear example of a beneficial mutation spread by natural selection. That is evolution by any sane standard.

quote:

---

Such small changes are not evolution. The bacterial change involves a single mutation, that's not evolution

---

That obviously is evolution - even if you rule out a single mutation slime the fact that it is beneficial and spread by natural selection is absolutely enough to make it evolution.

quote:

---

The ToE assumes the capacity for changes in the basic structure of the creature, which has never been shown, and as I've argued umpteen times here really can't happen because of the loss of information change requires

---

Arguments that don't even make sense can't overcome evidence. Your faith in your "fallen human mind" is amazing - remember when you decided that your interpretation of a map you couldn't even read properly was infallibly right ?

quote:

---

Definitional word games are a favorite here I know,

---

You seem to like them. But pointing out obvious facts is hardly a game.

quote:

---

but macroevolution doesn't exist and all the evidence is nothing but microevolution.

---

According to your personal opinions. Me, I'm sticking with science.

quote:

---

One mutation in bacteria is not evolution as the ToE leads us to expect.

---

Really ? Aren't the occurrence of beneficial mutations and the power of natural selection to spread them the core of evolutionary theory ? Antibiotic resistance is a clear example of evolution. The fact that it is only a small-scale example hardly changes that.

quote:

---

What I said is simply a fact: The only evidence is microevolution.

---

A "fact" that has been known to be false since Darwin.

quote:

---

According to science. There is no evidence of any change except within a Species.

---

No, science fully accepts common ancestry of all life, with maybe some complications around the very earliest life. Because of the evidence. Check any recent biology textbook that covers the subject if you don't believe me.

quote:

---

One mutation is not evidence of the ToE.

---

Antibiotic resistance is not "one mutation". Usually one mutation is enough to confer some resistance but even in a single example other mutations can expect to be added. But antibiotic resistance is something that frequently occurs and often with different mutations - even if the antibiotic is the same the mutations that give resistance need not be.So, antibiotic resistance is an example of evolution occurring and that in itself makes it evidence for the theory. (If you only mean that it isn't direct evidence of common ancestry you should say that. Not that it matters because nobody claims that it is.)

quote:

---

Fossil evidence is really a joke since you'd have to show that it's genetically possible to get from the complex reptile ear to the complex mammal ear, but all you have is the bones and the assumption that it happened. That's not science, and the bones alone cannot demonstrate the ToE.

---

On the contrary fossil evidence is very important. The fact that we have intermediate forms is very good evidence that the mammal ear evolved. A successful prediction of evolutionary theory. That IS science, and it is strong evidence for the theory of evolution.