Summations Only

Not a pelvis?But you'll allow the pubic bones, right?Then what do the paired ischiocavernosus muscles attach to? Maybe the ischium?That's 2/3 of the pelvis right there! Now all you need is the ilium.Hmmm. Seems like they have those too.Your argument seems to have gone down in flames.

No, I didn't read that paper, but I did read the abstract. It doesn't say what you think/hope it does.In graduate school I studied a lot of bones, both human and non-human, and have dealt with both in the decades since. (I also do consulting for local Coroners, helping them by identifying some of the bones they find.) The bones of marine mammals differ a bit or a lot from those of terrestrial mammals for the obvious reasons.So, I am to take your opinion, "The bones don't look like a pelvis at all" as being meaningful, even superior, to my opinion after years of experience? Or the opinion of some real experts? I bet you've never studied bones at all! Your uninformed opinions are therefor quite worthless!And when you say, "It was the devil though, and not God!" you demonstrate that you are not interested in evidence anyway, and that you will stick to your belief in spite of even overwhelming evidence to the contrary.A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and your post demonstrates quite clearly what you are doing with your's.

The bones that make up the pelvis are the pubis, ilium, and ischium, forming what is referred to as the innominate. Innominates are connected to each other pubis to pubis at the front and by the sacrum at the back in most critters.So, to refer to the pubis and ischium as 2/3 of the innomiate (or pelvis in layman-speak) refers to individual bones, not the relative sizes of the bones.Perhaps you should take a basic osteology class? Then you could actually handle some of these bones and see the differences between them for various species.

Right, I've seen some of the "arguments" for rapid evolution. A good example is John Woodmorappe, who in his article The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’--on evolutionists’ terms claims that a variety of fossil species, including:

Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man--all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.

For this to happen the change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all (what they call macroevolution).But now we see a creationist has not only proposed macroevolution, but sees it occurring several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!So don't give us this "rapid evolution" business without researching who is claiming what and where. Seems like every creationist engages in his own version of apologetics without regard to what other creationists claim or what the evidence actually supports.But I guess when you're engaging in faith-based apologetics rather than evidence-based science, that's what you're stuck with.

Can you offer any evidence to support your claim?

Here is a case of speciation that RAZD has posted several times: Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.

Study the scientific method a bit, then get back to us.In the meantime: Science doesn't take direction from anti-science creationists as to what is and is not science, and how science should be conducted.

Of course, real science, as defined by creationists, is any science that doesn't disprove their beliefs?No wonder we say that creationists are anti-science!

If you had stopped there you would have been correct. And if you're honest, you object to certain sciences only because they show that your religious beliefs are incorrect. Science is defined by following the scientific method. If you follow the scientific method, you have to accept the results whether you agree or not. Creationists can't tolerate the results, but that doesn't discredit the science or the scientific method. It just shows that for them, religious belief supersedes evidence.That's not science--that's the exact opposite.And we don't need creationists, working from this horribly biased viewpoint, trying to tell scientists how to do things. Its like fleas telling the dog where to go and what to do.

That is absolute nonsense from a "true believer" and has no relationship to reality.You are hopelessly biased by religious belief to the point that you can't accept the real world. On numerous occasions you have admitted this.Face it--you have no business even thinking about science and the scientific method, let alone expressing ill-formed opinions about either.Sorry to be harsh, but when one is 180 opposed to science and the scientific method, one should not be trying to define what science is or how it should be conducted.

I've been doing archaeology for over 40 years. That is a science that studies the past. We have developed techniques for obtaining evidence, examining that evidence, and doing real science with that evidence.For someone to come along and tell me we don't know what we're doing is frankly insulting, along with ill-informed and flat-out wrong. This is particularly insulting when that person knows nothing about archaeology, geology, or any of the other similar sciences--they just disagree with the results. Disbelief is not evidence.And as my signature notes, "Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge."

Wrong, as usual. We depend on evidence, and from that evidence we form hypotheses and test them. Those hypotheses that survive might become theories. Theories are not "wild-ass guesses" as creationists often claim. They are the single best explanations for a given set of facts, they have survived testing, and they have made successful predictions.See, this is the point I'm trying to make--you don't know that a lot of what you are claiming is just wrong. And you don't seem to mind being wrong. When science says one thing and when the only folks who find problems with that are true believers in one religion or another, what other logical conclusion would I come to? This is particularly true in your case as you have repeatedly stated that when evidence contradicts the bible you will believe the bible. The only logical conclusion is that you are not doing science, you're doing religion. Actually I have described a lot of the evidence I have come up with, but you aren't willing to accept it because it disagrees with your religious beliefs. No matter what the evidence is, if it disagrees with your religious belief you find some reason to discount it.So don't claim to be doing science--you are doing the exact opposite.

Why should we accept religious-based and unevidenced claims instead of real-world evidence?

It has been pointed out to you on a number of threads that there is no "roadblock" to speciation. Your "loss of information" idea stems from your belief in "the fall." In actuality, mutations occur all the time and cause change. Sometimes that change works out well, other times not so well--there have been a huge number of extinctions.In the example that RAZD has used several times (below), please show us where the loss of information set up a "roadblock" permitting no further changes:

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.

​

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

​

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

​

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

​

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.

In this diagram we see change from one species to another, with subsequent change to a new genus with two new species.Where is the "roadblock" that should have prevented this?

This is an idea that comes from you, not from the scientists who are actually studying the subject. And you admit to putting the bible ahead of any other evidence. This renders your opinions on matters scientific worthless. No, it is speciation, then change from one genus to the next. That's exactly what you have been saying can't occur.Again, your opinions on scientific matters are worthless. You have shown yourself to be 180 anti-science.