Lucy (Australopithecus)

Yes, experts really can draw some conclusions--its not just wild-ass-guesswork.

They study bones of all sorts of critters for years and can recognize small variations in features and give good estimates on what they are and what they mean.

I studied a lot of this in grad school, so I have seen it first-hand.

With Lucy, start by looking at the innominate, and compare it with both modern humans and chimps.

Try perusing a few issues of American Journal of Physical Anthropology as an example of the detailed analyses that they are using now, which are far better than when I was a student.

So if these races remained isolated from each other could they have eventually evolved into different species of human right?

If totally isolated, with no modern technology, and in different harsh environments, you would see different traits being selected for. Add a lot of time and you could get different species, but don't wait up...

Perhaps we should compare and contrast methodologies used in forming conclusions---to see if secular science and creationism science are using the same tools and methods.

Faith and others have told (and shown) us the difference between the two.

Real science follows the evidence where it leads, and tries to understand it.

Creation "science" is designed as a means of doing religious apologetics, and its conclusions--known in advance--must support belief and scripture.

As I said on another thread if anyone feels I have personally attacked them please point it out and I will address it because that is definitely not my intention.

In your other thread you claimed,

Evolutionists on the other hand seem to have just created this theory without conclusive evidence. Their only objective seems to be to discredit religion.

This insults all scientists whose fields remotely touch on the theory of evolution. First, the theory of evolution is the single best explanation for the dataset it covers; it accounts for all relevant data, it is contradicted by no relevant data, and it successfully makes predictions.

Secondly, in several years studying evolution, fossil man, osteology, human races, and related subjects in graduate school there was never any mention of religion, or any efforts to "discredit religion."

Your broad-brush attack is not only insulting to many of us, but wrong as well.

Details such as how, when, where, from what aren't as well understood and are speculated on. It seems this is the opinion of most level headed scientists anyway who are careful in conveying the fact that uncertainty still shadows much of it.

The finer the detail the more uncertainty there may be, but this does not disprove, or even ding, the overall patterns shown by the theory of evolution.

The hardcore atheists (not you) claim everything is scientifically proven, that we know it all but there are variations in opinions between evolutionists as well.

Virtually no scientist will claim anything is "scientifically proven." Proof is for liquor, photography, and mathematics. (Scientists know this but creationists generally don't.) Here are some definitions that might help.

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process. [Source]

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

For example this link is an article from the scientific journal, Nature. http://www.nature.com/...g-the-book-on-human-origins-1.20231 Two possible migration patterns are looked at. One is that humans fully evolved in Africa before migrating the other suggests evolution was occurring separately in Asia as many human related fossils are found there that date back millions of years.

So folks are looking at the fine details and trying to refine migration patterns of early species. What's wrong with that? What will result is more research, better explanations, and a more accurate picture of the past.

But because there are some disagreements over details, creationists tend to think that evolution is all wrong, keeps changing, and "is just a theory." Much of this comes from a priori religious belief rather than scientific evidence.

Houston, we have a meltdown!