[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Actually, this one seems to be playing the game of "It could have just been designed that way, therefore it isn't evidence of evolution".

That is exactly why demonstrating (not merely suggesting) the process(es) which supposedly cause evolution would be much more persuasive than picking and choosing among common skeletal characteristics. If I had a good design for something, I would probably use it over and over again. Many processes have been suggested and discarded over the years from Darwin to Gould. None have been scientifically tested and validated.

[Dimensio]

That is exactly why demonstrating (not merely suggesting) the process(es) which supposedly cause evolution would be much more persuasive than picking and choosing among common skeletal characteristics.

Why bother? No matter what we show you, you can always cop-out by saying "It could have been designed that way!"

If I had a good design for something, I would probably use it over and over again.

Which is why mammalian eyes differ so wildly from arguably far superior avian eyes, and why bird wings are so incredibly different than bat wings. And why the designer chose to use the same broken Vitamin C synthesis gene in all primates, including humans. The designer was just recycling a defect.

Many processes have been suggested and discarded over the years from Darwin to Gould. None have been scientifically tested and validated.

Please. A number of proposed mechanisms have been observed. You just dismiss them because you don't want to accept the implications.