Replies

"You're taking away all my options. Im reminded of the Life of Brian skit:"

Are you denying that musculature is based off of the skeleton?

Are you denying that body posture is mostly a product of the skeleton?

You haven't refuted either of these points, but seem to wish to implicitly argue that they aren't fair because they leave you with nothing to back up your argument with. If all of your examples of a difference between the "outer shell" of a chimp and a human that is not reliant on the skeleton turn out to be fallacious, then that is a problem with your reasoning, not mine.

Im sure there are differences in certain organs and the like, but I couldn't tell which ones and how so. Our nose and ears are different. Our brains are different sizes. Our skeleton defines our "appearance" for the most part. So if your point is that the skeleton defines how we look and how we are primarily differentiated from other species, than I agree.

And I agree that you can classify/identify a species if you had its whole skeleton (I did not mean to imply otherwise), but we are not talking about a full skeleton, because the same cannot be said for a single bone fossil. So to say that creationist got "some splaining to do" if they can't is disengenous.

I would like to see how the creationists and other scientists would classify these specimens if they had the whole skeleton, rather than just a fragment.

JM