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
"Im sure there are differences in certain organs and the like, but I couldn't tell which ones and how so."
Then you should consult a zoologist on just how different they are before just being sure of it.
"Our brains are different sizes."
Once again, you can tell the size of an animals brain by examining the skull which contains it. This is even more rudimentary than determining muscle structure.
"Our nose and ears are different."
No so much.
![]()
The ears are almost exactly like ours, aside from being a little larger in proportion to the skull- but this is only consistant with most of a human's facial features as compared to a chimp that can be seen from the skull. The nose appears to be flatter, but that is mostly because the chimp's skull protrudes much more in that area.
(By the way: here is a picture of a chimp skull. Do you really think you would find it difficult to differentiate between it and a human skull? Notice how small the brain casing is.)
![]()
