Re: Gibbon Frontal View and evolution concealment

mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Inez says:
>
> Do you have any training in this science, or are you a creationist
> civilian with a bone to pick (as it were). Just curious, for no
> particular reason.
>
> JM answers:
>
> Since the criteria often used by evolutionists is to show pictures side
> by side with each other in order to demonstrate similarity, one can
> simply note the similarities.

And differences. And what to look for to tell one from the other.

I've taken several grocery bags worth of broken turtle bones,
and identified over 90% of them to species, most of them by side
of the body, and many as to age and sex. I didn't do this by
looking at pictures of turtle bones that looked alike; I did this
partly by looking at pictures of the bones of different species
side-by-side, to learn to see the difference in the similar bones.

Of course, most of the work was done in a zoology skeletal
'library,' where I could see actual skeletons of the various
species and sexes of turtles, and could compare my questionable
bones to known examples of the different species.

See, professionals don't look at pictures and make decisions
about similarity among different skeletal remains based on 'sorta
looks like they're kinda alike'. So you can see why, when you
call your looking at some pictures as 'research', those of us who
have actually done the work pray that we are not eating or
drinking anything when we read that.

> The scientific criteria that I have used is to identify the animals
> that live in the areas to which said fossil specimens have been found.
> Finding points of similarity(meaning that the planes and angles of the
> skull speciments match) , and comparing the artificial constructs of
> evolutionists.

Bullfeathers. Your criteria are not scientific, but rather
normal, every-day biased pattern-matching. If you were being
scientific, you would look at all the primates that have
characteristics in common with humans.

That would have led you to South America. Then we should have
read about your conviction that owl monkeys' skulls were closer
in morphology to human skulls than any of the apes, great or
otherwise.

Really, if you can't be right, you can at least try to be more
creatively funny.

.