Zep, so very glad you checked out those sites. I hope you go back and compare with some of the articles in some of the other evolutionists web sites.
“Bones of contention” Marvin Lubenow writes a very interesting survey of the whole
Classification of human/ancestral fossils:
What is not generally known is that this sequence, impressive as it seems, is a very artificial and arbitrary arrangement because 1) some fossils are selectively excluded if they do not fit well into the evolutionary scheme; 2) some human fossils are arbitrarily downgraded to make them appear to be evolutionary ancestors when they are in fact true humans; and 3) some non-human fossils are upgraded to make them appear to be human ancestors.
“Origins reconsidered” Leakey and Lewin write of going from four legged walk to a two legged walk:
Would have required an extensive remodeling of the ape's bone and muscle architecture and of the overall proportion in the lower half of the body. Mechanisms of gait are different, mechanics of balance are different, functions of major muscles are different--an entire functional complex had to be transformed for efficient bipedalism to be possible
What I’m saying Zep is, when there is a bias in the field of paleontology as to what they are looking for, then whatever fits the idea gets exposed. What ever find obscures or contradicts the concept of accepted origins, and then it gets put in a dark shelf.
The books speak of great many differences between ape and man, not just on the surface but muscle and bone structure.
Zep, according to Gould and Eldridge, Macro-evolution is the sudden jump of species from one form to another without or very small ancestral lines.
Micro-evolution is what Darwin proposed in his “the origin of species” small gradual accumulations of mutations. Although by his own admission IF this had been what occurred, then the strata would be full of transitional forms. But we know there are none; to which Gould responded with his Macro- evolution or “punctuated equilibrium”.
Zep, you rightly proposed the wolf evolution to different varieties of dogs, but still only dogs or rather of the canine species and far from the feline. Rightly again you show the great variety of dogs, clearly the result of an evolutionary process (not macro). But here is where you err. All these varieties of dogs came about as a result of INTELLIGENT causes. In other words a superiorly intelligent being intervened to acquire these results, and that is the whole contention of creationism. For every effect there is a cause and if there is a cause there is a causer. Chance cannot and will never be able to explain complexity in the universe.
Regards
Rb.
