"Prove me wrong. Explain why the Archaeopteryx is not a transitional. Explain why the sequence of fossils claimed to be transitionals between archaic Artiodactyls and Cetaceans should not be accepted. Perhaps give us a link to the research that based identification of relationships on small similarities while ignoring large differences. Perhaps explain why small similarities, if diagnostic in nature, should not be given more weight than non-diagnostic larger differences?"
My question still goes unanswered. Where are the transitionals between these so called transitionals that would demonstrated definatively that commen decent is real? And, again, my question goes unanswered. Since I am not the one making such claims as this animal become some other animal, then why do you insist I "prove" something I have not claimed. I'm merely asking for you to provide your evidence other than "It is what I say It Is". You evos have become so locked into your conjecture and supplication that you can't see anything outside of the world you've placed yourself in.
Just forget what I wrote earlier. Thanks.
There, fixed that for you.