[bobdsmith]

"This is a fallacy called post hoc ergo proctor hoc. It would simply be more logical to say that rather than becoming something else, that the design merely repeated itself because it is a more resilient design, and leave whether or not one actually did become the other to actual scientific evidence, which has, up to date, failed to provide anything supporting that argument."

Not at all. The design obviously repeated itself, but leaving it at that does not explain where it came from and is scientifically useless as an explaination. Common descent however does explain it, and is able to predict what sort of fossil forms we should expect to find in the future.

[conservative_crusader]

"Not at all. The design obviously repeated itself, but leaving it at that does not explain where it came from and is scientifically useless as an explaination. Common descent however does explain it, and is able to predict what sort of fossil forms we should expect to find in the future."

This is really a ridiculous thing to argue over. Essentially my argument says that either A.) Animals evolve to one another, or B.) The design repeated itself some other way. Either way is a scientifically useful explanation, and actually my argument embodies your argument your argument cannot be true if my argument is not true. However my hypothesis also leaves room for the possibility that life may have been created via other means. And yes, your argument is a fallacy called post hoc ergo proctor hoc, just because a protohorse looks like a modern horse does not necessarily have anything to do with evolution.