[VadeRetro]

It does complicate things. Here's a seemingly ancestral monotreme which lived long (80 million years or so) after Hadrocodium, a supposedly basal modern mammal, only the later monotreme has a more primitive ear arrangement than the earlier Hadro.

It will be lawyered to death, much like the continued existence of monkeys and fish, and Archaeopteryx who could fly being older than the Chinese feathered dinos which could not.

[PatrickHenry]

It does complicate things.

Yes, it does. But we go where the facts lead us.

[PatrickHenry]

By the way ... I seem to recall a certain poster who used to frequently cite the platypus as an example of a "specially-created" creature, because -- he claimed -- it had no ancestral line. The platypus was his alleged "proof" that evolution was bogus. I wonder what he'd say about all this?

[grey_whiskers]

It will be lawyered to death, much like the continued existence of monkeys and fish, and Archaeopteryx who could fly being older than the Chinese feathered dinos which could not.

???

"When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve?"
"When ID is outlawed, only outlaws will design intelligently?"
"When creation is outlawed, only outlaws will (pro)create?"

More details, please...?

[AndrewC]

It will be lawyered to death,

Typical, when data is encountered contrary to the Darwininian viewpoint, it is considered lawyering. Darwin seems to be having a few problems lately.

[Ahban]

I read your post where you admitted that the find "does complicate things". I briefly fainted, but have revieved now. It is unfortunated that I have to leave for Little Rock within the hour. A "civil" discusion of the latest crevo news with my favorite crumudegoen is long overdue.