How many times have you asked that question and completely ignored the answers you were given?
Read the link in post #17. It's primarily speculation, with lost of 'probablies' and 'possibles'. 'Evidence' that is based on speculation is not real evidence.
It seems he is still having trouble connecting the dots.
The artiodactyl to cetacean sequence looks pretty complete to me. To show evidence of, therefore the existence of, transition between organisms, we only need one sequence. All else is just gravy.
How many times have you asked that question and completely ignored the answers you were given?
Haven't you heard? That's the "ID method" (as opposed to "the scientific method").
In "the scientific method", one has to provisionally accept the theory which best fits the totality of the evidence, observations, and experimental results.
In "the ID method", one is free to completely ignore all evidence which contradicts the desired conclusion, and hand-wave it away as "speculative" (even though the evidence is what it is, and still exists despite being dishonestly labeled "speculative").
Welcome to the world of junk science. This is the sort of claptrap that these charlatans want to force into classrooms -- and pollute young minds with -- via court action.
I don't know how any good Christian can support this sort of extreme, calculated dishonesty. It completely baffles me. What's even more amazing is that they don't realize that this kind of transparent lie scares people *away* from Christianity.
What DID we evolve from?