[connectthedots]

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.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Read the link in post #17."

That's post 18 :)

[shuckmaster]

It's primarily speculation, with lost of 'probablies' and 'possibles'

It's primarily researched facts. You're ignoring the forest because you think there's a (speculated) tree missing in there somewhere.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Where is the fossil record to support the speculation about the existence of 'transitional forms'? The belief in 'transitional forms' is not science; it's nothing more than speculation.

Actually it's called an observation.

[Ichneumon]

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.

Just out of curiosity, could you tell me whether even you believe this lame excuse for ignoring the vast amount of NON-speculatory evidence in that link (and in the vast amounts of primary literature it cites)? Do you *honestly* think that a little bit of speculation in a huge article justifies your ignoring absolutely everything else in it?

In short, are you really as confused and irrational as you appear, or are you just making wildly dishonest excuses for ignoring the actual real-world evidence in the hopes that someone might actually fall for it?

This is not a rhetorical question. Please respond.