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

And that nice drawing is about as strong as it all gets as for evo.

At the risk of igniting your volatile temperament, you asked in your post 853 on this thread, for a link to transitional organisms. The site I linked to contains thousands of transitional species by their scientific names.

If you don't want to know, then don't ask. I realize that many creationists have committed themselves to the anti-science cause, and then call their approach "scientific".

I'll merely paraphrase what Ann Coulter wrote in "Godless", "even if evolution is true, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist".

[RunningWolf]

No you gave a link to the the Tree of Life web project, and it is full of text such as this

"The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain,"

This is like the talk-orgins links brought here 'as evidence' in that when you read those links there is no substance there either. Usually just refining a few terms, some dancing around and alluding to the uncertainty of the claims & concluding with a few nice drawings or flowcharts before going off into a rant about the creationist.

BTW there is no need for 'a competing theory'. In fact its better to take a hard look at evo without it. As an analogy if I was sailing an ancient ocean and the maps were as as to toe, I would toss the map and understand I was in uncharted waters.

W.