An open mind wouldn't be saying something that wasn't said.
I never said anything about "might mean something that substatively changes another theory". I said that this DIRECTLY challenges the "requirement" of transition fossils.
It's clear it's a transition fossil. But Mr. Ham blithely, and ham-handedly (no pun intended) rejects this as just another fossil that is not worth "getting excited about" with the comment I quoted.
If Mr. Ham truly wanted to see a transition fossil, then he *should* "get excited" about this fossil. That's my point. It should be clear.
I never said anything about “might mean something that substatively changes another theory”. I said that this DIRECTLY challenges the “requirement” of transition fossils.
“challenges” is a funny word. I could “challenge” a SEAL platoon to a gunfight...this is NOT being treated as a challenge...and the “transition” from what to what is about as clear as mud...