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...
All right, you know what, you're right. The word "challenges" was a poor choice of words on my part. My mistake!
What I SHOULD have said was, "I said that this DIRECTLY ANSWERS the long-standing question anti-evolutionists always throw out, 'Where are the transition fossils'?"
Now I suppose we could debate whether or not this truly is a "transition fossil" until Christ returns. I'm not interested in that. In fact, it's why I mostly avoid these "crevo" threads. To be quite blunt, the science debated here is mostly shoddy, incomplete, and cherry picked. The so called "Creation Institute" is a perfect example of such work.
My only purpose for posting here now was to show the hypocrisy of Mr. Ham. I think I've done that pretty well.
If you care to debate the merits of this fossil, that is, whether or not it truly does represent a "transition", then the last word is yours for reasons stated above.