[metmom]

Maybe you could explain how your post is a defense of the ToE and not an attack on GGG.

And while you’re at it, would YOU care to comment on the article and absurd speculations in it, like about 18 winged dragonflies for which there’s no evidence and yet is being used to bolster this guy’s theory.

And how a book with made up creatures, science fiction at the least, is considered by Shermer [who] wrote the foreword to Prothero’s book, calling it “the best book ever written on the subject.” In fact, “Don’s visual presentation of the fossil and genetic evidence for evolution is so unmistakably powerful that I venture to say that no one could read this book and still deny the reality of evolution.”

Sketches of imaginary creatures are the visual presentation that is “powerful”?

And evos mock creationists for believing *fairy tales* and the ramblings of bronze age goat herders? And this book is any better?

[Natural Law]

"And while you’re at it, would YOU care to comment on the article and absurd speculations in it...

At least we agree on one thing, Johnathan Wells' article is full of absurd speculations. However, Prothero's book, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, has a lot of valid information when not taken out of context for partisan purposes.

By the way, how much of Prothero's book did you actually read? Yeah, I thought so.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

And while you’re at it, would YOU care to comment on the article and absurd speculations in it, like about 18 winged dragonflies for which there’s no evidence and yet is being used to bolster this guy’s theory.

Ten bucks says the book doesn't claim that an 18-winged dragonfly ever existed, and that this is just another example of creationists taking things out of context. I've ordered the book from the library, and I'll post some of the relevant text when I get it.

[count-your-change]

“Sketches of imaginary creatures are the visual presentation that is “powerful”?”

Prune juice is powerful too so a person should be careful how much of it they swallow.

[ElectricStrawberry]

And while you’re at it, would YOU care to comment on the article and absurd speculations in it, like about 18 winged dragonflies for which there’s no evidence and yet is being used to bolster this guy’s theory.

The "guy" ONLY uses the 18-winged dragonfly as an illustration of how small changes in Hox genes generate major changes in phylogeny, nothing else.

Sketches of imaginary creatures are the visual presentation that is “powerful”?

No, the actual science behind the "major changes in phylogeny with minor changes in Hox genes" is "powerful."

The strawman is dead...poking it with a stick doesn't make it more dead.