Replies

You mean that I missed the fossil evidence of species X, Y, and Z that gradually led up to the duck-billed platipus (the only poisonous mammal in all of time)?! Did I miss ten or twenty transitional species that led up to the first bird?

Ah, the Gap Game! And if we start discovering fossils to fill the platypus gap (as has happened in recent decades with the once-touted whale gap and the bird gap), then you go to the bat gap or whatever else is left.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Especially when we have a lot of examples now of the general principle (and we've filled a lot of gaps already).

Lawyering games make nice debate tactics but they aren't science. Your delusional system is bullet-proof. There's nothing it can't handle, which means that it actually isn't making any predictions or telling us anything.

I once mentioned to gore3000 that we think we know approximately when and in what lineage the mammalian ear bones arose. We can see them forming gradually in the fossil record. If we found a modern lizard species or an ancient salamander with bones exactly like mammalian ear bones, that would be a serious problem for what we think we know about the evolution of mammals. It would probably be put down to spectacularly convergent evolution, but it would be a serious anomaly.

ID would of course trumpet the same thing as proof of itself. But what would ever disprove ID?

You mean that I missed the fossil evidence of species X, Y, and Z that gradually led up to the duck-billed platipus (the only poisonous mammal in all of time)?! Did I miss ten or twenty transitional species that led up to the first bird? - Southack

"Ah, the Gap Game! And if we start discovering fossils to fill the platypus gap (as has happened in recent decades with the once-touted whale gap and the bird gap), then you go to the bat gap or whatever else is left. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Especially when we have a lot of examples now of the general principle (and we've filled a lot of gaps already)." - VadeRetro

No, not the gap game. I simply asked you to substantiate the wild-eyed claim that you made that Intelligent Design NEVER introduced big new design changes.

There is one mammal, and only one mamal, in all of history that is poisonous. Intelligent Design can explain it with ease. Can Evolutionary Theory explain that animal?

You didn't even try to explain it. Perhaps that's because you can't...

"ID would of course trumpet the same thing as proof of itself. But what would ever disprove ID?"

Intelligent Design is disproved if DNA fails to be capable of modification in the lab by an intelligent process. Good luck with that one...