Then later, they genus-ated.
The teeth in question are stated to be the most common remnant of the lineage in question. The gore trick is to assume no one knows anything unstated. In this case, there's nothing but teeth anywhere and the whole animals is made up from the tooth.
Can this be substantiated? Where does the burden of proof lie? What is the wilder claim, that Gingerich fabricated an animal from a tooth or that Gingerich has evidence for the divergence of two later genera from an earlier species? Can you show that the two later genera are based on teeth alone?
It lies with those establishing a claim. The claim is speciation. At this point only teeth are in evidence. Other people may accept that as sufficient, I don't. You can leave the evidence as it is and some will be convinced. They are not idiots or whatever but then neither are those that remain skeptical.
With you. You claimed that these teeth were proof of macro-evolution. You told me to go away because of your so-called proof. You had no proof and the person who wrote it is just another whore of evolution who just makes up stuff in order to get his name published and keep his job by giving phony proof for what evolution cannot prove.
Here's another example of paleontological fraud. I shall call it:
On the second day of the symposium, William Garstka reported that he and a team of molecular biologists from Alabama had extracted DNA from the fossil bones of a 65-million-year-old dinosaur. Although DNA from other studies suggests that DNA older than about a million years cannot yield any useful sequence information, Garstka and his colleagues amplified and sequenced the DNA. compared, it with known DNA from other animals, and found that it was most similar to bird DNA . They concluded that they had found "the first direct genetic evidence to indicate that birds represent the closest living relatives of the dinosaurs". Their conclusion was reported the following week by Constance Holden in Science.
The details of the discovery, however, are revealing. First the dinosaur from which Garstka and his colleagues allegedly recovered the DNA was Triceratops. According to paleontologists there are two main branches in the dinosaur family tree. One branch included the three-horned rhinoceros-like Triceratops which millions of people have seen in museum exhibits and movies. But birds are thought to have evolved from the other branch. So according to evolutionary biologists, Triceratops and modern birds are not closely related, their ancestors having gone thier separate ways almost 250 million years ago.
Even more revealing, however, was that the DNA Garstka and his colleagues found was 100 percent identical to the DNA of living turkeys.. Not 99 percent, not 99.9 percent, but 100 percent. Not even DNA obtained from other birds is 100 percent identical to turkey DNA (the next closest match in their study was 94.5 percent with another species of bird). In other words, the DNA that had supposedly been extracted from the Triceratops bone was not just similar to turkey DNA - it was turkey DNA. Gartska said he and his colleagues considered the possibility that someone had been eating a turkey sandwich nearby, but they were unable to confirm that.
FROM: Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, page 130, 131.
Just comes to show the professionalism and dedication of paleontologists! And remember, your tax dollars paid for this wonderful discovery!