Yes. They call it the Apatosaurus now but the species is still studied. If it's been overthrown, you have a scoop. (Oh, that's right. You already have a scoop. There has been no evolution.)
Usually, though when examples are provided they are disappointingly anti-climatic. Can you provide an example? Remember, we are talking about macro-evolution.
I can't tell you how this sounds this far along on this thread. gore3000 told me a long time ago that, for all you can tell from a fossil, there were mammary glands on dinosaurs.
Yes, that sort of soft tissue has not been preserved. And ID, with it's non-second-guessable Designer, seems to have little to say on the subject.
Evolution has a line of reasoning that says there were no teats on a T. rex. I've challenged gore, who likes to model things with evolution to show how impossible it is, to reproduce this simple syllogism. He has so far failed. Aquinasfan failed to answer on this one as well.
Maybe you can help them out. Why does an evolutionary framework say Mrs. T was a flat-chested as Mr. T?
I think this might be the real point. The model is broken but it's all people have so they hang onto it like a starving dog hangs onto a bone.
On this point, you're supposed to defend how ID really tells you something. To continue to attack evolution here is to stay stuck on the last item, which is where you feel more comfortable.
I can see why you don't want to defend ID as science. It's the most pitiful of contentless shams.
I can't tell you how this sounds this far along on this thread. gore3000 told me a long time ago that, for all you can tell from a fossil, there were mammary glands on dinosaurs.(response)
That's not what I was getting at. The ability for the theory of evolution to make predictions is cited as evidence of its accuracy. If, using this theory, one were able to consistently turn the descendents of a horse into cows, the debate would be pretty much over. Micro-evolution is consistently observed in nature and laboratories and nobody questions it.
Maybe you can help them out. Why does an evolutionary framework say Mrs. T was a flat-chested as Mr. T?
The point is everybody's guessing. I would say it's impossible to know for certain and we would all be better off admitting that. (There is nothing wrong with speculating but nobody should get upset when one's speculation in challenged.)
On this point, you're supposed to defend how ID really tells you something. To continue to attack evolution here is to stay stuck on the last item, which is where you feel more comfortable.
Again, since I belive in God i would be an intelligent designer even if I were to conclude that macro-evolution is right. I think the question (and glory) for science is always to try figure out how God does things -- sort of like a kid trying to emulate his father albeit one can never forget the rules Dad sets down.
ID seems to me to be more a strong critique of evolution rather than an attempt to find the mechanism of creation which is what evolution (not unfairly) tries to explain.