The Monty Python graphics are *not* my primary line of argument, but rather, are used to show that you don't know when you've been beaten, much like that Black Knight.
You repeat ad nausium the same "modern Fish" nonsense, not even realizing that you are making an even weaker case for the very Evolutionary Theory that you would beg to defend.
Sad.
Evolutionary Theory falls flat if there is no evolutionary path for the immune trait in coral to evolve into humans, for instance, yet you trumpet the lack of a link as if it *supported* Evolution!
Talk about backwards thinking!
Humans are not descended from coral. You have simply misread a story discussing the common ancestor of coral and humans.
I think we should all be careful of hanging our argument on one unknown, such as this, be it if we are Evolutionists, Creationists, or Theistic Evolutionists (like myself) because if this one point breaks, so does the argument. A gap in knowledge doesn't represent proof, it only represents a gap in knowledge. How long did young-Earth Creationists use the degrading magnetic field as 'proof' of a young earth before we knew that it fluctuated? How long did Evolutionists use Piltdown man as 'proof'? Science involves evolving (for lack of a better term) knowledge.