| Which actually helps you about as much as pointing out that this University of California Museum of Paleontology exhibit is a replica. (But that didn't stop you then, either. If you don't have evidence, make noise!) |
As if Ad Hominem helps your argument. You are the one making mistakes. Evidence has been posted, you ignore it. So what. It won't go away. Evidence is what caused you to change from mesonychus to pakicetus. Pakicetus is hanging on by a thread. When they find the Hippo/whale link you can kiss him goodbye as a whale. What will they call him then? Pakihoaxus?
If making mistakes is proof of the other guy's position, how about famous author Jonathan Wells claiming that the experiment produced mutant shrimp? The excuse: the initial press release on the experiment was vague and it was necessary to get out a response the same day, Clinton-War-Room style.
Evidence has been posted, you ignore it.
If you mean the followup article from Wells's group, it's so full of AndrewC-style arguments as to be practically gibberish to anyone not already familiar with most details. Lots of Tah-dah!s on irrelevant, nitpicky points. Lots of squirmy misdirection and deliberate confusion. I leave the confirmation to the lurker.
Evidence is what caused you to change from mesonychus to pakicetus. Pakicetus is hanging on by a thread. When they find the Hippo/whale link you can kiss him goodbye as a whale. What will they call him then? Pakihoaxus?
Your fantasies are not evidence. And explain to your creationist cohorts, if you will, what you mean by this "Hippo/whale link" you expect to show up. I'm sure gore and cowboy and Heartlander and Sublunar Kid and everyone else would be fascinated. Wouldn't such a thing be evidence for evolution?