[jennyp]

For the lurkers mostly, some background material:

• Creationists all agree that there are no transitional fossils between apes and humans. But sometimes they can't agree on what kind of transitional fossil it isn't!
   
• Transitional vertebrate fossils (200+ in this list alone).
   
• What "theory" means.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I don't know whether to count it as interesting or downright unlucky that all the transitional forms (if indeed there are any) must be relegated to a fossil record. What do you think? Shall we argue from extinction and thus add the to the great pile of evidence that as yet excludes direct observation, testing, repeatability and such?

[Last Visible Dog]

Creationists all agree

(200+ in this list alone)

Nice try.

1. 200 is a teeny tiny fraction of what Darwinist evolution predicts - only a person of faith would consider this overwhelming evidence

2. Only bigots claim all people that disagree with them think and act in the same way.

3. I only represent me and your bigoted comment about the bogeymen you call "Creationists" does not apply.

4. This thread is about origin of life so I have no idea why you are doing a cut and paste of the Evolutionist party line . Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life so your comments in this thread are pretty near nonsensical.