“I have no idea what you are asking me. Did you read my post to you carefully, with an open mind?”
Do you need to clarify that I understand, or that I have an open mind, in order to evaluate my cognitive abilities or to suggest I may have neither?
I don’t know - does an “open mind” include the possibility that a fossil MIGHT mean something that substantively changes another theory?
What don’t you understand about what I wrote?
It’s “kind of” evidence to support a theory that can’t be supported without what this MIGHT be? Pretty clear, if you have an open mind about what MIGHT have been proven by this discovery...or what might NOT have been proven.
If one can accept climate change as “settled science” in the face of an alomost equal number of opponents, one can accept this as “proof” that another theory no longer holds water in the face of an almost equal number of people that have doubts.
Actually, in this particular case, I am reminded of the Cold Fusion discovery of a few years ago...
An open mind wouldn't be saying something that wasn't said.
I never said anything about "might mean something that substatively changes another theory". I said that this DIRECTLY challenges the "requirement" of transition fossils.
It's clear it's a transition fossil. But Mr. Ham blithely, and ham-handedly (no pun intended) rejects this as just another fossil that is not worth "getting excited about" with the comment I quoted.
If Mr. Ham truly wanted to see a transition fossil, then he *should* "get excited" about this fossil. That's my point. It should be clear.