And if this is a canard, it is the Darwiniists canard. They are the ones who insist that there be intermediate forms.
Huh? Scientists have been predicting and finding so-called "intermediates" for hundreds of years. Tiktaalik was an especially exciting fairly recent one, because it was clearly predicted - how it would look and where it should be found - and it did and it was!
Creationists like the following game:
Scientist: Here is an early proto-amphibian and here is an explanation of the morphology and its place in the strata...
Creationists: Where's the missing link before that guy? And the one after?!
Scientist: Actually, here they are.
Creationist: Where are the missing links now linking all 3 of them!
And so on.
But there is no way for you to know that those are really “missing links”.
These are assumptions based on similarities in morphology. Nobody was there to observe or measure.
As has been shown elsewhere in this thread, morphology is not a very reliable indicator of speciation. If so, then, in the presence of only their fossilized remains, the Retriever could be mistaken as an intermediary between the Chiuaua and the Great Dane.
posted on 02/23/2009 5:28:24 PM PST
(Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson