Hi Foxy,

I enjoy you posts too. Not only are your post insightful: Also, well written, diplomatic and balanced.

runner,

It is an early find and I would not commit to defending the "missing link" against all claims, yet. Hopefully, there will be a peer review. Frauds are known to Church (Turin Shroud)and anthropology (Piltdown Man). There will always be dishonest people. Even Martin Luther King Jnr, has a largely plagarised doctorate, it is widely reported. Critical communities of practice try to stop frauds being perpetrated.

I have acknowledged that (unadaptable) intermediaries are hard to find. The reason is, I repeat, they don't survive in adequate numbers to form a discoverable fossil record. On the other hand, archiac DNA is often present in modern specicies, wherein, scientists have already been able to modify modern birds to have reptile features by turning-on genes suppressed for millions of years. Occasionally, less dramatic regressions occur naturally, such as, human beings born with primate tails.

Oliver

National Geographic and desperate scientist trying to prove their faith should not have to revert to fraud and deceit as is the history of those defending dogmas. The millions and millions of fossils found should do nothing but embarrass those who continue to search for the missing link. It is absolutely laughable and pathetic that after the man made manufacturing of missing links and deceit that some now claim that there is no missing link. Evolution as one man so clearly explained is a fairytale for adults. Creation and design is a thousand times more rational than pseudo science. No amount of lack of evidence after hundreds of years is enough to embarrass these zealots. Then again their previous 'natural; explanations are a complete embarrassment to them also. NO wonder most Americans and most of the world don't believe this silly little explanation even though many have to pretend in order to get a tick at school.

runner,

When geneticists turn-on ancient bird genes, as recorded for all to see on video, and dino-chicks are born, it is not fraud. Would it be possible to recreate an early ancestor of Man from modern homo sapien DNA, today? Probably, not. Yet, I suspect, it will be possible before 2100.

If someone, in, say 2080, created a "missing link", from modern DNA; would you not ask why the constituent ancient genes are present and why the excutive systems governing the on/off switches are present, in a species that did not evolve from earlier forms? If humans had no biological non-human ancestor, we should not carry their ancient DNA.

In a sense, there are fossils in our biology as, (a) anyone who knows how embryos develop will appreciate or (b)can be seen in the the structure of the Brain.

Don't worry oliver,

Runner has never bothered to look at photos of the fossils we have.

He just looks at the stuff in fundy propaganda.

Whenever *yet another* intermediate is found, he thinks he is smart by saying no more were found at the same site.

This is why Literal creationism is waning and it is dragging christianiaty down with it.

Sorry for the thinking christians is all.

Rusty

Yes, I imagine that the "thinking Christians" of OLO are frequently embarrassed by runner's nonsensical rants.

Been studying economics and guess what there are believers and evolutionists in that discipline also. Evolutionist know that you plant a white feather and grow a chook. Believers know that you have to have a hen and a rooster to get the chook. So when you get the monkey to produce an evolutionist I will believe.