1,193
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 44:
Line 44: + + + + +
Talk:Transitional form (view source)
Revision as of 00:49, January 30, 2008
, 00:49, January 30, 2008no edit summary
: I've seen lists of transitional fossils (and one is referenced in the article). But with none of the examples provided can, in the words of Colin Patterson (in the article), with none can one make a watertight argument. Just because they are ''claimed'' to be transitional does not make them so, and none really stand scrutiny.
: I've seen lists of transitional fossils (and one is referenced in the article). But with none of the examples provided can, in the words of Colin Patterson (in the article), with none can one make a watertight argument. Just because they are ''claimed'' to be transitional does not make them so, and none really stand scrutiny.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 January 2008 (EST)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 January 2008 (EST)
::Bugger, thought I responded to this yesterday. It's convenient because if it's not a conspiracy, you don't look like a nutter for trying to play the persecution card.
::And I must ask, how do you prove that they aren't transitional? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:49, 29 January 2008 (EST)
== Picture ==
== Picture ==
Would it be useful to add a picture such as this: http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/3803/horseevolutionbl3.png --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:15, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Would it be useful to add a picture such as this: http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/3803/horseevolutionbl3.png --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:15, 28 January 2008 (EST)