But I don't accept it is related.
What is related? Anything? You don't believe that anything is related?
we are dealing with fossils here.
That wasn't your original claim. Originally, you claimed that you could tell that a purported elephant ancestor was not, in fact, related to the elephant, because it
looked different. Not because it was a fossil.
Whether or not you believe that the ancestor in question looks similar enough to the elephant to be related, if we can prove that it's related to something you
would consider similar enough to be related to the elephant, then we've proved you wrong.
If A is the ancestor of B, and B is the ancestor of C, then A is the ancestor of B. We've proved it. The only escape for you is do what you're doing now - change your argument and claim that nothing is related to anything in the fossil record, ever, no matter how similar.
The contention is that they are not related.
Based on what evidence? Since whatever we're talking about is the ancestor of the ancestor of the elephant, it must, by definition, be related to the elephant.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-05-2004 03:55 PM