Animals with bad design.

But presumably your imaginary ancestral supercat could do both, right? That's what I was asking. It must have had spots and stripes and a mane and retractable claws and saber-teeth and the ability to climb trees and the ability to run at 70 mph and been yellow and orange and black and brown and white and roared like a lion and mewed like a cat and was good at killing water-buffalo and catching mice. Do let us know if you ever find a fossil.Of course, this is nothing compared to the original supermammal, which had the intelligence of a human, the trunk of an elephant, the legs of a giraffe ... and which also didn't exist. Not particularly. If it was discovered that there were far more species of bacteria than previously supposed, that would not tend to lead one "in the direction" of the proposition that all organisms are bacteria.

No, actually to believe that the cat evolved retractable claws I have to believe that the cat evolved retractable claws. If I want to go into further detail, the evidence compels me to believe that this process took place in accordance with the theory of evolution rather than some nonsense that some bloke who calls himself "Kaichos Man" made up in his head. And you are, as usual, most amusingly wrong. No, it's a perfect example of something else you've made up in your head. Back in the real world --- remember that? --- no-one claims that leopards evolved from cheetahs; because of the real world not being populated by the imaginary people who live in your brain.

This seems likely; and I don't think anyone would quarrel with that. But his suggestion that this ancestry was from an undiscovered supercat via a leopard is right out.

I was going to look for one of those, but you beat me to it.Also, there are three other species of cat that can only partially retract their claws, all in genus Prionailurus. So he's pretty much wrong about everything.

Hi, nice to have you back. I look forward to the promotion of your thread on whales.In the meantime, let me talk to you about torsion. Torsion is something that happens early in the development of gastropods. The following description is from Wikipedia: "Torsion is the rotation of the visceral mass, mantle and shell 180˚ with respect to the head and foot of the gastropod. This brings the mantle cavity and anus to an anterior position above the head."Now, this already raises the question of why, if gastropods are meant to be like that, this result is achieved by doing origami on the basal form of mollusks. But there's more. Some gastropods, for example the Opisthobranchia, do not exhibit torsion in their mature form. Now, given that nature always seems to conspire to delight evolutionists, can you guess what happens to them?That's right. They undergo torsion followed by detorsion, leaving them back in the basal form.You might care to ponder why torsion followed by detorsion should be the best way of producing gastropods without torsion, rather than just letting them alone; and why God did not opt to make this his method for producing tigers or jellyfish or lobsters without torsion. And why, again, the phenomena fit perfectly with evolutionary thinking, just like all God's other brilliant ideas.