quote:
Humorous, isn't it, that objective evidence is what I was looking for when I first joined this discussion? It seems we don't always get what we want.
We did supply it, the fossils comprising the horse lineage. What did you say in response?
--Transitionals can't exist because evolution is false.
--I won't tell you what a transitional would look like because they can't exist.
--That isn't a new species, it is some other name that doesn't entail supporting evolution.
We presented it, you ran away from it.
If that horse lineage does not support evolution, then explain why. Also supply what the horse lineage should look like. In addition, explain why we see these horses in different layers, in a chronological order.
You have also ducked the DNA evidence. Do you want to start a discussion of the DNA evidence? I warn you, the DNA evidence is even more strongly in support of evidence than the fossil record.
PS: Just out of curiosity. How can you call yourself an ex-evolutionist if you never knew what it stated nor the evidence that supports it?