Yes, it can, and it does all the time. For instance Ernst Mayr once stated that macroevolution is just a magnification of microevolution. There is zero hard evidence to support the assertion. None. The entire theory is supported by inference and circumstantial evidence, at best. And yet, people interpret this to be truth all the time.
This bears no relation to anything I posted.
In particular, it has nothing to do with the quotation from my post which preceded it.
"A piece of evidence which contradicted the predictions of the theory of evolution could not be "reinterpreted" so that it did. Evidence is evidence."
You just seem to have recited a random piece of fundie dogma, rather than actually replying to my post.
That was hyperbole. Obviously no evolutionist gives up looking for missing links. Even the staunchest creationist knows this. It was hyperbole for effect.
Petitio principii.
I won't disagree with you that he shouldn't have said it, but I highly doubt it spawned from ignorance.
And his claim that no intermediate forms have been found?
™ Version 4.2
