quote:
Again, which means what?
What exactly don't you understand ?
quote:
It certainly was an admission that there are no directly transitional fossils. i.e. none where he feels that the evolutionary story told about the fossil can be said to necessarily be true.
It doesn't even mean that. All it means is that the fossil evidence is too limited to prove direct ancestry beyond doubt.
But, of course, that is not the issue. The question is whether the morphological intermediates predicted by evolution exist. And they do - with more being discovered every year. Funnily enough the morphological intermediates that would be major problems for evolution aren't found.
By your own words creationism doesn't predict which combinations of traits will be found - thus the fact that evolution does is strong scientific evidence for evolution over creationism.
Which is why many creationists plug the completely false view that transitional fossils don't exist. And they are quite happy to use misrepresentation in an attempt to support that false claim.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix 2nd quote box.