The Origin of Novelty

Hi mindspawn, That's the only criterion? Really? Because you've already been shown that. Take the image of hominin skulls shown in Message 727 for example. And yet you still reject them as transitional fossils.So what's missing exactly? What factor would it take to convince you that these really are transitional fossils?Please describe your full criteria for a legitimate transitional fossil.Mutate and Survive

Hi NoNukes, Well that would be just super! Ooh! I know! How about a complete family tree for every single living organism that ever lived? Would that be sufficient?Snark aside, I hope mindspawn realises that if any sensible discussion is to be had on this topic, we need to have an agreed definition of what a transitional fossils is and what evidence we might reasonably expect to see if transitional fossils were real. Ideally, something a bit more reasonable than the complete family tree option, but still a bit more exacting than "a range of fossils showing ... gradual change". Well let's throw that open to mindspawn; is there any evidence that could convince you of ape-to-human evolution mindspawn? What would that evidence look like?Mutate and Survive

Okay. But let's be clear, we're never going to get DNA from fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old and where most of the original organic material has been replaced. That seems like an unreasonable burden of proof. Well that's not true, but let's put that to one side for now.I didn't ask you for examples of things that aren't evidence for evolution, I asked you what evidence for evolution you would accept. On the basis of your answer here, it would seem that nothing would be sufficient. Is that the case? After all, it seems pointless to harp on about a lack of bat fossils, when you wouldn't accept them as evidence even if they were put in front of you.So again; what would a genuine transitional fossil look like? What criteria would it have to fulfil?Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Clarification

Nice to know that you're keeping an open mind. a) That is false.b) Fossils do not contain DNA. Whatever definition we give for a transitional fossil, it has nothing to do with DNA or the lack of it. Criticising fossils for a lack of DNA is like criticising the Gospels for not having photo's of Jesus.c) Even if I were to show you two species that share DNA, would you accept this as evidence for evolution? No you would not. It is deeply dishonest of you to harp at me for a lack of DNA evidence, when you routinely dismiss the DNA evidence that does exist. Yes there should. If evolution is true, then there should be lots of them. We are agreed on that. Really? How do you know? You just said that it was completely impossible both in practise and in principle to tell whether a fossil is transitional or not. So how can you say whether there are too few? If you want to take the rather obstinate position that we cannot know any transitional fossil as what it is, then the only logical position for you to take is one of total agnosticism. Yet you say silly things like this; How do you know whether transitional fossils exist or not if it's impossible to tell a transitional fossil?How about this nonsense; Isn't it? In your latest reply you claim that it's impossible. Make your damn mind up. Huh? But you just said that it's impossible to recognise a transitional fossil, so how can you say whether there is a lack or not?Your habit of making shit up as you go along has led you into a contradiction; either there is a way to recognise transitional fossils and they turn out to be lacking or there is no way to recognise transitional fossils and you have no idea how many there are.You don't get to have it both ways, so which is it?But even after all of this, I notice that you have still not answered my question. You have told me that there is "nothing that can prove a genuine transitional fossil". Well that's not really what I'm asking for. No-one claims to be able to prove that a fossil fits into a particular transition or not; science doesn't work on "proof". I asked you what a genuine transitional fossil would look like, what characteristics it would have. You refuse to answer. A less charitable poster than I might suspect that haven't actually given the matter the slightest thought, or that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. But I'm not mean like that, so I'll ask again; what would a genuine transitional fossil look like? What characteristics would it have to fulfil for us to begin to recognise it as transitional?Seriously mindspawn, if you are unable to answer that simple question, you have no business commenting on the subject of the fossil record. Answer the question, or stop making claims about things you can't even define.
Mutate and Survive

No we do not.Disagree? Show me an example. I gotta say, it's comments like the above that make me wonder if you truly understand what scientific evidence is and how it works, 'cause baby, that ain't it.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

There's a link right there in the message. Or just google "transitional", "bat" and "fossil" and click the first link. What? No!Did you read the article?

quote:

---

The clawed bat part refers to one of the many intermediate features that make Onychonycteris the most primitive bat species ever described. In all current and prior fossil species of bats, most of the digits in the wing lack the claws typical of mammalian digits. That's not the case here: all Onychonycteris digits end in claws.

---

You're not exactly giving the impression of having done extensive research here...Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Okay, we have a few messages here, so I'm going to combine my replies into a single message. We'll deal with the bat first. Yes indeed. It displays a combination of the derived features that we see in modern bats and the basal features that their putative ancestors would have had; just as one would expect from a true transitional fossil. That's not quite as big a problem as you seem to think (more on that below). Yes and it would be more impressive if we had fossils of every bat species that ever lived, but with fossils you have to work with what you're given. The point here is that this fossil validates the predictions of evolutionary theory. It does not validate any vague claims about "diversity" because such claims make no predictions. Well I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, as the pictures of the Californian leaf-nosed bat that I've looked at show that it had much shorter hind limbs and tail than Onychonycteris.You need to rid yourself of the delusion that you can outsmart the anatomical experts who conduct this kind of research. You simply don't have their expertise. You are not going to outwit them with a quick google search. And you have already been shown several examples of exactly this; horses, humans, whales... but you're still not happy.I think that you are still doubtful because you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick with regards to what we mean by a "transitional fossil" and what we mean when we discuss "evidence" in a scientific context. I'll get to that in a bit. For now I would simply like to note that when you claimed that there were no bat transitionals, you clearly had no idea about the existence of Onychonicteris. You should do your research before making such sweeping claims.Let's move on to your problems with transitional fossils.

---

Only someone who was deeply ignorant of anatomy could make that mistake.You're not looking at these creatures with a naturalists eye. You are only seeing the superficial. The kind of observational acuity that is needed to properly observe these things is not something you can just take for granted. It takes years of training and practise to hone these skills. You - with the best will in the world - do not posses such skills. that's why you keep making errors like mistaking Onychonycteris for a modern bat, or thinking that Thyacines are similar in morphology to wolves. You need to learn to look deeper, or, at the very least, show a little more trust in the expert professionals who can. Believe it or not, they really do know what they're talking about.Anyway, as of Message 776, you acknowledge that this claim is erroneous; You're right. Taq's right. The anatomies of Tasmanian "wolves" and placental wolves are vastly different. Let's just take a look; Whilst they are superficially similar to each other, there are nonetheless important differences. The tooth formulae are different. There are basal features present in the marsupial wolf that are not seen in placentals (see here for more details on this). No palaeontologist worth a damn could possibly mistake the two. You could. I probably could. But that's because we're not experts. It would be easy for us to confuse a marsupial fossil for a placental one, but not for a trained expert. Real palaeontologists (as opposed to the ones that populate creationist fantasies) don't make that kind of mistake. No. There really isn't. You claimed; The examples given generally do not show this. They have superficially similar morphologies, but there are clear differences. In the case of sharks and dolphins, the differences are so vast that a child could tell their fossils apart. Convergent evolution is real enough, but it is not so convergent that there aren't still important differences. Just because two species are contemporary does not mean that neither could be the ancestor of the other."Species A" can give rise to "Species B" without "Species A" disappearing.Remember the definition of a transitional fossil that you cited in response to taq - "A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group".There's nothing there that demands that the more derived species need be the direct descendant of the more basal one. Indeed, the very same page you quote contains this comment;

quote:

---

A source of confusion is the notion that a transitional form between two different taxonomic groups must be a direct ancestor of one or both groups. The difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy is to identify taxa that were ancestors of other taxa. However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. In fact, because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process producing a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. Cladistics deemphasizes the concept of one taxonomic group being an ancestor of another, and instead emphasizes the identification of sister taxa that share a more recent common ancestor with one another than they do with other groups. There are a few exceptional cases, such as some marine plankton micro-fossils, where the fossil record is complete enough to suggest with confidence that certain fossils represent a population that was actually ancestral to a later population of a different species.[10] But, in general, transitional fossils are considered to have features that illustrate the transitional anatomical features of actual common ancestors of different taxa, rather than to be actual ancestors.

---

You are quite right in pointing out that it is practically impossible to be completely certain of the specific ancestral relationships that might have existed between two fossil taxa. However this is not critical to observing that they are transitional. What matters is that they display a mixture of basal and derived characteristics.The ToE predicts that we should find transitional fossils, not that we should be able to determine the exact family trees of every extinct organism.But anyway, objections about dating are hardly relevant. A transitional series like that of whales can be clearly dated. The species depicted in the horse evolution diagram that CS showed you have all been reliably dated and cover some tens of millions of years. The whale species cover millions of years and only a couple of them were contemporaneous. Speaking of which, you said this of the whale diagram; No, they really couldn't. The early whales, such as Basilosaurus and Durodon had clear differences from modern whales. For example, their blow-holes were located midway between the snout (as in the basal ancestors) and the top of the head (as in modern whales). They could not be confused with modern whales, at least not by any expert worth their salt. Yeah, that would be a huge leap of logic. A leap so huge that it would be unscientific. Good job then that no palaeontologist would make so flimsy a case.The putative evolutionary sequence for whales is based on far more detailed anatomical comparisons than the ones you imagine. I suggest that you do some reading up on the subject before commenting further. Except that their very different morphologies would be a clear indicator that they were not directly related. They look very different. They're not even in the same genus. Again, this is a mistake that a naive interpretor might make, professional palaeontologists are not naive. You appear to contradict this statement later in the same message; You have to remember that evidence is not about absolute proof. It's about building a case. More on this below. For now, I would agree with you that good transitional sequences help to build a case for evolution. I would add that they do so regardless of DNA.I think it's important that you address the fossil record on its own terms. Demands for DNA are effectively demands for the impossible. Yes, it would be nice if fossils contained DNA. But they don't. Does this mean that they contain less information than we might like? Sure. But does it mean that they can't tell us anything? Of course not! Your approach to the fossil record seems to be all or nothing. Either fossils come in perfect sequences, replete with DNA, birth certificate, driving license and are accompanied by both parents, or you dismiss them completely. That's silly and unreasonable.Fossils are by no means a perfect source of information about vanished lifeforms, but they are the only one we have and thankfully, they can tell us a great deal. Fossil evidence is useful to the ToE because the ToE makes certain predictions. This allows us to compare those predictions to the actual fossil record. There is no need to invoke demands for DNA in such a process. To do so appears obstructionist. Fair enough. Why don't you tell me exactly what evidence it is that you were hoping to see from two evolutionarily related species? What is it that you think we might hope to see in the fossil DNA that we can't see in modern DNA comparisons? After all, if I were to point to a human genome and a gorilla genome and observe that they are similar, I somewhat doubt that you would hail this as evidence of an evolutionary relationship. So why would it be so important to you when we discuss fossils? Yes it would. It would help build the case. It would not represent proof though. To explain why, we're going to need to take a look at the difference between evidence and proof and how science approaches these issues...

---

In the past few messages you have made statements that I would consider to be contradictory. On the one hand you have said that transitional fossils cannot provide evidence of evolutionary relatedness. On the other you have agreed that good transitional sequences back the evolutionary model. Clearly you don't see those statements as being quite as contradictory as I do.I think that this difference in approach is largely a semantic one. I think that when you and I speak of "evidence", we are using the word in subtly different ways. You use the word as if "evidence" were synonymous with "proof" or "absolute knowledge". That is not how I would understand the term in a scientific context.When scientists speak of evidence they are using the term in a specific way, based on how the scientific method operates. "Evidence" does not mean "proof". Rather it means an observation that has the potential to support or falsify a hypothesis. An observation can be described as favourable evidence if it agrees with the predictions made by the hypothesis.Wikipedia has this to say on the subject of scientific evidence;

quote:

---

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

---

Note that this is not the same as absolute proof.In our example, the hypothesis we are testing is the ToE. What we have to do is look at the predictions made by that hypothesis and test them against observations. The fossil record is one such observation. DNA comparisons are another. There are many other examples of observations with the power to support or falsify the ToE; biogeography, comparative anatomy, embryology, etc. For a topic as vast as evolution, no one piece of evidence, no single fossil, no DNA match, could be enough to prove the hypothesis, but each piece of evidence adds a little more weight to the theory.So when we look at earlier in the thread, where you said that " These attempts at creating sequences are not proof or even evidence for evolution", I hope that you can now see that you were not quite right. They are not proof. But they absolutely are evidence. They match the predictions of the theory of evolution. How could they be anything other than evidence?When we show you a diagram of something like horse evolution, we are not claiming that this constitutes absolute proof of evolution. What we are claiming is that these observations closely match what we would expect to see if evolution were true. We are not claiming that we can say with absolute certainty that Eohippus was definitely the direct ancestor of the modern horse. But we are saying that the fossil evidence is consistent with the predictions of the ToE and that, given the number and strength of these successful predictions, the ToE is backed by very solid evidence.

---

I know that this is a bit of a long post, but I wanted to address your objections as thoroughly as I could. Please don't feel pressured to reply in full or right away. Just try to address the important points.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Hi Ned, good to see you back!I agree that the example of vultures shows that convergent evolution can lead to difficulties in classification, but that was not quite what mindspawn claimed. He claimed that convergent evolution could create "near identical phenotypes". The vulture example does not go that far. As far as I can tell, none of the examples go that far.I think that mindspawn is over-egging it here. He is right that to say that these cases can be confusing but he is dead wrong in claiming that this difficulty is so great that it invalidates all classification of fossil taxa.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

What you're making us think is that you still have no idea what the hell you're talking about.That is not an accurate description of the fossil record. Even for a synopsis, it's just dreadful. It's inaccurate, simple-minded and just out and out wrong. Not only is it the worst description of the fossil record that I've ever seen, it may be the worst description of the fossil record that anyone has ever seen.For an argument about reality to be logical it has to agree with reality. What you have there is not reality. It's some dumb shit you made up.If you genuinely want to have so much a s a chance of understanding this topic you need to stop making shit up. Seriously. You're embarrassing yourself.Mutate and Survive

Sure. And if "approximate" meant "almost entirely wrong" then you'd be golden. What sort of reaction do you expect when you repeat claims that have already been refuted? The whole Carboniferous=swamp thing was debunked for your benefit in another thread, but you still go ahead and repeat the falsehood.When you first get something wrong, that could be called an honest mistake. When you keep getting it wrong, well... That's not what I said nor what I meant.What I am trying to get you to understand is that something like palaeontology or taxonomy is COMPLEX. They're complex and they're exacting and it's really really difficult to gain any kind of expertise in them. To get even close to the level of expertise of a professional palaeontologist you need to study. You need to study a friggin' lot.You haven't studied a lot. You've barely studied these topics at all. What you've done is make a few cursory web searches. You demonstrate this every time you make a blatantly silly comment like "Marine anoxic (trilobites)" or "every time in history has an aquatic animal that can walk". And yet you still seem to think that your opinion on these topic is worth as much as the experts. You dismiss the whole of palaeontology without understanding the first thing about it. This is an act of incredible arrogance.You need to realise that scientists are not idiots. They are not ignorant of their own subjects.You are ignorant of these subjects, yet you still assume to ridicule them. If that's not an act of hubris, then I don't know what is.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

And if they had been classified by so simple-minded a process, you would have a point. But they're not, so you don't.Yes, they are all apes; upright walking apes, with far more in common with humans than you seem to realise. Except that these fossils were not "placed" in a row. Their ordering is not arbitrary, they are placed in chronological order. This is completely objective. And - quelle surprise - these observations agree with the ToE. No-one forced them to do this, they just happen to be that way. This is, as per our previous agreements about the nature of supporting evidence, yet another line of evidence that supports evolution.Now I know what you're going to say; you reject the dating. Ask yourself then; doesn't that make it somewhat odd that they all date in such a way as to support the ToE. I mean, if the dating were intrinsically wrong, there would be no reason for them to line up in any particular order. But when we look at them we can see that, based on dating alone, they agree closely with an evolutionary sequence. If the dating method was wrong, what possible reason could there be for this? This is utterly false.Disagree? Then show me a Pliocene Homo sapiens, or a modern Australopithecene. I agree. But the fact remains that no-one arranged these skulls in anything other than the chronological order they came in. Your criticisms are unfounded.Mutate and Survive

You misunderstand me. Australopithecines were not human. What I said is that they were human-like and they are.These are bipedal apes. They displayed adaptations for upright walking, yet their skulls were very similar to those of modern apes. That alone marks them out as having a mixture of basal ape-like characteristics and derived human-like characteristics. The comparison is shown here; As you can see, the pelvis and feet of A. afarensis are much more like ours than they are like the chimp pelvis used for comparison. Their legs were more human-like as well. The fossil displays a mixture of basal and derived characteristics, just as one would expect under the ToE.There are further points of comparison. A. afarensis had canine teeth that jutted out from the rest (although not as much as in modern chimps). By comparison, later Austalopithecines show further derived features, such as A. africanus, whose teeth were more similar to those of modern humans. The front teeth in this species were larger and did not jut out, just as we see in humans. Again, this shows a mixture of basal and derived characteristics, just as we would expect under the ToE.Read more here.So when you rather dismissively referred to "Just because a gorilla has a large cranial capacity, or a gibbon has an upright stance, or an orangutang has smaller eyebrow ridges" as representative of the kind of anatomical details that scientists use, you were not being fair. They go into far more detail than that. If you want to see more detail on the similarities between Lucy and a mo0dern human, there is an excellent article here; Not FoundAnd if you still want more detail, just google up a few academic papers and take a look. They go into just a bit more detail than you seem to think. Yes, I get your point. You suspect cherry picking has taken place. This would be a reasonable objection, were it true. But it's not true. For example, you say; This would be a fair objection... if it were true that "EVERY age has a large range of hominid fossils", but that just isn't true. There are no fossils of the genus Homo in the early Pliocene or anything nearly that human-like. There just aren't. They are not absent from the comparison because someone decided to leave them out. They are absent because they have never been found. They're absent because they don't exist. Similarly, there are no Australopithecines beyond about 2.5 mya. The later comparisons omit them not because of evolutionist's bias, but because they were simply not around by that time.The "large range of hominid fossils" that you imagine for each era does not exist. The sequences you're being shown have not been rigged. they are actually rather good. Worse for your particular YEC position, no human or ape fossils of any kind appear before the Miocene. That's some hundreds of millions of years without human fossils, when you would have us believe that humans have been around since about day six of creation. I gotta say, my supporting evidence is looking a bit better than yours. Monkey fossils? Really?We're not talking about monkey fossils. None of the fossils in that sequence was of a monkey. Monkeys have tails. Do you think that any of those fossils had tails? Try to keep up.But yes, some lineages persist, whilst others die out... just as we would expect under the ToE. I fail to see how this is any kind of objection. Do you realise what you're saying? Humans are apes. If there wasn't "at least one feature" that humans and apes had in common, they would not be classified together (or the record, they were classified together by Linnaeus; a creationist).The point is that you cannot find an ape fossil from the early Pliocene that is as similar to humans as Homo. The scenario you describe is not credible. Except that it's a monkey fossil, not an ape fossils. In fact, it's not even a monkey, it's from further back up the tree than that. Professional palaeontologists are not like you. They know the difference between apes and monkeys. Please trust me when I tell you that they are not so moronically incompetent as to place a friggin monkey into an evolutionary sequence of apes. I'm sorry, but you are just flat-out wrong about that. Better think again.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : Improve image, fix spelling error.

1) Gibbons are not fully bipedal. They're more bipedal than other modern apes, but they are far from fully bipedal.2) Gibbons do not have a "bipedal pelvis", their pelvises resemble those of a chimp far more than a human and they resemble a chimp's pelvis far more than an Australapithecine's pelvis.3) Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. If you are unable to manage this, please try to find some slightly less stupid words.The fact remains that gibbons are not very similar to humans. Even in this specific point of comparison, they are not anywhere near as similar to us as Lucy. Well yes. That is exactly what we see in the transitional human-lineage fossils, increasing brain size. You might think that, but it is not a prediction of the ToE.There has long been debate about which would arise first, brain capacity or bipedalism. The evidence is currently in favour of bipedalism arising first, but this is not a requirement of the ToE. I already provided you with links to that effect. Here is one of them again; Not Found It goes into some detail on the morphological comparisons between Australopithecines and modern humans. You cite only a single human-like feature, and even that is not supported by my reading;

quote:

---

Proconsul's monkey-like features include pronograde postures, indicated by a long flexible back, curved metacarpals, and an above-branch arboreal quadrupedal positional repertoire. The primary feature linking Proconsul with extant apes is its lack of a tail; other "ape-like" features include its enhanced grasping capabilities, stabilized elbow joint and facial structure.

---

SourceAccording to that its facial structure was ape-like. Looking at the photo's on that page, the skull is clearly ape-like. Certainly, it is more ape-like than any member of the Homo genus. So you are wrong about this one. No. That is the prediction of your argument; that Lucy is merely an upright ape, not an intermediate. The article tests both hypotheses, evolutionist and creationist. If the evolutionary hypothesis were true, we would expect "a point-by-point comparison will reveal in Lucy a mixture of apelike features and humanlike features in which some of the humanlike features are not necessary for upright bipedal locomotion." And that is exactly what we see. If the creationist hypothesis were true, there's no reason we should expect to see human-like features in Lucy that are not linked to bipedalism, or, as the article puts it "the comparison will reveal no humanlike features in Lucy that are unnecessary for upright bipedal locomotion". That isn't what we see though. The predictions of the ToE are vindicated and your "just an ape" predictions are not. Score one for the ToE. No he isn't. You've misread it. Because chimps are the most human-like of the modern apes. In choosing the most human-like, rather than a gorilla or orang, they are using the example which is least favourable to the ToE. After all, a comparison between humans, Australopithecines and gorillas, would be too easy a test; of course Lucy was more like a human than a gorilla, that much is obvious. It's much more telling to compare between similar species. That would be absurd. The ToE does not predict close similarity between humans and dolphins. The point is to test the ACTUAL Theory of evolution, not the one you just made up. The point is to compare the specimens to modern human anatomy. There are similarities between a modern ape and a human, but no modern ape will ever be as similar to a human as Lucy is. Further, no Australopithecine will ever be as similar to a human as Homo habilis is. Further again, no H. habilis will ever be as similar to a human as H. erectus is... and so on. The point is not merely that similarities exist, it's the degree of similarity that counts. These fossils are more similar to humans than any of those that you have mentioned. As they get more recent, they get more human-like. That is their significance. God dammit mindspawn...

quote:

---

Of 36 anatomical characters examined on AL 288-1, 14 (39%) exhibit the apelike state and 22 (61%) exhibit the humanlike state.

---

Twenty-two. Out of the thirty-six features looked at in that paper, twenty-two were human-like. Not two. It is indeed. Now ask yourself; how many of those display the human-like features that Lucy does, to the same degree that Lucy does? Because your objection could only be valid if there were a wealth of (at least somewhat) human-like apes from every period. Showing us ape-like apes proves nothing - we already know that basal apes survived, they exist today. Your argument can only work if there are early strongly human-like apes that precede Lucy and screw up the narrative - and there aren't. All of which are more ape-like than Lucy, not less. If this is your example of what has been missed out of the sequence, it fails miserably. If you can present a fossil which does not agree with the evolutionary narrative, then present it. So far, you have not done so. Your own assessment of the links in question; No. None of those links is reputable. One of them is from Graeme-fucking-Hancock for god's sake! Fuck Graeme Hancock! The man's a cretin and a fraud. Another is to a message board post written by someone calling himself "Anonymous Coward", a display of self-awareness with which I fully concur. He writes some tosh about "human" bones being found at Kanapoi, but fails to note that they are actually from an Australopithecine. All of these links are by crackpots and the claims they make all seem to be based upon misunderstandings, out of date info and plain old fraud. So no, I'm not impressed. Still, if you think that any of these links contains evidence that has been unfairly overlooked, feel free to bring it up. Just don't post a list of nutty links and expect me to waste my time refuting them all.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Cheers for that one CS! I'll go back and edit it.Edit: it works even better with [center] The blockcolor seems to change the default for centered thumbnails.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Yeah that's what I meant. I'll go edit... again. Thanks! Mutate and Survive