Intermediate forms now evidence against evolution, says creationist

Where did you find this bit of nonsense? Kent Hovind? Ken Ham? the discomboulated institute? Answers in Genesis? or some other creationist myth factory?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Taz I am assuming you are being facetious here but for the sake of the creationist crowd I will attempt to provide some damning evidence. Mammals did not evolve directly from fish, rather mammels evolved from reptile-like organisms which evolved from amphibian-like organisms, which evolved from fish-like organisms. If you want to see examples of these transitional organisms here is a good link: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQThe first "true" mammals appeared on the evolitionary backdrop in the late Triassic/early Jurassic period (approx 200 million years ago) about the same time as the dinosaurs though there evolution goes back even further to the mid-Permian period (approx 275 million years ago).Here are some pictures (I know creationists love pictures!) to help (pictures of transitional fossils are shown first w/ approx representations of organisms based on paleontological evidence): Small anomodont mammal-like (herbivorous therapsids) fossil (approx 260 mya). Thrinaxodon liorhinus, a cynodont (approx 240-245 mya), which is distant extinct relative of living mammals and has nearly nearly all the characteristics of mammals. Another fossil of a full skelaton of a cynodont. Fossil fragments of Haldanodon exspectatus, a proto-mammal docodont of the late Jurassic period (approx 154-150 mya). Yanoconodon allini, a triconodont mammal, cross between those of modern mammals and their nearest relatives, the mammaliaformes (approx 125 mya) Palaeosinopa (approx 65 mya) Skeleton of the apatemyid Apatemys chardini, preserved together with the fish Knightia eocaenica in the Early Eocene (approx 55 mya) lake sediments of the Fossil Butte Member, Wyoming. I had completed some research on this subject about a year ago and will see if I can did it up on my old laptop. The actual figures are about 98% of all biological scientists and researchers in the U.S. that agree that evidence points towards biological evolution (which includes theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism). It is closer to 99.99% when you consider biological scientists around the globe. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Taz as a Creationist Troll? Nice gig.
But I would think Prometheus will be unhappy with you.

Seems I'd been hearing that claim of theirs from the start ... or at least ever since I started around 1980. Along with their list of "scientists who are creationists" -- I always got a chuckle out their including one or two "food scientists"; I wonder whether they had contributed that lame "how did food evolve?" claim that shows up occasionally.Just about all that the creationists and organizations you mentioned do is to recycle the same old false claims already made by other creationists. In fact, that is almost exclusively what Hovind would do, even to the point of recycling Gish's tired old jokes. There's only one claim of his that I suspect might have been his own, the "solar-mass loss" claim. Of course, it's completely wrong as anyone with any math ability would easily discover -- say, wouldn't Hovind always constantly brag to his seminar audiences about being a math and science expert?

I googled "how did food evolve?" and got this thread as the top result. Interesting and entertaining read, to say the least!