evolutionary chain

Mark, it's tiresome to read you deliberate dodge my points and misrepresent me, which is just going to result more and more in ignoring you.The conclusions contained specific errors I mention, which you ignore. Here are 2.1. Error one: claiming a phylotypic stage as an observed fact when it was a mere hypothesis, and then using the hypothesis claiming it was an observed fact to make further hypothesis off of.2. Error two: claiming human gill slits.This does not even deal with the error of falsely maintaining well after it was exposed that ontology recapitulates phylogeny.So since my points are valid, it therefore follows that anyone with an ounce of reason will see your argument to be what it is: a Red Herring, an effort to avoid discussing the facts raised.As far as Neanderthals, it was clear way back in the 50s that earlier prehuman claims were wrong, but evos even today list Neanderthals as transitional, and until very recently, most evo depictions I saw illustrated Neanderthals as excessively ape-like. A better description of Neanderthals is that they were a distinct tribe of people.other false claims and erroneous logic:Piltdown man
claiming Pakicetus had webbed feet when there was no evidence for that
claiming microevolution equals macroevolution in an effort to suggest critics of evolution don't accept microevolution
claiming peppered moths illustrate ToE when they just show variation
stating the fossil record evidence supports evolution without doing macro-studies to see if that is true, specifically not showing what percentage of transitions should be seen and found if evolution is true
claiming Ramipithecus or whatever his name is, was more than just an ape and depecting him in the ape to human transition when that was highly questionable
etc, etc,...

For example, recent studies indicate convergent tendencies in DNA, and thus the question to what degree mutations are random is fairly wide open. So there is a lot to be understood still.The relevance of this is that when comparing similarities in DNA, the assumption is that more similarity equals more similarity in lineage assuming common descent. But if we are still learning about mutations and their degree of convergence/randomness and the mechanisms involved, we are still learning if the underlying assumption of interpreting similarities as strictly the product of common descent.Let's take some concepts of convergent evolution that are in the news of late. It is now considered that the inner ear bones in mammals evolved independently. The reason is if a common ancestor evolved inner ear bones and passed it along to all mammals, the evidence no longer supports that, and so rather than think, well maybe, they were created that way, the conclusion is this must be the result of convergent evolution.Well, we have a lot to learn about what drives mutations, and if there are convergent patterns within certain DNA structures, then that to me indicates that there are predisposed patterns embedded into DNA from the start, and we are getting into some sort of direction rather than randomness.You have not done this, but as an aside, this is what is frustrating about dealing with evos here. Most are unaware of problems such as I have raised above, or learned about from creationists and others bringing it up, and yet they are very sure we critics of evolution just don't understand it yet. But we understand it, and often understand it better than most evos do.

It'd been awhile and getting so roundly criticized for not responding, I saw this thread and forgot it was off-topic.I'll abstain from posting anything further that's not on-topic.

I'm not cutting and running, Mark. I've been asked to drop this line of discussion from this thread.