I read the paper, Milhouse. It does not say what the author of this article says it does in the headline and body. It is all speculative. I have seen it countless times - a positive claim made based on a paper which does not support the claim! And then when I voice my skepticism, I'm the one called anti-science,…

Ah yes, you ask me what constitutes evidence, I tell you, then note I'm not the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is not mine and I will take whatever you think supports the claim.

Lizard:

They are phalanges. Interesting to note one of the contenders for land dwelling ancestor to whales had hooves.

It doesn't matter, as one of the referenced papers from this paper notes:

Eh?

It doesn't. I've looked over the paper. It shows homologies and that is all, which I noted in my original post. Next!

How is "Darwin Cult" lamarckian?

.

Well, obviously not empirical data, since we cannot see that which allegedly happened millions of years ago over many generations.

BTW, I'm not thoroughly versed in genetic research, but I'm more familiar with it than most people I encounter in forums and websites such as this...

Even funnier when science tries to call materialist metaphysical assumptions science.

Right. So can you show me that I'm wrong? I have access to many journals, I'd be glad to be corrected. I've asked this type of question over many years and have looked at every paper purported to demonstrate that I was wrong about the lack of evidence to support the claim. Thus far, all have been literature…

Specifically in this case, not the general claim.

Duh. It merely emphasizes the words in bold.

Getting worked up? I merely pointed out there is nothing in the literature that explains the necessary steps to demonstrate what this particular just so story asserts! Point one out, I'l read it and be enlightened. Thus far in any of the discussions I've had over these and other hand waving invocations of the magic…

I had a double post and could not delete the 2nd one, so I edited it and put a . Please comment on the other one?

Your post should read "well-accepted theory" not established. Science is not a popularity contest. No one is throwing up their hands to shout 'we don't know therefore ... design!' Though, it seems acceptable to you to throw up your hands and shout "Evolution did it!"

Thanks for this example of a strawman non sequitur!

I'm not opposed to it, Milhouse, I am merely pointing out how empty this particular claim is.