oh, and to follow up my prediction that "it's still a bird"

[acroyear]

Orac has noticed that one creationist chap, "Emperor Darth Misha" (I assume no relation ;-) ) has jumped on the story and among all the other standard crapola (featuring a large criticism of peer-review that totally reverses the facts about Sternberg and the Smithsonian incident) included the wonderfully predictable statement, "And the finches, much to nobody's surprise, remained finches throughout.  Let us know when one of them turns into a giraffe.".

I win.  Again.

I'm going to go get a beer...

Comments

[katrinb.livejournal.com]

I just love the level of science education that allows someone to postulate that the theory of evolution predicts that a finch will turn into a giraffe. Completely separate branches of animal life, people.
That's like saying that you and your second cousin cannot possibly be descended from a common ancestor because you can't transform into him/her.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Pharyngula found an idiot who's got it totally wrong - evolution is false because 1) [assuming that evolution can create no new features alone - an ID talking point] ancestor animals must have had features of every animal alive today (features to be filtered out by natural selection), so 2) there must be some 40 foot creature out there with the heads of every animal possible, and 3) since no such creature exists in the fossil record, evolution must be incorrect.

Meyers had to admit it certainly was (finally) original...