I knew you would try to call out something that was unfounded. Let me explain why this is in error. See when I said that everyone knows it, I was simply saying "it's recognizable." I was not saying that I trust in the fact that everybody knows it. It's sad the extent that you wish to trap me. It's sort of funny actually. And two people made the same mistake, and said it was funny. I look at replies, and poles, I think they are important to learn how a thread is trending. Right now there are more atheists than any thing else. See they are so worried that God may exist that they have to go to a christian forum and try to convince people who didn't ask them to do so, that they are wrong, and that God does not exist. It's truly sad. But that is neither here nor there. That I can deal with. What I cannot deal with is laziness in logic. See either evolution is true or it is not. No other choice. If it's true, and everyone and everything has evolved from lesser types of animals. Then there would be evidence, not just one transition, mind you, but millions of transitions. And I ask you for simply one. Just one. And the fact you cannot provide one, should instantly convince you that macro evolution does not work. At least not in practice. It's a good theory on paper, but in observational science it's lacking. I know, I know....every scientist disagrees with me. But mind you 300 years ago, every scientist believed in God. So can a scientist be wrong? You tell me. I appreciate your replies. The short ones are usually funnier. I can see you have a sense of humor. Thats a good thing. Especially when someone destroys your worldview. It's good to have some place to fall back and just laugh about it.
here is more info on the problems of transitioning between two different types of animals and why there is no evidence of it. This is not peer review but a christian book, but it's the logic that I like. It reveals logical errors in universal natural selection:
"Nonviability of Transitional FormsAnother problem that plagues the plausibility of natural selection creating new life forms is the fact that transitional forms could not survive. For example, consider the Darwinian assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over long periods of time. This would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers. How could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? Feathers are irreducibly complex. A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. It would be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. And as a halfway house between reptiles and birds, it probably wouldnt be adept at finding food for itself either. So the problem for Darwinists is twofold: first, they have no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway."
above quotes from- Norman Geisler, frank turek - book entitled -I don't have faith enough to be an atheist.