well, Christine, one of the skills in issuing a rebuttal challenge is to actually address the issue at hand. You state, “explain to us why scientists now think”……. Now I never claimed all scientists think anything, which would be a safe bet no matter the topic at hand. There are some who do. But in order for you to consider this, you would have to be willing to adjust your current interpretive parameters. As you obviously interpret everything through a paradigm that requires hundreds of millions of years, all evidence presented to you will have to be, on your part, put into that paradigm. In other words, your interpretive paradigm does not even ALLOW for an interpretation that does not involve millions of years. There are no other options for you. To do so would violate, not science, but your paradigm. So any information that would intimate the analogous homologies, even among different genus, suggests that perhaps this overlap is because they may have lived simultaneously would, of course, not even be up for consideration. Again, not because of science, but specific evolutionary paradigms in current use. Fossil interpretation has always been, and still is, a dicey piece of business. They get moved around, up and down, left and right, adjusted because of interpretations that change, or are discarded entirely. One need only look at the history of phylogenetic trees over the decades to see just this tendency. Now I am not against adjusting interpretations based on new knowledge. That is done all the time. But you’d have to admit that in the evolutionary school EVERYTHING must be interpreted according to one school of thought. You may reply that this is good science. I would respond it is constricted science. Imagine where we would, or wouldn’t be, today if paradigms were never adjusted or even discarded. If you were not even allowed to consider the possibility. Time does win out though, and I don’t have the slightest doubt that if this conversation was taking place fifty years from now much of what is adamantly claimed to be irrefutable fact will have been adjusted or discarded. So as I posted earlier, you, by choice, have eliminated many things from possible consideration. This is your right. It does, however, render useless and futile any attempts at addressing anything outside of your “box”, as it were. What you are doing is demanding that any information being offered automatically be preadjusted to conform to your interpretive scheme. To paraphrase the Borg, presentation is futile. Thus my sarcastic request in the previous post that you let me know what you can believe up front and I will try to conform all evidence to fit within your parameters. Of course, I won’t do any such thing. But were I, for even the briefest moment, convinced you would open your mind to anything outside of YOUR mind, I would gladly post such information.