So, by 'extensive' you actually meant one sentence, the source of which you already knew and I'd acknowledged? A sentence, I would point out, which is a simple statement that one could find in any one of a thousand places rather than a whole sentence of bogus argument, misquotes and misinterpretation such as you regularly post in your gish gallops (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop).
Your quote from Wikipedia does nothing to change the fact that phylogenic tress are not based exclusively on fossils, which was the point you were attempting to make and which I refuted. Nor are they based exclusively on DNA, as previously stated.
The failure to review the link was certainly unfortunate on my part (although subsequent reading did indicate that there is a debate about whether or not prosauropods were the ancestors plus we still have the link to the stories about the proposed direct ancestor, which answers plowter's point), but hardly symptomatic of illness. If we are to explore such a strange suggestion, what malady would you suggest accounts for your persistent inability to check your C&P creationist quotes in their original context? I note that the one about body plans is yet another C&P. Unless, of course, you are the original author of the article from which it's taken, Carl Wieland, in which case my commiserations.
Yet again, you cannot be bothered to find the source material and read it:
http://www.scribd.com...ution-SciAm-1992-11-8
Again, someone else is expected to use Google for you and and point out that in context it doesn't say what creationists think it does and provides several answers to the question you think so &^%$ing devastating and conclusive.
Don't you get tired of being humiliated like this?
Or do you just tick it off your and say, "Oh well, best try cutting and pasting the next one. That's bound to work! Praise Jesus for making me so dishonest!"
You wonder why I get so hacked off with you? It's this persistent dishonesty. It's not mistakes. It's not making an error. It's not forgetting. It's doing something you've been told about repeatedly where you are smart enough to understand the objection. If you were a child, I might understand this behaviour, but in an adult it's pretty sad.