I see your flare for evolutionary hype remains unchanged. I find your proclamation of "gaps don't disprove evolution" to be a fine example of why evolution is unfalsifiable and not the least bit hypocritical to your issue of man and dinosaurs. As evolution predicts countless transitional forms it's perfectly reasonable to point out that we should be up to our ears in them, though evolutionists can only produce a handful of debatable examples. Even this new 'example' is highly fishy (pun totally intended). Zoologist Frank Sherwin:

Why quote a "proclamation" that I didn't say?  This is just another caricature of what I did say.  I said that creationists used the existence of such gaps to argue that evolution is unproven, not "disproven".  They also often make the false claim that such transitional fossils are scarce.  In fact, what we have seen is a pattern of shrinking "gaps" for more than a century through an explosive growth of such discoveries.  It is that pattern that confirms the expectation.  And, as I've said many times before, the detailed picture that we've built up of evolution would by shattered by the discovery of, say, dinosaur fossils intermixed with human fossils.  Your only explanation for the lack of such counterevidence is the feeble argument that dinosaurs and humans lived on the same planet but never ran into each other, even though both human and dinosaur fossils are geographically ubiquitous.

My mistake on the terminalogy. However the essential gist is the same- that you so boldly claim that evolution is very comfortable with such 'gaps' existing shows the issue of them being 'filled' only further shows evolution to be unfalsifiable. And yes, evolutionist regard that there are indeed 'many' transitional forms forund, but this is not so. Rather once the hype dies down, such forms are seen as true-brids, true-fish, etc. etc. At best being like the platypus in that they contain mosiac features (the famed Archaeopteryx). As such, the issue boils down to interpretation of commonality. Evolutionists see it as evidence for macroevolution (while never observing the change), while ID will see it as proof of a common Designer.

It has also been noted that the 'explosive growth' as you put it is largely due to the fact that evolutionists rarely find whole fossils, but rather bits and pieces of fragments. As such evolutionists are free to place more and more in the 'transitional form' catagory because the very nature of fragmentary fossils leaves evolutionists to speculate and imagine the missing pieces. One such example are the claims of 'legged fish' when a skull has been found but the bones of legs are absent. And more often than not more finds only make the 'movie' more complicated.

And with your very clear dismissal of sharks, spiders, etc. and other 'stasis' animals that have been anounced to live at the same time as the dinousaurs with little change to them being no threat to evolution (if it's unfalsifiable why would they be a threat?),  I hold your proclamations on the dinosaur issue to be nothing but bluff and sputtering. Not the least bit is your failed grasp of the arguement, as it is creationists claims that man has encountered dinosaurs numerous times in many regions i.e. the source for dragons across the globe, and reported sightings in remote regions like the Congo where nature remains largely untouched.

Give me a break!  This guy claims to have an MA, but he is nothing more than a creationist hack without a single scientific publication to his name.  People like Behe, at least, have real credentials, even if he can't get his papers published anywhere but in philosophy journals.

Cop's Debating Strategy: when all else fails resort to ad homenims.

This is false.  The evolution of the flatfish has long been open to debate.  That is why this discovery made such news.  It was directly relevant to the longstanding controversy.

Now who is commiting a caricature? I didn't say it wasn't open to debate. I said that evolutionists don't really dwell on these gaps until they think they're filled, as your own opening post shows. The one's who bring them up are creationists and IDers.

What rubbish.  Gaps exist because most living organisms don't leave fossil remains.  Evolutionists have set up a number of expectations about future discoveries, and they have been right on target for so many decades that no scientist of any repute seriously questions macroevolution.  The few pro-ID scientists with reasonable credentials cannot seem to make a convincing enough case to get their work published.

Excuses, excuses, and more question begging that 'gaps' exist at all. As stated it's this very expectation that evolutionists have set up that makes the whole thing circular reasoning. The only reason to call it 'gappy' is the lack of transitional fossils that evolutionists expect, but to use such an expectation and their failure to show up is a circular arguement for the existence of 'gaps'. Doesn't fly.

And as Expelled and other more free thinking people are showing, the issue isn't so much 'evidence' as it is on 'interpretation' with a clear and present bias in the established order of evolutionists being very threatened by it. We saw the same kind of attitude on how the scientific community treated Galileo. When one threatens the esltablished order it's not surprising that the established order tries to shut down dissent in it's entirety (as noted for most other subjects even 'wrong' ideas seem to have backing), though for all that effort more people are coming to reject evolution.