But they do know what it means, right?
Some sort of partially decayed raccoon washed up a few miles away in the Hamptons this week and was enthusiastically mistaken for a crytozoological specimen. Perhaps a true chimera. Thus I found it amusing that Uncommon Descent cited a news story on the dubious chimera without addressing the fact that the lack of biological chimeras is main line of evidence for biological evolution. All a creation "scientist" or design proponent (or even a cdesign proponenstist) has to do to dethrone biological evolution is locate and identify a chimeric organism and common descent is falsified. So why aren't they even looking?
__
