Intermediate forms now evidence against evolution, says creationist

I was aimlessly avoiding work in the depths of the internet today when I started reading about long-beaked echidnas; which a chap named Muse Opiang has been studying for the last four years. Whilst reading various press reports about what he'd uncovered (including the fact that they're one of the rare mammals in which females tend to be bigger than males), I stumbled across this account, written by the science reporter for the Institue for Creation Research, under the title 'Egg-laying echidna could not have evolved'.I was shocked enough by the bizarreness of this article that I felt I had to share it with someone. Aside from the cynicism of the writer in falsely pretending Opiang's research supports his nonsense, how does someone come to the conclusion that the existence of an animal which shares mammalian and reptillian features is damning evidence against evolution with common descent? What's going on in this man's head?Anyone with access to ASM Journals who's interested to read about what Opiang really learnt about echidna ecology can do so here.Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

Sorry if this is the wrong place - I'm still a bit unused to these forums. I didn't think there was too much to discuss and debate; more just something to stare at in amazement. And the process you and RAZD describe thus leads to both the lack of taxon intermediate between the major divisions of life and the existence of taxon intermediate between the majot divisions of life being presented as if they prove the same point. Incredible mental gymnastics.