The question of transitional forms is critical to the Creation / Evolution debate. Creationists have argued for decades that there are no transitional forms, while evolutionist will claim there are. The solution to this dilemma can be found in part in understanding the way each side views the concept of transitional forms.
When a creationist thinks of a transitional form he is thinking in terms of transitions between the Biblical kinds of animals. This includes partially formed parts.
Kind: A group of organisms descended from a group of common interbreedable ancestors. Note that only the ancestors have to be interbreedable.
It is impossible to completely reconcile a kind with the current classification system. One reason is because it is too easy for newly discovered varieties to be classified as a new genus, family or whatever. Creationists have fallen in to this trap before, by defining a kind as equivalent to species or genus. It seems that a kind is roughly equivalent to family but can some time be as narrow as genus or species. It may even include more than one family.
Evolutionists on the other hand sees every animal and person as a transitional form, and tend to interpret the fossil evidence from this stand point.
Another point is what is meant by a gap.
The question is what does the fossil record show, distinct kinds or transitions with no distinct kinds.
In investigate the transitions claimed by evolutionists, I have tried be as generous as possible. I do not raise questions about the dating of fossils. I do not questioning reconstructions, except when there is evidence that the available fossils evidence doe not justify the reconstruction.
So called Cetacean Evolution (whales, dolphins)
So called Transition from fish to amphibians
So called transitions among reptiles
For more information visit Transitional Forms? at CreationWiki.
Evolutionists do present several transition series. They are base on a comparison of selected parts, while often ignoring bigger differences. Sometimes the various types are represented only by fragmented fossil evidence. Often they will use what are called cousins when they can not find a fossil in right place to be able to call it an ancestor. The gaps recognized by evolutionists are often at critical parts in the fossil record.
Often the designation of a new genus or species is based on only one individual or at most only a few individual, In such cases they may represent a small number of degenerative mutants, rather than an entire genus or species. This would greatly reduce the number of individual implied by the fossil record.
The simple fact is that these transition series are pure fantasies. They are based on a presupposition of evolution and a comparison of specific body parts while ignoring others.
If you have any additional information on any of the types in these list ; this is particularly true of the ones for which I could not find any information on; or if you see any errors please e-mail me at: cpcjr@genesismission.4t.com
Are there any Transitional Fossils?
Famous feathered fossil falters