Arizona Atheist

The problem with the subject of evolution is that it's full of time-wasting rabbit trails. This is an example of one. However, I will take the time to answer your quick response. You have said that there are plenty of transitional forms, and you cut and paste some examples for me:

<< Hi, sure... a few come to mind immediately , and they are named as follows: Tiktaalik roseae, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Archaeopteryx, and Homo rudolfensis, just to name a few.>>

Then you said << For more information about many more fossils, here is a good page to see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html >>

There's your positive proof. Now my job is to answer all this "evidence" you have given, so let's deal with "Archaeopteryx."

Was Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur? Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.”

I don't have time to go down your other rabbit trails, but I will address your
<< For more information about many more fossils, here is a good page to see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html >>

Here is your "information" from that site (I will put it in italics to differentiate it from my words):

Part 1.

The term "transitional fossil" is used at least two different ways on talk.origins, often leading to muddled and stalemated arguments. I call these two meanings the "general lineage" and the "species-to-species transition":

"General lineage":
This is a sequence of similar genera or families, linking an older group to a very different younger group. Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a span of tens of millions of years. A lineage like this shows obvious morphological intermediates for every major structural change, and the fossils occur roughly (but often not exactly) in the expected order. Usually there are still gaps between each of the groups -- few or none of the speciation events are preserved. Sometimes the individual specimens are not thought to be directly ancestral to the next-youngest fossils (i.e., they may be "cousins" or "uncles" rather than "parents"). However, they are assumed to be closely related to the actual ancestor, since they have intermediate morphology compared to the next-oldest and next-youngest "links". The major point of these general lineages is that animals with intermediate morphology existed at the appropriate times, and thus that the transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible. General lineages are known for almost all modern groups of vertebrates, and make up the bulk of this FAQ.

General lineage has nothing to do with macro-evolution (one species evolving into another) at all.

"Species-to-species transition":

This is a set of numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another. It's a very fine-grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event, usually covering less than a million years. These species-to-species transitions are unmistakable when they are found. Throughout successive strata you see the population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae, etc., changing from what is typical of the first species to what is typical of the next species. Sometimes, these sequences occur only in a limited geographic area (the place where the speciation actually occurred), with analyses from any other area showing an apparently "sudden" change. Other times, though, the transition can be seen over a very wide geological area. Many "species-to-species transitions" are known, mostly for marine invertebrates and recent mammals (both those groups tend to have good fossil records), though they are not as abundant as the general lineages (see below for why this is so). Part 2 lists numerous species-to-species transitions from the mammals.

"1. 'The FAQ doesn't have real transitional fossils.' If you have just skimmed part of the FAQ and concluded that it doesn't have what you consider to be "real" transitional fossils, go back to part 1 of the FAQ and carefully read the section titled "What is a transitional fossil?" Think about what you have read. Then read the rest of the FAQ, and pay particular attention to the "species-to-species" sections in part 2. If you still think the FAQ doesn't have "real" transitional fossils, chances are you have misunderstood the theory of evolution. Define what a "real" transitional fossil should be, and why you think the modern theory of evolution would predict such a thing. Then let's talk." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/email.html

The reason that "many 'species-to-species transitions' are known though they are not as abundant as the general lineages," is that there aren't any. There are no transitional fossils (species-to-species transitions). Anyone who thinks there is has "misunderstood the theory of evolution."

I am done. Look at all the time and trouble I had to go to to unravel the quick knot you tied with your "evidence." So, please don't cut and paste any more evidence and send it to me. If you want, I can send you a free copy of Evolution--the Fairy-tale For Grown-ups. It comes out in about six weeks, and it's packed with quotes from evolution "experts" who admit that they don't have anything but a ripe imagination.

I appreciate the fact that you said in an unpublished email that you don't consider me to be your "friend." That's my loss.

May God continue to bless you and your family,

Ray