My bridge species terminology is meant to reflect the absence of anything becoming something else. Not as in caterpillar to butterfly, but as in a turtle turning into a frog or fish into a snake; let alone from monkey, fish or bird into man.
Ok, well I guess I am a bit disappointed. I thought you'd spent more time on the subject than that indicates.
NObody on gods green earth thinks any of those things, which of course dont , cant happen, and good that you would not believe it. Your reason for not accepting evolution really isnt valid, dont you see? Not if that is what you think.
You can handle the idea of a wolf turning into a peekapoo after a few generations, tho, cant you?
There was a transition from certain types of fish into the early amphibians, tho. For one example. There are all sorts of good sequences to be found.
You might say you dont think a leaf can turn into a flower. And it cant, in one generation. But, you do know that flower petals are leaves, do you not? And you have see plants like the poinsettia, which has a cluster of normal looking leaves for a flower, but they turn red. Other plants ahve more elaborate flowers, but they are all using leaves for the flower petals.
Anyhow...evolution goes in very small steps, not "frog to turtle". And while not every step of the process is recorded in (known) fossils, there is a good assortment of representatives along the way from fish to amphibain to reptile to bird / mammal.
--- I don't.
