Are there transitional fossils?

[doubtingmerle]

Xiangula,

Previously I had asked you:

1. Do you agree that animals in the horse family changed with time, from Eohippus to Equus?
2. Do you agree that where we see incremental changes in design in the horse family, that the DNA would have most likely been similar between the two, with incremental changes in the DNA?
3. Do you agree that the way DNA has been observed to change is by mutations and natural selection (evolution)?
4. Did the DNA change from the Eohippus genome to the Equus genome through a process of evolution? If not, how do you think the new DNA came into existance?
5. If each animal in the horse series did not come about by evolution, what is the method that you propose that it happened. Do you support the kaboom hypothesis, that each new animal popped into existence out of nothing?​

Also, can you answer, please?

 

[Astrophile]

Because horse evolution can clearly be shown from the fossil record. Previously I had written to you:

Questions for you. Please answer:

1. Do you agree that animals in the horse family changed with time, from Eohippus to Equus?
2. Do you agree that where we see incremental changes in design in the horse family, that the DNA would have most likely been similar between the two, with incremental changes in the DNA?
3. Do you agree that the way DNA has been observed to change is by mutations and natural selection (evolution)?
4. Did the DNA change from the Eohippus genome to the Equus genome through a process of evolution? If not, how do you think the new DNA came into existance?
5. If each animal in the horse series did not come about by evolution, what is the method that you propose that it happened? Do you support the kaboom hypothesis, that each new animal popped into existence out of nothing?​

So you seem to now to answer question 1 as "maybe". That seems like a rather odd answer. We have many fossils, and all point to a clear progression in the horse series. How can your answer be that maybe there was change with time? If the horse family phenotype did not change over the years, how do you explain the fossil evidence?

Also, can you proceed now to answer questions 2-5, please?

Are you sure that the post that you are replying to is one of mine? If it is, my answer to questions 1-4 is 'Yes'. As for question 5, I do think that each animal in the horse series came about by evolution, rather than each new animal popping into existence out of nothing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Are you sure that the post that you are replying to is one of mine? If it is, my answer to questions 1-4 is 'Yes'. As for question 5, I do think that each animal in the horse series came about by evolution, rather than each new animal popping into existence out of nothing.

My mistake. Sorry. Second time I responded to the wrong person. I will be more careful. I went back and changed the post.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So justatruthseeker is still going with his "I'm right because I say I'm right and no amount of evidence will prove me wrong" style of debate.
Glad I put him on ignore again.

Just like you say you are right because you say you are right, even if I presented evidence and you presented none.....

I'm glad you put me on that list too, I no longer will have to listen to your claims without evidence...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So justatruthseeker is still going with his "I'm right because I say I'm right and no amount of evidence will prove me wrong" style of debate.
Glad I put him on ignore again.

Just like you say you are right because you say you are right, even if I presented evidence and you presented none.....

I'm glad you put me on that list too, I no longer will have to listen to your claims without evidence...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're confusing the number of allele variants in the population (70+) with the number of alleles of a gene in an individual (2). If you read that Wikipedia article again, you'll see where you're going wrong.

Do come back when you know what you're talking about.

I agree, this is what he needs to do.

You two don't read too swell do you.

For example, at the gene locus for the ABO blood type carbohydrate antigens in humans, classical genetics recognizes three alleles,"

Hmm, not two, and then we find in reality...

(It is now known that each of the A, B, and O alleles is actually a class of multiple alleles with different DNA sequences that produce proteins with identical properties: more than 70 alleles are known at the ABO locus.

You read what you interpret it to mean based upon your incorrect belief that there is only two, even when classic (not modern) genetics recognized 3. Modern geneticists understand that those three alleles are actually multiple alleles comprising 70+ alleles.

But keep believing outdated things that were once believed to be true, keep doing the Ostrich maneuver, it's quite popular it seems....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're confusing the number of allele variants in the population (70+) with the number of alleles of a gene in an individual (2). If you read that Wikipedia article again, you'll see where you're going wrong.

Do come back when you know what you're talking about.

I agree, this is what he needs to do.

You two don't read too swell do you.

For example, at the gene locus for the ABO blood type carbohydrate antigens in humans, classical genetics recognizes three alleles,"

Hmm, not two, and then we find in reality...

(It is now known that each of the A, B, and O alleles is actually a class of multiple alleles with different DNA sequences that produce proteins with identical properties: more than 70 alleles are known at the ABO locus.

You read what you interpret it to mean based upon your incorrect belief that there is only two, even when classic (not modern) genetics recognized 3. Modern geneticists understand that those three alleles are actually multiple alleles comprising 70+ alleles.

But keep believing outdated things that were once believed to be true, do the Ostrich maneuver, it's quite popular it seems....

 

[xianghua]

I have evidence that DNA changes through evolution. You have not even presented an alternate view for how we got the DNA to make the flagellum, and certainly have not attempted to show any evidence that DNA is made by the method you propose.

again: we know that a spinning motor or a watch need a designer. that is a fact. you believe that they can evolve naturally. so the burden of proof is in your side.

That is odd. For scientists say there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. How do you know they are wrong?

because i know well about those suppose evidences. you are welcome to show that i am wrong and there is a real scientific evidence for evolution.

Bottom line-we know that the finch varieties on the Galapagos did not need a designer.
​

true. so?


as for your questions about horse evolution- i already said that it may be possible. so why we are comming back to the horse evolution?​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You read what you interpret it to mean based upon your incorrect belief that there is only two, even when classic (not modern) genetics recognized 3. Modern geneticists understand that those three alleles are actually multiple alleles comprising 70+ alleles.

But keep believing outdated things that were once believed to be true, keep doing the Ostrich maneuver, it's quite popular it seems....

Same error as before. Do you know what an allele is?

"Humans are called diploid organisms because they have two alleles at each genetic locus, with one allele inherited from each parent."​

 

[PsychoSarah]

You two don't read too swell do you.

For example, at the gene locus for the ABO blood type carbohydrate antigens in humans, classical genetics recognizes three alleles,"

Hmm, not two, and then we find in reality...

(It is now known that each of the A, B, and O alleles is actually a class of multiple alleles with different DNA sequences that produce proteins with identical properties: more than 70 alleles are known at the ABO locus.

You read what you interpret it to mean based upon your incorrect belief that there is only two, even when classic (not modern) genetics recognized 3. Modern geneticists understand that those three alleles are actually multiple alleles comprising 70+ alleles.

But keep believing outdated things that were once believed to be true, keep doing the Ostrich maneuver, it's quite popular it seems....

Ugh, allele is a term for a variant in a gene within a population. For any specific gene, an organism will have at most 2 different alleles.

Even if two people have alleles that, while structurally different, result in the same trait, that will count as two different alleles. However, for any given gene, a person still will only have 2 alleles at most for it within their own, individual DNA.

That is not to say that there is only 1 gene per trait, however. In the most basic sense (not including rare blood types like Bombay), human blood types have 5 relevant aspects: ABO and RH+ and RH-. What influences RH is separate from what influences ABO, making for 2 different alleles of each within a single individual. Thanks to knowing my mother's blood type (O+) and my sister's blood type (A-), I can actually tell what alleles my mother has. She has 2 O alleles, one RH+ allele, and one RH- allele. No more, and no less in regards to the influence these have on blood type (the absence/presence of antigens on the surface of the blood cells, with O type blood having neither A or B antigens). I can also tell that my mother, no matter what person she had kids with, CANNOT have a child with an AB blood type. This is because you get 1 of each allele from your parents, and one parent MUST give you an A allele and the other a B allele in order for the resulting child to have an AB blood type. My mother doesn't have an A or a B to pass down, thus, she CANNOT have a child with an AB blood type.

Seriously, if you wanted Adam and Eve to have genes that would give rise to most of the blood types in our population in a basic sense, have one of them be BO RH+ RH-, and the other be AO RH+ RH-. That covers all but the rarest blood types. But no, you demand that between the two of them, they have 70 alleles for blood. Which is ridiculous, seeing as, at most, a person can have 4 different alleles relevant to blood types.

But hey, here's an issue with thinking that Adam and Eve were built as "perfect humans" from the start, even if they had just the alleles needed to cover the majority of blood types in humans. RH- women are more prone to miscarriage, since RH+ is dominant and they produce antibodies against it. Some of Eve's daughters would have had RH- blood, and thus, immediate fertility issues following having an RH+ child.

 

[doubtingmerle]

again: we know that a spinning motor or a watch need a designer. that is a fact.

Again we know that the finch variations in the Galapagos did not need a designer. Since the change in DNA to form flagellum is similar to the DNA change to form finch variations, why is my analogy not an apt analogy?

But the DNA to form flagellum is very different from an electric motor. So why do you insist that what is true about an electric motor must be true about flagellum?

you believe that they can evolve naturally. so the burden of proof is in your side.

Motors have copper wires. And yet somehow you believe the flagellum does not have copper wires. If you insist the flagellum must be exactly like electric motors in some respects, why do you not insist they must be exactly like electric motors in all respects?

because i know well about those suppose evidences. you are welcome to show that i am wrong and there is a real scientific evidence for evolution.

Actually science is based on convincing those who understand the evidence. And for evolution, that was done a long time ago.

true. so?
​

Ok, so you accept that the many finch variations in the Galapagos have DNA frequencies that are different from the ancestor population. So you accept that when DNA is different from creatures in the past, at least sometimes the reason is evolution?

Having accepted that, do you then agree that evolution is certainly one possible way that the flagellum DNA developed?

Let's make a list of all the ways you and I have suggested that could be the source of flagellum DNA.

1. evolution
2. evolution
3. evolution

Care to add another possibility to the list that you think is more likely?

as for your questions about horse evolution- i already said that it may be possible.

What may be possible? I asked you 5 questions. Which of these 5 are you answering? Can you answer them all five, please?

1. Do you agree that animals in the horse family changed with time, from Eohippus to Equus?
2. Do you agree that where we see incremental changes in design in the horse family, that the DNA would have most likely been similar between the two, with incremental changes in the DNA?
3. Do you agree that the way DNA has been observed to change is by mutations and natural selection (evolution)?
4. Did the DNA change from the Eohippus genome to the Equus genome through a process of evolution? If not, how do you think the new DNA came into existance?
5. If each animal in the horse series did not come about by evolution, what is the method that you propose that it happened. Do you support the kaboom hypothesis, that each new animal popped into existence out of nothing?
​

 

[doubtingmerle]

You two don't read too swell do you.

I read swell enough.

Do you write swell?

For example, at the gene locus for the ABO blood type carbohydrate antigens in humans, classical genetics recognizes three alleles,"

And how would you get all three alleles in the same person? A triple helix?

Hmm, not two, and then we find in reality...

(It is now known that each of the A, B, and O alleles is actually a class of multiple alleles with different DNA sequences that produce proteins with identical properties: more than 70 alleles are known at the ABO locus.

Let me guess--a seventy strand helix? Is that your claim?

You read what you interpret it to mean based upon your incorrect belief that there is only two, even when classic (not modern) genetics recognized 3. Modern geneticists understand that those three alleles are actually multiple alleles comprising 70+ alleles.

There may be 70 in the entire population, but people like me with double helix DNA only have 2 each.

I am fine with 2, thank you.

But keep believing outdated things that were once believed to be true, do the Ostrich maneuver, it's quite popular it seems....

Please tell me about this Ostrich maneuver that you find so popular. It is not popular in my circle. It is in yours?

 

[xianghua]

Again we know that the finch variations in the Galapagos did not need a designer. Since the change in DNA to form flagellum is similar to the DNA change to form finch variations, why is my analogy not an apt analogy?

​

not realy. you need a lot of changes in the same time to evolve a flagellum from non flagellum. but you need only about few changes to change a finch species into another finch species.

Actually science is based on convincing those who understand the evidence. And for evolution, that was done a long time ago.

you are welcome to believe that, but watch this movie before:

Ok, so you accept that the many finch variations in the Galapagos have DNA frequencies that are different from the ancestor population. So you accept that when DNA is different from creatures in the past, at least sometimes the reason is evolution?​

only if you refer to a theistic evolution. but we dont need even a theistic evolution because we dont have evidence for evolution.

Let's make a list of all the ways you and I have suggested that could be the source of flagellum DNA.

1. evolution
2. evolution
3. evolution

Care to add another possibility to the list that you think is more likely?

a creation by a designer.
​

What may be possible? I asked you 5 questions. Which of these 5 are you answering? Can you answer them all five, please?

1. Do you agree that animals in the horse family changed with time, from Eohippus to Equus?
2. Do you agree that where we see incremental changes in design in the horse family, that the DNA would have most likely been similar between the two, with incremental changes in the DNA?
3. Do you agree that the way DNA has been observed to change is by mutations and natural selection (evolution)?
4. Did the DNA change from the Eohippus genome to the Equus genome through a process of evolution? If not, how do you think the new DNA came into existance?
5. If each animal in the horse series did not come about by evolution, what is the method that you propose that it happened. Do you support the kaboom hypothesis, that each new animal popped into existence out of nothing?
​

again- its possible that those horses realy evolved from each other. but even in this case it will not be evidence for evolution because its basically the same creature. so what is your point?

 

[pshun2404]

Pshuh2404,

Let's make a list of all the possible methods by which the first bat came into existence that you and I have proposed here.

1. It evolved.

...and that is the end of the list.

OK, now let's review all the methods on the list, and choose the one with the most evidence.

Hmmm. Evolution... or evolution... or evolution. Hmmm. I guess I will choose evolution.

You have yet to put an idea on the table. Put an idea on the table, and we will compare the ideas. But as long as you refuse to put an idea on the table, how can you declare victory?

To win a match, don't you first need to come out of your corner?


Right, you don't seem to support any hypothesis at all. How did the first bat come into existance? You have nothing to present, not even the proposal that--KABOOM--it suddenly appeared out of nothing. How did God do it? How do you know it was not be evolution?


Yes. Teach the data.

If evolution did not occur, why is the fossil record filled with transitionals?



Nope we have multiple evidence for evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent


Uh we don't have much of anything in early bat fossils, since they have delicate skeletons that do not fossilize well. But we do have at least one transtional, the. Bat - Wikipedia .

Do you care to actually make a claim? How did the first bat come into existdnce? Or have you no opinion on that question? (I am not asking who you think did it. I am asking how the bat came into existence if not by evolution, and not by KABOOM.)

I make no claim. I have no opinion on the subject. I am just looking at what we actually have and calling it as it is and comparing it to what we are taught happens. .

Was it KABOOMED? Did it evolve from lower taxa? Did a God create it? Maybe even using an evolutionary process? I do not know and I do not care.

It is what it is! Deal with it. Teach what is as separate from all the various speculations. There are no examples (zero, zilch, nada) of lower taxa becoming higher taxa anywhere. Could be's and might be's are fine just do not pass them off as established facts (because they are not).

Icaronycteris is a variety of BAT and is not transitional between something else and bat.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I make no claim. I have no opinion on the subject.

If you have no opinion as to whether evolution occurred, why are you posting on a thread about evolution?

I am just looking at what we actually have and calling it as it is and comparing it to what we are taught happens.

That's odd. Because it doesn't seem to me like you looked too hard at the transitional pictures I posted.

Was it KABOOMED? Did it evolve from lower taxa? Did a God create it? Maybe even using an evolutionary process? I do not know and I do not care.
It is what it is! Deal with it.

Your posts here don't look like they came from somebody who does not care whether evolution occurred.

For the record, I do know about evolution and I do care.

Teach what is as separate from all the various speculations.

It is not speculation, for example, that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Similarly, it is not speculation that the finches that flew to the Galapagos changed with time.

There are no examples (zero, zilch, nada) of lower taxa becoming higher taxa anywhere.

Wrong. 12 is bigger than zero. See 12 Elegant Examples of Evolution

And there is more, of course, than 12.

Could be's and might be's are fine just do not pass them off as established facts (because they are not).

These guys are not "could be's"

Icaronycteris is a variety of BAT and is not transitional between something else and bat.

It does not have echolocation so is it really a bat? And it's wings look more like they were for short distance assisted gliding rather than long distance flight.

Sounds like a transitional to me.

 

[doubtingmerle]

not realy. you need a lot of changes in the same time to evolve a flagellum from non flagellum. but you need only about few changes to change a finch species into another finch species.

Wait. This is the argument I just answered. Why ignore my answer and post the same refuted argument again?

Nobody said the finches had the same number of mutations as the bacteria with the flagellum. What was said is that bacteria evolving a flagellum is a close analogy to finches evolving into another variety.

But your comparison of a flagellum and an electric motor compares two things that are very different.

you are welcome to believe that, but watch this movie before:

I don't do movies.

Again, promoting a view in science is based on convincing those who understand the evidence. Do you or do you not agree?

only if you refer to a theistic evolution. but we dont need even a theistic evolution because we dont have evidence for evolution.
​

Wait, the finches varied on the Galapagos only if you believe in theistic evolution?

Questions for you:

1. Do you believe the finches on the islands evolved from a common ancestor group of ordinary finches?
2. Why is God required for the finches to vary on the Galapagos? If dogs can be bred by humans, why cannot finches be bred by nature?

a creation by a designer.

Non sequitor.

I did not ask you who you thought created. I asked you how you thought he created various life forms. So far, this is the list of possibilities you and I have suggested here:

1. evolution
2. evolution
3. evolution

Care to add another possibility for how you think God did it, or shall we limit our choices to just evolution?


​

again- its possible that those horses realy evolved from each other.

Actually, it is more than a possibility, it is quite certain that zebras evolved from something very close to Eohippus. Is there another likely possibility for where zebras came from, other than that they evolved?

but even in this case it will not be evidence for evolution because its basically the same creature. so what is your point?

How can a creature little bigger than a fox with four long toes on its feet instead of hooves be basically the same as a horse?

And what is this guy? Rhino horse, a 'missing link,' could solve 55-million-year-old mystery Is he basically the same creature as a horse also?

 

[pshun2404]

If you have no opinion as to whether evolution occurred, why are you posting on a thread about evolution?

That's odd. Because it doesn't seem to me like you looked too hard at the transitional pictures I posted.

Your posts here don't look like they came from somebody who does not care whether evolution occurred.

For the record, I do know about evolution and I do care.

It is not speculation, for example, that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Similarly, it is not speculation that the finches that flew to the Galapagos changed with time.

Wrong. 12 is bigger than zero. See 12 Elegant Examples of Evolution

And there is more, of course, than 12.

These guys are not "could be's"

It does not have echolocation so is it really a bat? And it's wings look more like they were for short distance assisted gliding rather than long distance flight.

Sounds like a transitional to me.

Why did you apply such a predictable strategy and try to move the goal post? I clearly said I make no claim nor have an opinion on the sudden appearance of Bats in the fossil record and re-asserted the point I had made.

"That's odd. Because it doesn't seem to me like you looked too hard at the transitional pictures I posted."

I looked hard enough to see that they (just as the one just posted above) 100% proved MY point.

"Your posts here don't look like they came from somebody who does not care whether evolution occurred."

For the record, I do know about evolution as well and I also care...I do believe in "evolution", but do not believe everything some "evolutionists" claim. Keep the facts separate enough from the made up story to make it plain that both are not established facts.

And thanks for bringing up more proof of my claim (speciation produced variety).

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why did you apply such a predictable strategy and try to move the goal post?

Moving the goal posts? You seem to be forgetting whose thread this is. I started this thread claiming there are transitionals, and have argued the whole time that there are transitionals. No goal posts are moving.

I clearly said I make no claim nor have an opinion on the sudden appearance of Bats in the fossil record and re-asserted the point I had made.

For the record, we have at least one transitional to the bat.

The only method of creation of species we know of is evolution. Based on that, it is safe to conclude that the first bat species probably evolved from another species. Do you care to propose a different method by which you think the first bat appeared?

I looked hard enough to see that they (just as the one just posted above) 100% proved MY point.

Just curious. Is there anything that you would possibly accept as a transitional? Because your answer appears to be a canned "not good enough" response no matter how transitional the features are. Describe something where, if I found that, you would say that is transitional.

For the record, I do know about evolution as well and I also care.

For the record, several posts back you stated:

Was it KABOOMED? Did it evolve from lower taxa? Did a God create it? Maybe even using an evolutionary process? I do not know and I do not care.

It is what it is! Deal with it.​

So why did you write that if you do know and do care?

Ok, so now it turns out you do know and you do care. Fine, back to my question. Here is the list of options that have been put on the table by you and I as views that one of us supports for how new animal species appear

1. evolution

That's it. Do you care to add another idea as something you think has better evidence than evolution? Should we add kaboom to the list?

..I do believe in "evolution", but do not believe everything some "evolutionists" claim.

Why the scare quotes?

As for me, I do believe in evolution, but do not believe everything some evolutionists claim.

There. Doesn't that make more sense without the scare quotes?

Keep the facts separate enough from the made up story to make it plain that both are not established facts.

Ah, so if we find the butlers fingerprints on the murder weapon, and eyewitneses see the butler enter the victim' room just before the murder occurred, and records show the butler bought the murder weapon, and the motive is clearly established, then must we limit ourselves to those facts, or can we put together the obvious story and accuse the butler? When the evidence is obvious, then the story is not made up.

And thanks for bringing up more proof of my claim (speciation produced variety).

Ah, so you accept speciation. So if a species gets separated, and the two groups become quite different, eventually we get two species, each clearly different? And if the same thing happens to them, eventually we get another split, ending up with four distinct species? And if hundreds of millions of years are available, and millions of splits occur, then we end up with millions of new species, with those at the end of the chain quite different from the ancestor? And this is your claim? Fine, because that is also my claim.

 

[xianghua]

Wait. This is the argument I just answered. Why ignore my answer and post the same refuted argument again?

where? this is what you said:

"Since the change in DNA to form flagellum is similar to the DNA change to form finch variations"

but they are not. so its not the same case.

Nobody said the finches had the same number of mutations as the bacteria with the flagellum. What was said is that bacteria evolving a flagellum is a close analogy to finches evolving into another variety.

look above. its not even close. there is a huge different between variation and a new complex system that need several parts to its minimal function.

Again, promoting a view in science is based on convincing those who understand the evidence. Do you or do you not agree?

this movie show what happen to a scientist that doesnt believe in evolution. they are also understand the evidence and they dont believe in evolution.

Wait, the finches varied on the Galapagos only if you believe in theistic evolution?​

no. only if we are talking about changes in the family level or above that. like a fish to a tetrapod transition and so on.

I did not ask you who you thought created. I asked you how you thought he created various life forms. So far, this is the list of possibilities you and I have suggested here:

you can add to this creation de novo. without evolution.
​

How can a creature little bigger than a fox with four long toes on its feet instead of hooves be basically the same as a horse?

its actually very easy. all you need is to loss some toes and then you get an hoove. you can see it clearly in the horse evolution fig:

evolution horse‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

And what is this guy? Rhino horse, a 'missing link,' could solve 55-million-year-old mystery Is he basically the same creature as a horse also?

the same conclusion. even the article say that:

"That number was reduced in perissodactyls as they developed modern hooves."

"The mixture of primitive features that since were lost in sister taxons helped lead researchers to place Cambaytherium thewissi beside the perissodactyl clade."

just a degeneration. not evolution.

 

[pshun2404]

Moving the goal posts? You seem to be forgetting whose thread this is. I started this thread claiming there are transitionals, and have argued the whole time that there are transitionals. No goal posts are moving.

For the record, we have at least one transitional to the bat.

The only method of creation of species we know of is evolution. Based on that, it is safe to conclude that the first bat species probably evolved from another species. Do you care to propose a different method by which you think the first bat appeared?

Just curious. Is there anything that you would possibly accept as a transitional? Because your answer appears to be a canned "not good enough" response no matter how transitional the features are. Describe something where, if I found that, you would say that is transitional.

For the record, several posts back you stated:

Was it KABOOMED? Did it evolve from lower taxa? Did a God create it? Maybe even using an evolutionary process? I do not know and I do not care.

It is what it is! Deal with it.​

So why did you write that if you do know and do care?

Ok, so now it turns out you do know and you do care. Fine, back to my question. Here is the list of options that have been put on the table by you and I as views that one of us supports for how new animal species appear

1. evolution

That's it. Do you care to add another idea as something you think has better evidence than evolution? Should we add kaboom to the list?

Why the scare quotes?

As for me, I do believe in evolution, but do not believe everything some evolutionists claim.

There. Doesn't that make more sense without the scare quotes?

Ah, so if we find the butlers fingerprints on the murder weapon, and eyewitneses see the butler enter the victim' room just before the murder occurred, and records show the butler bought the murder weapon, and the motive is clearly established, then must we limit ourselves to those facts, or can we put together the obvious story and accuse the butler? When the evidence is obvious, then the story is not made up.

Ah, so you accept speciation. So if a species gets separated, and the two groups become quite different, eventually we get two species, each clearly different? And if the same thing happens to them, eventually we get another split, ending up with four distinct species? And if hundreds of millions of years are available, and millions of splits occur, then we end up with millions of new species, with those at the end of the chain quite different from the ancestor? And this is your claim? Fine, because that is also my claim.

Was it KABOOMED? Did it evolve from lower taxa? Did a God create it? Maybe even using an evolutionary process? I do not know and I do not care. It is what it is! Deal with it.
So why did you write that if you do know and do care?

It was not saying I do not care about “evolution” just that I do not care to SPECULATE about HOW they came to be. I do not care because my point was that they just suddenly appear in the fossil record (which is a verifiable fact not speculation). It was that you speculated on as to a HOW and that is fine so long as we can agree it is hypothesis based speculation and not a fact (since you have no proof) and as it turns out your alleged transitional is an early bat that I was already well familiar with.

Since MY point is that we should teach the fact as established, and the story attached (the as Mayrs calls it “historical narrative”) as one possibility (based on the already pre-supposed hypothetical “belief”), you appeared to not understand and added all sorts of assumption about my person or purpose. I could be wrong, maybe there is a political motivation, or some other reason.

Your presentation of sub-species of finches was applicable and some are definitely transitional regardless of whether some can see it, but they are transitional meaning different types of finches, variations of birds, etc., but not representative of some in-between species like transitioning from reptiles to birds or to mammals etc. The sad thing is that in such discussion those who assume the narrative is true (especially those who politically push to legislatively exclude any contrary perspectives or evidence unlike any other field science) equivocate between the two meanings on purpose...(the two applications do not really imply the same thing).

Ah, so you accept speciation. So if a species gets separated, and the two groups become quite different, eventually we get two species, each clearly different? And if the same thing happens to them, eventually we get another split, ending up with four distinct species? And if hundreds of millions of years are available, and millions of splits occur, then we end up with millions of new species, with those at the end of the chain quite different from the ancestor? And this is your claim? Fine, because that is also my claim.

Exactly! And thus we have thousands of types of birds. Congratulations! And so with fish, and so with reptiles, and so with apes...no evidence of cross overs (one into the other). That part is speculation based on acceptance that the historical narrative attached is true void of actual evidence it is.