Your understanding and view of evolution is totally wrong, and as a result almost everything you wrote here is incorrect.
The best model to describe evolution is probabaly the most commonly used 'tree of life'. There are some issues with it, but it's good enough for our purposes here. Let's imagine that all life that has ever existed on our planet is represented in a massive tree. The very earliest form of life is the trunk, and then as time passes and the tree grows up, species split off and form different branches. I'm sure you are familiar with this concept.
Now, the 'families' you refer to are simply all descendants from a particular split at some time in the past. Let's use birds as an example. So if you go back far enough there are no birds on the tree at all, but there are dinosaurs. Then from the branch on our tree that represents dinosaurs there is a split off into a new species of animal that is the common ancestor of every bird that is alive today or has ever lived. Now this animal may not look very birdlike, and probably still retains a lot of dinosaur characteristics, but over time it's ancestors will evolve into what we recognise as birds. Thus the bird family is born.
This is exactly what we would expect to see 'should evolution be true', as the thread asks. Families of animals that are similar, that are related more closely to some other families and less closely to others, depending where they split off from them. We are more closley related to dogs than we are to sharks, because the common ancestor we share with dogs split off much more recently than our common ancestor with sharks.
Now the way that nature works is that once you have split off you can not rejoin that branch again. Humans cannot mate with sharks and produce offspring, so the homo sapien branch will never rejoin up with the shark branch, or the dog branch or any other branch. And ALL descendants of birds in the future will always be birds. they will never change into another family. Of course over time there will be a new sub-family that will branch off that will not look like birds and will be called something different, but they will still be birds. Birds are actually a good example of this because birds are all dinosaurs. All descendants of the branch known as dinosaurs will always be dinosaurs. Now birds, as we discussed above, are part of the dinosaur family, so they are all still dinosaurs, even tho they don't look like what we think of as dinosaurs, and we call them something different ie 'birds'. They are a sub-family of dinosaurs. This is the same as in the future whatever sub-family of birds splits off and looks nothing like birds and is called something different, they will always be part of the larger bird family and the even larger dinosaur family. Birds will never turn into non-birds. Only into some animal that looks nothing like a bird and has a different name, but is still ultimately a bird, the same way every bird is ultimately a dinosaur.
If you understand what I wrote above, and i sincerely hope you do, then you will understand why the comments you made above are totally and utterly incorrect.
Lastly, on your 'transitional species' comment. Every animal alive on the planet today is a transitional species.
Right now is just some arbritary point in time of life on our planet, let's call it 'now'. We could go back a long way, hundreds of millions of years, to another point in time and look at every animal alive on the planet, let's call that 'then'. If we go back far enough we will see that not a single species that exists 'then' also exists 'now'. And not a single species that exists 'now' also existed 'then'. Every single species from 'then' has either evolved into a modern species or gone extinct. In that same way there will be a point some hundreds of millions of years in the future, where none of the species that exist today will still be around. Every single species will either evolve into a new species or it will go extinct. Therefore every single species in the world today is a transitional form.
The world is exactly as it should be if evolution were true, and nothing about it is any different from that.
Upvote
0
