There's a few reasons why they are not transitional.
1. We see several similarities in morphology thru out the animal kingdom. For instance birds with wings that can fly and birds with wings that can't fly. Are the ones that can't fly transitional to the ones who can? I don't think so. Animals that have distinct phenotypical expressions are limited to passing this on to future generations.
2. There are now and as far as the evidence suggests distinct barriers to sexual reproduction beyond the genus level especially in animals.
3. Transitional morphologies do not represent new genetic information but phenotypical expressions of already existing alleles.
You're still not responding to the evidence I provided you, Jim. You asked for examples of transitional fossils. I provided
Probainognathus, a transitional reptile-mammal with both a reptilian and mammalian type jaw system. I provided
Triadobatrachus, a transitional labyrinthodont-frog with an intermediate number of vertebrae and skull morphology. I provided
Onychonycteris, a primitive flying bat not yet capable of echolocation. These are the very types of animals predicted by evolutionary theory, found in the very stratigraphic sequences we would expect to find them in. These forms are NOT predicted by alternate theories.
Your response to these fossils has been nothing but a side-show, given that you haven't actually addressed the fossils themselves. I will respond to your above points, however, by saying that: 1. Living flightless birds are not transitioning TO flight, but transitioning FROM flight; 2. Yes, there are sexual barriers between genera, but no one here is arguing that evolution occurs via reproduction between sympatric genera (i.e., you still don't understand that "genus" is just a human categorical construct); 3. Indeed, this is often (though not always) the case. So what?
Yes I can. I can show from the available evidence active in nature today that there is no viable mechanism in place to create new genetic information that is not already in the genome, especially in animals. Certainly mutations don't create new genetic material. Neither does natural selection.
Mutations can and do replicate entire genomes and homeobox sequences. Look at
Arabidopsis. Look at salamanders. Look at arthropod
Hox evolution. If we can multiply an organism's genome and have those extra chromosomes available for functional exaptation, how is this not considered "new information"?
The bottom line here is sexual reproduction. Today, you don't see animals in nature going outside of their species or genus and mating with other animals, i.e. robins mating with finches or dogs mating with cats.
No one is arguing that this happens, though. You are creating a strawman version of evolution that NO ONE subscribes to. Please, address what the scientists are
really saying, rather than what you want them to say.
It strikes me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary mechanism. I highly recommend you read the works of the fathers of the Modern Synthesis. Check out Ernst Mayr's
Systematics and the Origin of Species or G. G. Simson's
Tempo and Mode in Evolution. These books are well out of date now, but provide the basic foundation of modern evolutionary thought.
I think because our discussion/debate has been adversarial you think I would want to do anything I could to invalidate you or put you down. You couldn't be further from the truth my friend. Believe it or not, I love you as my brother even though we have never met. I admire your apparent intelligence and knowledge base in biology. I would never point a finger at you and tell you that you were lost. God is the judge of all mankind not me.
I'm glad you feel that way. And I apologize if I've come across too forward. Rest assured that while I do not agree with your biology, I hold you in the highest regard as a fellow brother in Christ and will never let our differences come between that which brings us together.