It seems creationist organisations have tried to avoid admitting the existence of transitional forms by dubbing them "mosaic forms". Essentially they admit that fossils have been found with features of two taxonomic groups, but somehow these just aren't what they mean by transitional. So I have a few questions in regards to these:
1. What's the difference between a mosaic form and a transitional form?
2. Why are there only mosaics between organisms that are recognised to be descendants of one another? We have plenty of fish-amphibian and dinosaur-bird mosaics, but no bird-mammal or fish-bird mosaics.
3. Why, despite admitting that animals like archaeopteryx have numerous reptile features, do creationists still insist they are "fully bird"?
1. What's the difference between a mosaic form and a transitional form?
2. Why are there only mosaics between organisms that are recognised to be descendants of one another? We have plenty of fish-amphibian and dinosaur-bird mosaics, but no bird-mammal or fish-bird mosaics.
3. Why, despite admitting that animals like archaeopteryx have numerous reptile features, do creationists still insist they are "fully bird"?