Transitional Fossil Features

Once again people. Breed mates with breed producing a new breed within the species. No transitional exists between the old (pair of breeds) and the new breed. Why all of you won't accept this empirical proof is beyond me? Any you want to claim as transitional due to evolution is simply an incorrect classification of both the breeds you are trying to link together and the transitional. This is clear by the empirical observations. There is no magic line of transition. New breeds come into existence virtually overnight when they are born. In the wild they would go through a short period of flux as they continued to interbreed with other breeds before settling in to breeding within their own breed.

 

In my post I said that the line is grey and artificial because there's a smooth transition, as in the theory of evolution. But you say there is a hard line. Can you talk a little about that line and what it looks like in your competing theory? What does the transition between ape and man look like?

 

Are you a lawyer? You split hairs like a lawyer.

Here is the question: "can a creationist explain to me what features a transitional fossil should/would have?"
Maybe some other creationist will "stick to the OP," because you sure can't.

 

We do find them. Most represent small changes between species, rather than the types representative of transitions between major groups. Do you think the latter should be more numerous than the former?

 

Where did the breeds come from?

 

Take it as a theoretical challenge. If such species existed, what do you expect they would look like?

 

What features do these fossils lack that a real transitional would have?

 

If fossils of every species who ever existed are plentiful and abundant, why are we still finding new fossil species? Why didn't we find them after just 5 years of searching instead of 200 years?

What percentage of the fossil bearing strata do you think we have searched?

 

That's like asking:

 

So basically,if there were transitionals, you wouldn't recognize one.

 

Yes. At least fossils that are claimed to be transitional. Archaeopteryx comes to mind. Here's a list I managed to find: http://transitionalfossils.com/pics.html However I've never been convinced that these actually represent species changes or are simply a unique species of their own.

 

What features would a fossil need in order to convince you?

Also, a transitional fossil would be a unique species of their own. That is what evolution expects to see.

 

Can you point out one example to examine? Also, I would expect at least a fair representation of each stage of transition would be found. It seems what we have is a strata of fully developed body plans followed by gaps in the fossil record only to be followed by another strata of more unique fully developed body plans. That's odd to me.

 

Why?

Take the transitional fossil Tiktaalik as an example. It took one scientists 3 years of searching just one area to find a single fossil for this transitional species. Scientists have been fossil hunting for 200 years, and we are still finding brand new species. Even then, we have only searched a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the fossil bearing strata. I guess I don't understand why you think we should have a complete history of life with such a spotty and incomplete record.

What features would a fossil need to have in order to not be fully developed? What features would a fossil need in order to fill those gaps?

It would seem to me that you would say that about any fossil, no matter what it looked like.

 

I would expect to see fossils that clearly show the gradual changes along the way and not simply a full body plan. We mostly see the endgame (maybe exclusively). We have millions of fossils with thousands of different species. It's not like finding fossils is rare.

 

How do you determine if a fossil has a full body plan? How do you determine if a fossil shows gradual changes?

There are 10,000 species of living beetles all by themselves. Thousands of species probably wouldn't be 0.0001% of the total number of species that have existed. For a 3 million year time span, we only have a few somewhat complete Australopithecines. Are you telling me that there were only a dozen or so individuals during a 3 million year period?

 

And I have also been told that birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species. Doesn't make that any more true than those fossils presented as transitional, since there are no transitional fossils between breeds.

 

Do those two populations of birds regularly interbreed so that the gene pools of the two populations are identical? If not, then they are separate species.

Also, where did the breeds come from? You still can't answer that question.