It's me, Irl. Are you listening? Can I ask you something of you?
I heard your spiel on transitional fossils and how you believe they don't exist. You claim that if evolution is true, the fossil record should contain lots of examples of transitions between one species and another. You think that evolution should provide examples of "freakish" fossils that show, for example, a horse becoming a cow. But since there are no fossils showing a horse/cow, you agree with the creationists and claim there are no transitional fossils and creationism is true.
You even go as far as quoting evolutionary scientists that seem to admit that transitional fossils don't exist, and claiming that evolutionary scientists are making things up when they point to extinct animals and claim they were evolving.
Oh, Bobbo, when are you going to stop lying?
First of all, you can't even be honest in how scientists define the term. A transitional fossil is does not show how a horse becomes a cow, as you claim, but shows a sequence of similar... families, linking an older group to a very different younger group. Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a span of tens of millions of years. In other words, transitional fossils show how prehistoric animals became modern animals.
An you know what Bobbo? There are examples galore of transitional fossils. Here's the transitional lineage for the horse. Here's the transitional lineage for the cetaceans. Here's Lagomorphs. Here's amphibians to reptiles. And here's reptiles to birds.
So, Bobbo, transitional fossils don't show, as you claim, a horse becoming a cow, they show similarities along a species' family tree. Scientists have plenty examples to prove the phenomenon.
By the way, Steven Jay Gould absolutely believed in transitional fossils. Here's Gould in his own words:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.I guess I just want to ask you to stop lying. If you're going to try to prove the intellectual farce that is creationism, first, be honest about what scientists actually say. When you make stuff up and misrepresent the science, it shows just how ignorant and petty you are.
Keep in touch,