Of course, no evolution theory says dogs turned into horses, and I'm certain you know that, but possibly enjoy a little hyperbole?
In fact, much of this type argument is just a word definition game -- what exactly is a "transitional form"?
Well, first of all, isn't every individual "transitional" between our ancestors and our progeny?
And if small biological changes help us to adapt better, aren't we more likely to survive and reproduce?
And doesn't DNA analysis allow us to track these generation-by-generation changes back into the depths of time?
Second, consider the total number of known species -- 1.5 million named, with another 5 million estimated as yet to be cataloged.
Of those, over 5,000 are mammals.
But how many mammal fossils do we have from, say, 5 million years ago?
A few dozen, a couple of hundred?
One estimate is that we have fossils of fewer than 1% of all species which ever lived.
Simply put: for every "transitional form" fossil we do have, 99 others are missing.
Third, we actually do have many transitional fossils, and none more complete than those of pre-human creatures, of which I've posted this photo now several times:
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
the only evidence that any of those suppposed human-ape links exists in the imagination of the evolutionist
interestingly, these are not to scale.
similarities of structure does not a relative ,make!!!!
to some, WWII aircraft look the same, But not to a historian. They are all prop driven, single engine fighters(say)but each followed a different design solution to the SAME problem (flight).
Also, this does not prove your supposition, ie; transition.
To me (as shown) I see large differences until “J”.
Also according to some studies I have read (seen) some of the fragments when assembled are not reconstructed correctly.
This is due to bias on the part of evolutionary thinking.
thanks
You do realize that most of those so called skulls are fakes.
Pray for America to Wake Up