I have given you an example of a transitional form which you claim to want to see and you give me a sort of stream of consciousness rambling set of nonsense.
What evidence do you have, other than the bible which can in no way be considered evidencein my opinion, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?
It was neither stream of consciousness, nor rambling; nor yet again nonsense.
Explain to me (ab initio) what the expected mutation rate in base pairs of genetic material is in mammals; compare this to the expected rate of novel cladistic features or morphological structures such as walking limbs turning into fins.
Relate this to known environmental changes in the vicinity of this group of animals where they were alive, including the rate of change of the physical topology (land becoming marshy, drought which would reduce animals which previously fed on land *and* in the sea to rely on seafood, thereby making fins advantageous) and the local food web.
Can you do that?
Because, you know, evolution is the study of allele changes in a population over time (presumably in response to changes in the environment which render certain traits more advantageous for surviving *and* producing viable offspring).
If you can't then all you have is handwaving for that example, not science.
The other questions are similarly rigorous, even though you apparently decline to discuss them.
Cheers!
You prove that they’re “transitional forms” rather than separate species that a scientist wants to believe are transitional?
If you are that prejudiced against the Bible, you cannot consider yourself objective. A true scientific mind (which you earlier confessed you have not trained yours to be) considers all possibilities.