[raygunfan]

calling something a ‘transistional fossil’ doesnt make it one....it is one if your theory requires one....despite it not being one....

[JimSEA]

Your proof being??? When will creation science venture into original, peer reviewed science rather than just manufacturing glib criticism of other people’s research. When will they pause their construction of straw men to make actual comparisons without misstating others hypothesis?

[BroJoeK]

raygunfan: "calling something a ‘transistional fossil’ doesnt make it one....it is one if your theory requires one....despite it not being one...."

Anti-evos like to claim "there are no transitional fossils", but in fact the fossil record is full of intermediate forms.
Indeed, if you think about it, every fossil must be transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any.
Not surprisingly, the lists of transitional forms are nowhere more complete than for ourselves:

• •(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