[b_sharp]

"For me this started when I requested evidence that things/animals/whatever evolved into something else entirely and was put down for not accepting the evidence they tried to use as evidence. Since then I've asked them to answer a simple question of where are the transitional fossils between those they say became something else, and they have not answered the question. They just called me bigoted and uneducated. Then they wanted me to provide my evidence for some claim I never made."

Archaeopteryx is a transitional along the sequence of dinosaur to bird.

Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon are transitionals along the sequence of Artiodactyl to Cetacean. This sequence is also backed up by molecular and morphological evidence.

OK. Your turn. Why are these not evidence of the evolution of one species into another species? Hand waving and just claiming they aren't is not an argument. I can provide links to detailed reasons they are considered transitional. I expect you to provide no less.

[SoldierDad]

"Archaeopteryx is a transitional along the sequence of dinosaur to bird.

Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon are transitionals along the sequence of Artiodactyl to Cetacean. This sequence is also backed up by molecular and morphological evidence."

They are not evidence for common decent because no-one has discovered any transitionals between the dinosaur and Archaeopteryx (or the others you listed). One day there was a dinosaur, then hundreds of thousands of years (or millions) later this dinosaur became a Archaeopteryx. Where are the transitional formations which logically should be found between these two events? Did the caveman hide them? Did Captain Kirk beam them off the planet? Your evidence is based, yet again, on conjecture and supposition (guess work). Someone came up with this little theory, and then went about trying to prove it in ways that provide no proof. DNA, geneology, strata, etc. Of course DNA exists in common - they all lived on the same planet in which the same genetic codes were used to create all life, but placed in different configurations. If one were to "create" life, why reinvent the wheel? Why not use the same substance already once used, but configure it differently for a different animal structure? Really, this is not rocket science.