"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.
So every time we add a transitional between two species we end up with two holes instead of one? If this is what you require then you will never be satisfied, as there will never be enough transitionals to fill all the holes. Fossils do not form readily and the probability that a given fossil will not only form but be found by a human before it is destroyed by the elements is as small as the probabilities Creationists throw around for the likelihood of abiogenesis. If you don't consider this difficulty in your expectation for transitional fossils and demand hundreds of transitionals, In my opinion, you are being disingenuous.
Transitionals should exhibit features from the source species, the destination species and all three should share other features. There are morphological features that in extant species are diagnostic, they are used to identify a taxonomic group because they occur in only that group. These diagnostic features are considered when determining if a fossil is a transitional. This is what we find when we examine the Achaopteryx. Archy has features diagnostic to reptiles and features diagnostic to birds as well as features that are shared by theropod dinosaurs, Archy and modern birds and *by no other groups*.
"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?
There are a number of other proto-bird fossils that have been uncovered but they appear to be on different branches than Archy. This is common with fossils because there are far more branches that stay branches than become part of a 'trunk' in the phylogenetic tree. This does not diminish their status as transitional fossils because they too contain diagnostic features of reptiles (dinos) and birds.
"Did the caveman hide them? Did Captain Kirk beam them off the planet?
I thought you were up for a serious rational discussion? At least that is what you suggested in previous posts. I hope that this isn't the best you can do.
If you don't believe that fossils are rare for a reason, I suggest you investigate taphonomy and do your own calculations. Just make sure you include in those calculations not only the necessary initial conditions for fossils to form but the conditions necessary for fossils to survive the movement of earth, erosion and exposure to the elements and the length of time those fossil have had to become exposed to the elements compared to the length of time humans have been looking for them.
"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.
The relationship between fossils and the great age of the Earth was known long before Darwin. When Darwin started his travels aboard the Beagle he was firmly intrenched in beliefs one would consider to be ID today - he believed whole heartedly in Paley's designer and complexity argument.
Scientists aren't trying to fit the evidence to a theory, in fact the majority of tests are designed to falsify the theory. You apparently do not understand the adversarial nature of modern science. All of the data, statistical analysis, and the conclusions one scientist produces from a physical object such as a fossil are available to all other scientists in that, and related fields. In many cases the actual fossil is also available - although it is more common to supply replicas for study although the original is always available for comparison to the replica. Scientists do not spend time trying to find ways of agreeing with others in their field, they spend time picking holes in the conclusions of others. There is no way that a conspiracy to fit data to a theory is possible in today's scientific environment.
"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.
Its funny that you should claim ID as being so self evident when there is a much simpler and more logical way of producing a variety of species and reusing bits of code when your code is self replicating.
As a designer you produce an initial species and give it the ability to modify the DNA it passes on to its descendants. You then create an environment that will guide the DNA in a specific direction. In this way you are not only reusing chunks of code(DNA) but avoiding the need to hand insert those snippets into each new species you create.
As an old programmer who has reused many, many snippets of code to build applications, I would much prefer to just set the fitness parameters for the end product and let my code rewrite itself. A lot less work for me - far less than hand inserting snippets into my code for each new app.
Now *that* makes sense.
BTW, I noticed you didn't have any evidence to back up the assertions in your post. What gives? I thought you wanted a rational discussion?