[Aric2000]

And look at that a 50 year old quote, time for you to come up to date.

There are MILLIONS MORE fossils now, and the transitionals, oh, my goodness, are THERE!!!

What a concept....

[Jorge]

There are MILLIONS MORE fossils now, and the transitionals, oh, my goodness, are THERE!!!

Sure there are. Like the pig jaw bone that was supposedly the missing link. What a joke.

[Timmy]

There are MILLIONS MORE fossils now, and the transitionals, oh, my goodness, are THERE!!!

Aric, I went to your home page. Great stuff. We're pretty much on the same page on most things. But, on this debate, you need to back up your statements. Jorge is right in everything he has said. He has backed it up. You go "Nyahh, nyahh, nyahh." That won't cut it. Either support your argument, or back off.

[gore3000]

There are MILLIONS MORE fossils now, and the transitionals, oh, my goodness, are THERE!!!

No they are not. The largest changes should show the greatest number of transitionals, but this is not the case. For example, the rise of mammals has practically no fossil evidence at all. Between the definite appearance of mammals after the end of dinosaurs the first bone which by any stretch of the imagination (or paleontological fraud) can be considered mammalian there are over 100 million years with no fossils. Oh and the single fossil is an upper head with the entire upper part consisting of a very involved paste up job. So your statement is absolutely false.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

There are MILLIONS MORE fossils now, and the transitionals, oh, my goodness, are THERE!!!

Specific examples, please...