[Havoc]

You're moving the goalposts in the usual Creationist manner. You asked for a transitional form. I gave you one. I stated it has characteristics of both reptiles and birds, and therefore is a reasonable example of a transitional form between them. Now you're demanding that I show something else.

No, I think it's clear in the discussion what has been talked about. Quite clear in fact. You ignore the discussion and try to make this some other discussion you've had. Sorry you can't fit the world into a box. I think I've been rather clear as to what we're looking for here. For you to show systems growing into a species creating a change. That is a transition - not a fully developed species seperate to itself. A transition between species. Show the fish growing legs, arms and lungs, etc. You can't. But that is a transition. We're all aware of the dodges built into your arguments - they're there for a reason - so you think you can't be put on the spot.

[Modernman]

Not as dramatic as fish growing legs, but some scientists believe that Antarctic killer whales may be becoming a different species:

http://www.akwic.org/#different

[VadeRetro]

Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.

[Right Wing Professor]

No, I think it's clear in the discussion what has been talked about.

Yes, it is quite clear. You said in 112 that there are no transitional fossils. I gave one. You haven't made any serious attempt to dispute that Archaeopteryx is transitional.

Show the fish growing legs, arms and lungs, etc.

I have a reptile with wings and feathers. I can give you a fish - amphibian transitional if you want, but let's have the verdict on my reptile-bird transitional first. Why isn't it a transitional?