Replies

Still no example of one fossil transitioning into another.
Yet according to darwinite myth, all fossils should blend back toward the tree trunk.

They do.

Still no example of one fossil transitioning into another. Yet according to darwinite myth, all fossils should blend back toward the tree trunk.

How many times do I have to catch one guy on one afternoon?

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record.

Here's one relevant section among several:

Moving further up the taxonomic hierarchy, the condylarths and primitive carnivores (creodonts, miacids) are very similar to each other in morphology (Fig. 9, 10), and some taxa have had their assignments to these orders changed. The Miacids in turn are very similar to the earliest representatives of the Families Canidae (dogs) and Mustelidae (weasels), both of Superfamily Arctoidea, and the Family Viverridae (civets) of the Superfamily Aeluroidea. As Romer (1966) states in Vertebrate Paleontology (p. 232), "Were we living at the beginning of the Oligocene, we should probably consider all these small carnivores as members of a single family." This statement also illustrates the point that the erection of a higher taxon is done in retrospect, after sufficient divergence has occurred to give particular traits significance.

Figure 10. Comparison of skulls of the early ungulates (condylarths) and carnivores. (A) The condylarth Phenacodus possessed large canines as well as cheek teeth partially adapted for herbivory. (B) The carnivore-like condylarth Mesonyx. The early Eocene creodonts (C) Oxyaena and (D) Sinopa were primitive carnivores apparently unrelated to any modern forms. (E) The Eocene Vulpavus is a representative of the miacids which probably was ancestral to all living carnivore groups. (From Vertebrate Paleontology by Alfred Sherwood Romer published by The University of Chicago Press, copyright © 1945, 1966 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. This material may be used and shared with the fair-use provisions of US copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is carried and provided that the University of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires both the consent of the authors and the University of Chicago Press.)

Miller is saying precisely that the farther back one explores along a branch, the more a thing looks like its contemporaries on other branches. IOW, the branches visibly reconverge as one approaches the branch point, exactly the thing you said doesn't happen.

We see this at least as well in dinosaurs and birds, for instance, where the convergence (as you go back in time) produces specimens almost completely ambiguous whether they should be lumped in the "bird" or "dinosaur" bin.

The things you're saying aren't true. Why doesn't that matter?

"Still no example of one fossil transitioning into another."

Do you even accept that fossils can be identified as transitional?

If not then you are wasting everyones time by asking for fossil examples that you are always, no matter what they look like, going to say they aren't transitional.

If you do accept transitional fossils can be identified then what characteristics do you think would show beyond doubt that a fossil is transitional?

"Still no example of one fossil transitioning into another."

Being that they are dead and innanimate matter, fossils do not "transition" into other fossils. However, living organisms do undergo mutations. We see them in the laboratory everyday. Some mutations are good, some bad, and some neutral. Sometimes a series of small mutations applied over time can lead to a new trait that enables an organism to better survive, perhaps a longer fin, or sharper teeth.