Do you have any idea how many thousands and thousands of supposed fakes you're talking about? Scientists would have to have a factory to produce the number of fakes you claim. Here's my favorite fake, a whale with legs: 
Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.
It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
A reptile to a fish... wouldn't that be retrolution?
Kinda understand your point, but we know exactly what humans look like, skin color, hair color , what we consume etc. How can anyone come too a positve conclusion of what color a dinosaur was, what exactly it ate, from bones? This is all theory, and speculation. Far from facts. IMO. But then again, I am far from being a scientist, and I'm sure there is much I don't know lol. Fill me in on this stuff please, I enjoy learning new things :) Jeff
Do you have any idea how many thousands and thousands of supposed fakes you're talking about? Scientists would have to have a factory to produce the number of fakes you claim. Here's my favorite fake, a whale with legs:
Nah, the Darwinians do that.
"Bizarre" New Dinosaur Shows Evolution to Plant Eating, Study Says
The newly discovered creature was likely cloaked in hairlike feathers and walked on two legs
OHH My aching back.
It isn't the shift in diet that signifies transition. It is the physical changes in body structure to accommodate the change in diet that is significant.
"Becoming vegetarian? Isn't this called an omnivore?"
Not exactly --- but I had the same thought and looked up the definition.
"Omnivores" --- the most common example people humans and bears BTW --- have a pretty unique set of both meat-eating (front, tearing) teeth and plant eating (back, flat grinders).
This guy, in contrast, had flat teeth all around --- but possessed the BODY of a preditor --- legs, eyes-in-front (compare and contrast wolf vs. deer).
There are lean, mean, pointy-tooth machines just like this guy (sharing other family traits) earlier.
And fat wide-eyed flat-toothed guys (but still with same family traits) after.
Hence, "transitional" vs. settled omnivore.
Not the whole puzzle, but certainly "some evidence."
"An overwhelming majority of all dinosaurs — between 80 to 90 percent — are known by researchers on the basis of just one partial skeleton; sometimes just a few mere bones that have been flattened, over the ages, like pancakes."
This was in an article about the same find - amazing to find out so much from so little, don't you think?
There goes my attempt at being funny... I'll leave that to DFU from now on...
"If evolution is true, there is no such thing as a "species" as every creature is a variation of the same thing. Basically, every creature becomes transitional. Speciation becomes nothing more than a man-made convention intended to categorize everything he sees into nice, neat, organized packages."
Biologists agree with you.
"Species" is --- more or less --- an artificial convention.
The working definition is: can they naturally procreate? If so, same species.
But then there are "wolphins" and "ligers" and whatnot.
So, yeah, it is (somewhat) artificial. The categorization just helps people get their mind around things.
If you understand DNA at all, the evidence of evolution is so nailed that all the dinosaur bones in the world are merely icing on the cake.
The cool thing is that Darwin came up with the theory so long ago, yet it predicted the DNA discoveries perfectly.
Bingo, Darwin wins. There's really no question except in the eyes of those who will not see.
That one pictured looks like it eats just about anything... and I'm not sure, but I think bolo ties are evidence of devolution... wait... are we talking about the one on the right or the left?
You assume that reptiles are somehow "more evolved" than fish. In the highly unlikely case that a reptile evolved into a fish, that process would still fall under evolution.
actually, a province in china has a factory just for such a thing, according to the book China, Inc. They were the ones who produced the first "feathered dinosaur transitional form" proof that was reported in either national geographic or nature, a few years ago.
From the article: The scientists dubbed it Falcarius utahensis. Bones from hundreds or maybe thousands of these dinosaurs were discovered at a two-acre dig site south of the town of Green River. Nobody knows why they gathered there or what killed them, Kirkland said.
Now, did you just not read it? Or what?
Ok, but if one species evolved to two would it be dilution?
They're surprised because it lived in Utah and it was monogamous.
Got a citation for a 'fake transitional factory' in China beyond innuendo or speculation?
You are correct about China.
But I doubt the Mormons in Utah where this comes from would do the same thing.
Plus, this is hundreds of these guys found, so the chance of a plant-eating-head on the the meat-eater-body mistake is pretty slim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.