Aside from that, you have nothing to offer in the way of answering the question other than to simply speculate that there were gradual steps. In a way, that makes even less sense.
At what point does a transitional form become a new species and why is any such transitional form not a separate species?
And none of ths even addresses the problem evolution has explaining how one classification of life can be transformed into another classification. An example would be how did a cold-blooded animal get transformed into a warm-blodded animal? Any answer to such a question requires a tremendous amount of speculation.
Then how do you explain the existance of poodles? Have you ever seen a wolf give birth to a poodle? What would be the chances of a male poodle and a female poodle coming into existance at the same time and then mating? You didn't address this important question.
And none of ths even addresses the problem evolution has explaining how one classification of life can be transformed into another classification.
Like a wolf into a poodle for example. A HUGE increase in information required there and against huge odds. So far I don't see you giving any sort of answers of how that could have happened.
When it achieves effective genetic isolation from the *original* parent species.
When did proto-Indo-European become English? Or German? Or Spanish?
and why is any such transitional form not a separate species?
They can be. Old English is transitional between proto-Indo-European and modern English, but it's also a separate language in its own right.
And none of ths even addresses the problem evolution has explaining how one classification of life can be transformed into another classification.
What "problem" would that be? Enough accumulated change eventually reaches the point where people decide to give it a new classification. But such classifications are human constructs, not nature's.
An example would be how did a cold-blooded animal get transformed into a warm-blodded animal?
Why is this a "problem"? Be specific. Endothermy is not a big leap from ectothermy. It's a matter of degree, not kind. But don't just take my word for it:
"Many elements of mammalian and avian thermoregulatory mechanisms are present in reptiles, and the changes involved in the transition to endothermy are more quantitative than qualitative."Even ectotherms have regulatory systems to handle excess heat or cold, and generate internal warmth from their body's metabolism. The transition to endothermy only involves cranking up the internal metabolism, and fine-tuning the temperature-regulation mechanisms to maintain a more steady internal temperature.
-- The evolution of endothermy and its diversity in mammals and birds, Grigg GC, Beard LA, Augee ML, Physiol Biochem Zool. 2004 Nov-Dec;77(6):982-97"Avian and mammalian endothermy results from elevated rates of resting, or routine, metabolism and enables these animals to maintain high and stable body temperatures in the face of variable ambient temperatures."
-- The evolution of endothermy in terrestrial vertebrates: Who? When? Why?, Hillenius WJ, Ruben JA, Physiol Biochem Zool. 2004 Nov-Dec;77(6):959-81.
There are animals even today that serve as a good example of how things would look partway through the transition from classic ectothermy to modern endothermy. They have sort of a "half-assed endothermy", and they function just fine. Google for "homeothermic", especiall on pubmed.com, to come up to speed on the subject. Echidnas are just one example.