[Professor Kill]

I don't know what you believe, and I don't care what you believe. You can believe an any religion's creation story to your heart's content. Christian, Norse, Hindu, Lakota, whatever you want to believe, have at it. Just stop mischaracterizing actual science, ok?

When you say you "have yet to see" any evidence of transitional species (which is a fairly misleading term, but we'll avoid another semantic debate for now) I assume you haven't bothered to look, or you've shut your eyes any time you're in the same room as a the evidence.

In either event, let's put that issue to bed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[PatrickHenry]

In either event, let's put that issue to bed:

By not visiting, reading, and understanding the material at those links, it can still be claimed that evidence has not been seen. I suspect that it's not yet bedtime for this issue.

[Thatcherite]

It is a marvellous position that allows SD to ignore the evidence. If two fossils are extremely similar then he can say that they are the same species. If they are different he can say, "They are just different species. Where is your proof that they are related?" All the while ignoring the strata they are found in, the fact that they can be arranged in sequences of gradual change that fit with those strata and their geographical location, the fact that successful predictions are made of findings ahead of time, etc, etc, etc.