A list of “transitional forms” with apparent detailed descriptions seem to me like a way of getting around the fact that these are not really transitional forms.
I think this explains why pictures of transitional forms are not used, including in the link by Non-Sequitur, because a good common sense look at the general morphology of these animals would demonstrate the vastness of unfilled physical gaps and unanswered questions.
I posted a picture of H. ergaster in post 47, upthread.
And don't worry overmuch about laymen having to apply "common sense" looks at the general morphology of these specimens.
Scientists are applying very detailed looks, as well as multivariate statistics to remove the subjectivity.
I think all your post proves is that when it comes to science and the interpretations therein, it is no use listening to creationists.
My post had lots of pictures, but, "none are so blind as they who will not see".
Xenophiles called it too!!
"Ah Soliton, you fail to see the cleverness of the creationist argument; now that a transitional form between fish and amphibians has been found, it's no longer transitional. It will be quietly removed from the the list of fossils that should exist but don't (like reptiles->birds or land mammals->whales) and they won't admit they ever challenged science to find it. From now on when they say that there is no (zero) evidence for transitional forms, they'll mean between fish and tiktaalik roseae, and between tiktaalik roseae and amphibians"
The link explains why science believes these are examples of transitional fossils. Why are they wrong?
Why do you depend on pictures for your evidence? Why isn't a description sufficient?
...of these animals would demonstrate the vastness of unfilled physical gaps and unanswered questions.
Well of course there are unfilled gaps and unanswered questions. Science is all about filling those gaps and answering those questions, and it attempts to do so every day. Unlike Intelligent Design, science doesn't claim to have all the answers already. And unlike ID, there are no questions that science isn't interested in trying to answer.
"I think this explains why pictures of transitional forms are not used, including in the link by Non-Sequitur, because a good common sense look at the general morphology of these animals would demonstrate the vastness of unfilled physical gaps and unanswered questions." [excerpt]
