That is the very essence of evolution, something it is increasingly obvious you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of.
Natural selection acts upon genetic variation. Genetic variation in a population is created due to imperfect replication of DNA between parent and child.
The central dogma of molecular biology is that genetic DNA is transcribed into RNA that is translated into a chain of amino acids (a protein) that performs a function. Now that I explained THAT to you, perhaps you can explain to me why you thought it was relevant to the discussion?
Every species is a “transitional” from what came before to what will come after.
There are records after records of these “transitionals”, I have already mentioned two different ones.
Do you think if you put your fingers firmly enough in your ears close your eyes and chant “NAH NAH NAH” the examples will cease to exist?
Don’t get so ticked off. I was only trying to point out that intra-species transition is not the same process as the supposed inter-species transition.
Not the same process. That’s all I meant.
And the general point is that the inter-species transition should be more carefully described. But this is impossible because it’s never been observed, which makes the job of arguing honestly in favor of evolution very difficult.
Estimate the average number, theoretically, of supposed intermediate (but as of yet unidentified) species between two known species. (Is this a taboo subject for evolutionists?) Notice the number will necessarily be far greater than two.
Let’s take a very low number—say, fifty. This means that the number of unidentified intermediate species is fifty times greater than the number of known species.
Not only should there be more transitional species in the fossil record. There should be more of them still in existence. Or at least some, as opposed to virtually zero.