You want transitional species, Creationists?

The problem is that when you offer a creationist one of the many transitional fossils with their near to zero knowledge of evolution they don't exactly understand what you're presenting them with. Most are under the media and creationist view that evolution from our common ancestor when from them straight to us, completely unaware of the around 20 different intermediate forms of other species in between. Other than trying to get them to understand evolution, there isn't much you can do because if they don't understand it in at least the most basic concept they won't be aware of what they're getting shown.

It's an infinite loop! ... Sasi: What about the process of genetic drift or reproductive isolation? Wouldn't both of these suggest that your notation that a species organs couldn't develop along with it is false?

When group is separated from the gene pool they still continue to develop throughout the species, but eventually over time the two would become distinctly different. Also would you mind proving me with a link regarding Lucy's foot? I did a quick Google search but couldn't find any credible sources of information.

Sasi2: I copy and pasted your answer to this question linked below as some of your points and wording was awfully confusing and I was looking for an explanation to some of the points you made. Someone addressed some of the problems and I encourage you to have a read. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Looks don't come into it. You could never tell just by looking at its outside appearance. It's the internal workings that matter - the 'ability' to change functions sufficiently so that a new species develops from an existing one, without the adaptated creature being sterile and unable to reproduce, of course.

In biology a chimera is an organism formed by grafting etc from tissues of different genetic origin. Humans can produce chimeras. Evolution cannot produce chimeras because outside interference is required.

Adaptation of species occurs naturally, but the key point with a 'transitional' animal is that there is internal evidence of bones, organs, breathing systems and reproductive systems etc in process of changing. The tricky bit is that the existing bones, organs, breathing and reproductive systems must continue to function until such times as the evolving ones are capable of taking over and then the old ones gradually become defunct. If a fossilised creature with that kind of double-system could be found, it would be astounding.

A much simpler example of mere change in bone structure is with apes who have a particular bone structure in their feet that enables their big toes to curl around branhes, but that same bone structure prevents them from being able to constantly and naturally walk and run upright as homo erectus. Now, some lemurs have been filmed doing a sort of upright walk/bounce on the ground whilst also being able to continue swinging through trees. But even if you allow for a few hundred thousand years to observe if this develops into a human foot, you still have a lemur that walks upright, and not a human.

The Lucy skeleton discovered in Ethiopia in 1974 is now realised to be a human skeleton because of this critical metatarsal that connects a toe to the base of the foot and gives a fixed arch - a trait found only in humans. Now scientists are admitting that humans must have been walking upright far, far earlier than they previously said. It's been put back to 3 million years ago and not 70,000 to 1.8 million years as they insisted earlier.

When are they going to admit that man has always walked upright? Never, because they are fixated on the idea that ape-like species evolved into humanoid species. Edit - Yes, if you could show that the lungfish then went on to develop legs for walking on land and stopped being a fish, that would be very persuasive!

It's not just the ability to breath both under water and out of it that is the critical point - it's stopping the one completely in favour of the other system that proves to be advantageous to the creature. That would be a transitional creature.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.