Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

I think I've said this before, but I just don't get
the problem people have with the idea of tranisitional
forms.Take three species in the ascent of man ... the middle one
is a transitional between the other two.Transitionals 'in-between' would, seeing as evolution is such
a gradual process, be almost but not quite identical to their
root species ... they probably wouldn't even be considered
as a separate species to either their ancestor OR their descendent
depending on the level of change that had accumulated.ALL individuals within a population are unique, but share some
common traits. Two samples are considered separate species
when the differences are considered significant.Along the way there would be an accumulation of insignificant
(in isolation) changes that would make some fossils look like
unusual examples of the root specie and others look like
unusual examples of the leaf specie.I don't think that's really looked for is it?Classification doesn't tend to work that way ... especially with
incomplete remains.

What actually makes two similar species different,
and how can we tell this from skeletal remains alone
(fossilised or otherwise).What I am sugesting is that the numbers of remains required
to perform statistical analysis of anomalies doesn't exist.What does exists are sufficient remains to identify trends
of change ... pointing to evolution.In special creation terms, there is no reason why we should expect
to find (apparent) sequences in the fossil record or skeletal
remains. In fact we should expect the NO such sequence.Taking hominid remains alone, and since the masses and survivablities (mentioned in TC's flood 'model') are roughly
the same, there is no reason from a literalist biblical view
that accounts for the apparent time sequence of the remains.

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, you don't object to
the ToE, but to claims that it is scientific and undeniable
fact.If the above is about right (please tell me if not) concerning
your view, I would like to say, for myself ::I have never veiwed the ToE as undeniable fact, but as well supported
theory. The clue is in the name 'Theory of Evolution' In what way is speculation an unscientific starting point for
scientific enquiry ?Surely ALL scientific enquiry starts with someone having an
idea about some observed phenomena ... what makes the subject
scientific or not, surely, is the way that the enquiry is
approached.You have stated that you are NOT a YEC, so could you elaborate
some of your views .. it would help debate issues. For example,
perhaps you do not hold the Bible as inerrant, or perhaps you
do but allow that it can be interpreted in different ways, or
perhaps you beleive in intelligent design, or ... etc.Position statements should always be included early in research
work, so I think it would also benefit discussions on topics
such a this.BTW - TC was suggesting that, from a literal Biblical interpretation
and a YEC world view, that the fossil record is due
to Flood sediments, and that the seqeunces were laid down in
ashort space of time by hydrodynamic sorting, and individual
survivability factors.My opinion (ok so it's only an opinion, but it is grounded in logic
and reason) is that like species would have insignificant differential
masses for sorting to affect their position in such Flood sediments,
and that they would have broadly similar survivability
characteristics.Without knowing your preferred world view this may or may not
be relevent to your objections to ToE.Also ... when I used the word 'apparent' I was using the
'observable' branch of meanings

Sorry, just re-read this ... are you looking for
a transitional between, say, a reptile and a bird ?I've noticed that many anti-evo's accept speciation,
do you ? (BTW - I thought creationists came up with the term
micro-evolution, not evolutionists).You'll probably discount it as speculation, but comparitive
anatomy is one of the areas of evidence in favour of evolution
and within that there is the 'evolution of the ear oscicle(sp?)'.Is that not even feasible, in your opinion ?PS- you will answer even if that's the wrong spelling, won't you ?

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 06-17-2002]