Apparently there are as many definitions for evolution as there are minds. For some people evolution is getting better and better for others its just survival of the fittest. For some everything started with the big bang and for others the big bang has nothing to do with evolution. Who am I gonna believe? Heres a quote from David Menton PhD. He is a researcher for AiG.
Believe jazzlover.
Let's really look at that list because there are actually three subjects there and if we are to make any progress towards defining a transitional we need to get some of them out of there.
First, there is the existence of the universe. That is the field of Cosmology and has nothing to do with whether or not any life ever evolved. The Big Bang is one of the theories involved in Cosmology.
Second is the origin of life. It is mostly a question of chemistry.
Finally, there is evolution. It deals with what happened with life after it started, but it doesn't address or care how life started. Life may well have started through natural processes or by divine intervention. Regardless, once life started it changed over time. That is the area of Evolution.
The folk at AIG and ICR love to try to blur the three, but they are simply wrong. The three are different, seperate and totally unrelated.
Are you seeing the flaws in logic of your theory.
Nope. All I see is an attempt to confuse folk. Almost nothing in the long quote is true or even has anything to do with evolution or transitionals.
There are many examples of convergent development. Often it is driven by the environment, sharks and whales have similar shapes but they most definitely developed independantly.
So I asked, "So back towards the topic, you find two skeletons. How do you identify whether they are humans or chimps?"
to which you replied:
Are talking about complete skeletons or a part of a skeleton. if it is a part mention which part.
For now, let's assume that we have complete skeletons.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion