Delshad wrote:
quote:
In other words none of the foosils shows that they were "transitional" forms caused by random mutation because NONE of them has the caracteristics indicating it(asymmetrical forms or useless ineffective halfdone organs).
Your definition of a transitional form is unscientific. It is a straw man. There are in fact fossils that show features of both reptiles and mammals. Please read the FAQ from Talk.Origins to which I linked above. The fact that these organisms were "fully formed" and obviously fully functional (after all they survived to become fossils) does not mean they were not transitional. And despite your feeling that there should be millions of fossils that even you would recognize as transitional were evolution true, the simple fact that fossilization is something of a haphazard process guarantees there will be gaps, even if the process had been smooth (which it almost certainly was not when you consider the effects of mutations in genes controlling development).
Part of the problem is that you want to see a series of fossils that show the smooth, unbroken, ladder-like progression of generations in order to be convinced. This is not how evolution or fossilization works, even though that is how you think it should. So I guess your faith is safe.
But let's apply your logic to the opposite case so you can perhaps see what your argument is really like: Give me a list of all your ancestors back to Adam without any gaps. If you cannot give me that list, creationism must be false.