where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]

* I am a devout Christian who believes the Bible to be 100% accurate

* I believe in micro- but not macro- evolution

* I am interested in recieving information which might serve to either prove or disprove evolution on the topic being presented.

...but come on people!! Present at least a few decent facts or links to factual, studied evidence before pouring out your heart into an area you haven't even taken to research for yourself...

... If, as "assumed" by evolutionary scientists, the world is some billion years old and we, as non-designated species are in constant transition, with projected THOUSANDS of stages within our develpement, with a fossil record beyond belief to "supposedly" support such and ideal, are we unable, or incapable of presenting ANY SIGNIFICANT finds which would SCIENTIFICALLY prove that belief?

And even if we do have a few scraps, why, if we are in constant transition, including the staggering collection of fossils stated earlier, are there so few in contrast? Shouldn't there be THOUSANDS of such fossils, just, if not better preserved than their respective ancestors and decendants?

Is that reasonable? Unless you are predisposed to accept Pakicetus as a whale ancestor, it does not seem reasonable to me. Other creatures also have the same similar teeth pattern, which could just as easily have been created of convergently evolved that way. Same goes for the increased cranial cavity. It is thought to be a precursor to whale skulls, but hey, it could just as easily not be.The evidence is so scant as to be farcical, but with a straight face such creatures are presented as transitional.

And I pointed out where one of the leading researchers in the field in terms of whale evolution states publicly that Pakicitids are in the same suborder and are "whales" or cetaceans.Unfortunately, you are too obstinate to learn anything first time around, but here's the link. Note: Seals are not in this suborder.

*
o Suborder Caniformia ("Dog-like")
+ Family Ailuridae: red panda; 1 species in 1 genus.
+ Family Amphicyonidae: beardogs (extinct)
+ Family Canidae: dogs and allies; 35 species in 10 genera
+ Family Mephitidae: skunks; 10 species in 3 genera
+ Family Mustelidae: weasels, ferrets, badgers, and otters; 55 species in 24 genera
+ Family Odobenidae: Walruses
+ Family Otariidae: sea lions, eared seals, fur seals
+ Family Phocidae: true seals
+ Family Procyonidae: raccoons and allies; 19 species in 6 genera
+ Family Ursidae: bears; 8 species in 4 genera

Yaro, it is totally inconsequential to this debate that evos classify dogs and sea lions in the same suborder or order. Why you think that opinion has relevance, I don't know, but evidently you think it has merit.

In terms of process, not man-made classifications, the relevant issue involves groups that can interbreed, which I will label species for this post (although current definitions of "species" can vary widely from that).

Moreover, the whole nation that similarities automatically involves relatedness via common descent is just a large, and totally unproven assumption.

Logically, micro and macro makes sense. There needs to be some term for designating between intra-species adjustments and bonafide transitional evolutionary progress. Why doesn't micro/macro fit this ticket?

Whatever the label and whatever propaganda you guys want to spout, there is clearly no spectrum of life, but discrete groups separated one from another. That's why a cat and dog cannot mate for example.

Definitions of speciesThe definition of a species given above as taken from Mayr, is somewhat idealistic. Since it assumes sexual reproduction, it leaves the term undefined for a large class of organisms that reproduce asexually. Biologists frequently do not know whether two morphologically similar groups of organisms are "potentially" capable of interbreeding. Further, there is considerable variation in the degree to which hybridization may succeed under natural and experimental conditions, or even in the degree to which some organisms use sexual reproduction between individuals to breed. Consequently, several lines of thought in the definition of species exist:* A typological species is a group of organisms in which individuals are members of the species if they sufficiently conform to certain fixed properties. The clusters of variations or phenotypes within specimens (ie: longer and shorter tails) would differentiate the species. This method was used as a "classical" method of determining species, such as with Linnaeus early in evolutionary theory. However, we now know that different phenotypes do not always constitute different species (ie: a 4-winged Drosphila born to a 2-winged mother is not a different species). Species named in this manner are called a morphospecies.* A morphological species is a group of organisms that have a distinctive form: for example, we can distinguish between a chicken and a duck because they have different shaped bills and the duck has webbed feet. Species have been defined in this way since well before the beginning of recorded history. Although much criticised, the concept of morphological species remains the single most widely used species concept in everyday life, and still retains an important place within the biological sciences, particularly in the case of plants.* The biological species or isolation species concept identifies a species as a set of actually or potentially interbreeding organisms. This is generally the most useful formulation for scientists working with living examples of the higher taxa like mammals, fish, and birds, but meaningless for organisms that do not reproduce sexually. It does not distinguish between the theoretical possibility of interbreeding and the actual likelihood of gene flow between populations and is thus impractical in many instances of allopatric (geographically isolated) populations. For example, it is possible to cross a horse with a donkey and produce offspring, however they remain separate species”in this case for two different reasons: first because horses and donkeys do not normally interbreed in the wild, and second because the fruit of the union is rarely fertile. The key to defining a biological species is that there is no significant cross-flow of genetic material between the two populations.* A mate-recognition species is defined as a group of organisms that are known to recognise one another as potential mates. Like the isolation species concept above, it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually.* A phylogenetic or evolutionary or Darwinian species is a group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, members may diverge from one another: when such a divergence becomes sufficiently clear, the two populations are regarded as separate species.* See also microspecies under apomixis, for species that reproduce without meiosis or mitosis so that each generation is genetically identical to the previous generation.In practice, these definitions often coincide, and the differences between them are more a matter of emphasis than of outright contradiction. Nevertheless, no species concept yet proposed is entirely objective, or can be applied in all cases without resorting to judgement. Given the complexity of life, some have argued that such an objective definition is in all likelihood impossible, and biologists should settle for the most practical definition.

In reality, groups interbreed or reproduce within the same group.

Certainly, there are LIMITED exceptions where, for example, one can breed various plants together, but even there, there is still a discrete group involved. There is just some exceptions within that group.

I think if you were honest with yourself and took a step back to look at how groups of creatures are organized within different groups, you would see that the spectrum analogy is a poor one.

For example, I know of no other species humans can breed with.Do you?

If the spectrum claim was accurate, we should be able to mate with our nearest species.