The Origin of Novelty

And we have those.http://cambrian.tripod.com/Reptile-Mammal What percentage of fossil bearing strata have humans searched for fossils, by your estimation?

Quite the opposite. It is entirely independent of DNA which makes it that much more useful. The fact that two INDEPENDENT data sets produce similar phylogenies indicates that evolution is true. Then completely ignore the assumption that they evolved. Instead, organize them based on shared and derived features. Take that chart and then compare it to the a chart based on DNA. If the two match, then you have just confirmed evolution. Quite right. Therefore, the only reason that phylogenies based on morphology should match up with phylogenies based on DNA is if evolution is true. She has more than one human feature. Also, you are admitting that Lucy is transitional since she has a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. We don't have arthropod eyes. However, the features we do share with crabs is due to common ancestry. Lucy has a pelvis that is much more like a modern human pelvis than any other ape pelvis. This has already been shown to you. Why do you continue with such dishonest tactics? That is with evolution added on top of the definition. A transitional fossil is still defined by a mixture of characteristics and nothing more. I don't see why you are getting confused. From the same article:"Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, transitional fossils cannot be assumed to be direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

So you claim that evolution is not true because we lack transitional fossils. You claim that if evolution is true then we should see transitional fossils.We produce the transitional fossils.Now you claim that transitional fossils do not evidence evolution.Talk about shifting the goal posts.

All of which only look at superficial features. They even list the shark and dolphin as convergent. Have you ever studied the anatomy of a shark and a dolphin?

They are all just as bad. They are all superficial similarities that do not compare specific anatomical features.

You said:"To assume some extinct creature with the lifestyle of a crocodile or sea-lion is an evolutionary "missing link" by placing it between a group of pictures of land creatures and a group of pictures of sea creatures is a big and unscientific jump of logic." So it proves nothing. Again, you are moving the goalposts.

Fair enough.

You are missing the big picture. You are missing the nested hierarchy. No fossil represents a gross violation of the nested hierarchy. We do not find any bird-mammal transitions. We do not find a croc-duck transitions. We only find the transitions that evolution predicts we should find. The theory passes the fossil test with flying colors. Then show us a 55 million year old horse with a single hoof. "Short-term"? What does that mean? The nested hierarchies extend all the way back to the phylum level and beyond. I would not consider that to be "short term".

Which fossils are they excluding?It's not cherry picking because they use ALL of the fossils.And as Dr. Adequate states, why are there cherries to pick to begin with? Why can't we find a feathered or antlered ape? What makes them artificial? Also, we have mountains of genetic evidence that you constantly ignore. The problem is that magical poofing can create anything. It is unfalsifiable. What you end up claiming is that if creationism is true it will look exactly like evolution occurred. You might as well argue that we should throw out all forensic evidence at a crime scene because it is also consistent with Leprechauns magically poofing fingerprints into being.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Yes, an ape with human-like features not found in other living apes. This makes australopithecines transitional because they have a mixture of features from two divergent taxa.You have the evidence right in front of you, but you choose to close your eyes.

I already compared them. I already showed you that Lucy's pelvis is much more human-like than it is gibbon-like.Why do you ignore the evidence?

Don't forget the human pelvis!! Even without looking that the femur q-angle, I think the similarities are quite obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by creationism.

No one is claiming that birds, being bipedal, are transitional between basal apes and humans. Obviously, bipedality by itself is not enough.However, australopithecines have a human-like pelvis, not a gibbon-like pelvis. Australopithecines have human-like features not found in other apes. Australopithecines also have features similar to other apes that are not found in humans. This makes australopithecines transitional by definition. That is exactly what we have, but you feel it necessary to ignore it. Even more, you make massive errors such as claiming the human pelvis is more like that of a gibbon than an australopithecine. How anyone can make that claim after being shown the anatomy of each species is beyond me. Perhaps you can explain why you continue with this charade? The logical conclusion is that if evolution is true then these species existed in the past. However, there is no logical requirement that we should have found these fossil species after looking at such a tiny fraction of fossil bearing strata.

That is exactly what they meant. We have already shown you multiple examples of changes in amino acid sequence that have resulted in beneficial phenotypes. If you are unconvinced by examples of exactly what you are asking for then the problem is yours, not ours. Which step in the process do you think is impossible? The novel function is the ability to express a different protein in aerobic conditions. This required a mutation, specifically a recombination event. If this is latent, then we are right to describe latent features as those that are produced by mutation followed by selection. How do you determine if two species belong to the same baramin? Can we see the math for this claim?

Why would an ape with wings need to swing and jump from branch to branch? Why couldn't the ape move about like a bat? Why not give the ape feathers?