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

I re-worked my reading of Croizat based on the image NOVA presented about trasition (this week TV) that really only told of RED HILL and did not find that the cladistics was supported but rather that it (the produced show) led to the loss of teaching of projective geometry. This need not have been the produced case if the herpetology was less loose and more continuous with right rather than female choice of Fisher's choice that he only went so far as to "completely" disagree with Wright.

Transmission genetics is not physiological genetics but becasue geneticists themselves are unable to have clear teaching of the relevance of adaptive formations and non-adaptive but not neutral functionings I like not to take any realy "imaginary system" (of Maxwell) that may reside in your question materially naturally to answer it. So I did not, if you got it.I am trying to figure out how the innear ear can attach first inside to the lung and then outside to the tetrapod limb in this case. Same transformation problem I think. Much of the talk of "transitional forms" would have been obviated if theoretical biology utlilized more Rene Thom's catastrophe theory to set out the forms that could and could not continually go from one (by mutation or not) to another, but this the evolutionists did not follow up on and since they continue to not do so at my prodding I look to baraminologists to incorporated the formalism into the empirical nature being science to be.

[QUOTE][B]
I've seen this topic on MBs before that went no where because the two sides did not agree upon what constitutes a 'transitional form'.
So allow me to pre-emptively state that 'transitional forms' ARE NOT:
partially formed organisms ( one wing & one reptilian claw of a reptile halfway to becoming a bird ). Evidence of such would actually weigh against the ToE.[/QUOTE][/B]sO for real; Jeff, I saw in Mann Libe a an outline reconstructed from some fossil that looked like<---------((()))----------0 with legs and for the herpetologist such as I am I only THOUGHT (within a transition defintion or not) of a turtle+snake. This only weighed aganst my knoweldge of herpetology not evolution. Did you get my point are you only running after the bunny inside?

quote:

---

Populist RNA-World Propaganda
A pro-evolution booklet called Science and Creationism, recently released on the Internet by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),[1] summarized the origin of life section as follows:

​

‘For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells.’ [2]

​

No one disputes the existence of living organisms on earth, and that cells indeed are capable of using simple building blocks to generate the required complex biochemicals at the necessary time, location and concentration. The question is whether the massive co-ordination of the metabolic processes which perform such feats could have arisen without intelligent guidance and driven by only statistical and thermodynamic constraints.

---

Ok I'll take this quote on from the Safarit article in your link. The problem as I see it lies in the ordering textually of "metabolic" adjective, "guidance" verb, and "statistics" as a noun for whatever in heaven and Earth "buliding blocks" mean. I HAVE NEVER thought scietifically about my toddler play toys. What I dont understand is why modern science does not use the "black body" of Newton in some statistical mechanics. If it did there would have to be a human artificer to create such a science of nature and depending on how such survives economically (if) there might be room for continued religous worship but I have not outside my own ideas been able to see how to resolve this if one does not first understand the equilibrium posistion of Gladyshev.I have ideas on "time". I would like to hear a second opnion on what is the "necessary" time. Time in a lineage of human panmictic splitting of an EFFECTIVE Population number? Or will we always be debating if the numeration per noun verb adjective is not effective nor efficient??

As you may know I have been reading A LOT of Georgi Gladyshev's work lately and I was assuming that I would be having even in my own ideas to backtrack my creationist leaning except my most baraminological but guess what the culprit for much of the controversy including this supposed picture of me or my cousin above as the transition seemed to come out to be the issue rather of progressive development. Obviously if there was such an animal then there would be a "transition" in some sense. So for this post you will have to bear with my own apodetetic certainity as I have not come off my high with learning how to reject Russel's "peculiar" view of Kant's SPACE.It may be that Georgi will reject ALL of my letters in speculation but I really do NOT see the creation/evolution issue as divisive IF progressive development exists and it exists by Gladyshev's principle WHERE Agassiz suggested there was NO transition. That is why asking the question as if there "would" be such is a little bit problematical but I believe I can rephase my position with regard to that kind of follow up.A remarkable thing happened to me when I read Aggasiz's essay on Classification. Not only did I realize that Croizat obviously spent some time with this text but that A really did know his turtles. I was more or less rocked to the sock when at the final transcendental gasp A asserted that REPTILES SUBTRACT FROM THE PHYSICAL AGENT!! Wow!! Why had no one ever writ THAT up before????? It appears to me that Aggasiz wrote his intro off of Kant's Prolegemma but then shortly after Darwin "violated" Kant's (not Agassiz's) divisions IN THE MIND. Romer subsequently said that NO ONE believed like Agassiz who wrote near death piece where he DID STATE that Darwinists HAD NO RIGHT TO INFER THE ABSENCE OF A TYPE because it did not fit the theory (which is why the "would" grammer is specious to this extent but as I said I will deal"" with it.) Guess what- even Gould seems to have made this mental mistake of INFERING A SUBTRACTION. I think I can use macrothermodyanmics to show this number in reality but to do it I have had to restrict my use of INFINITY to SEX only. I will no go into the details but get on with the main point of what WOULD THEN a human transistion LOOK like?For one it would have to take into account Aggasiz's lack of physical agent in life for NOT discussing the human case as it might not REFLECT an expemplar of any creature and futher if not with the FOUR fold division of homologies it must respect the discontinuity of HOMOLOGY panbiogeographers currently use the baseline for. Futhermore there WOULD be a PHYSIOLOGY (I still cant figure out why Gould missed using this)that binds physical agents in a technic (I may be wrong about electrotonics and macrothermodynamics, but I doubt it) and this may even be an outworking of supramolecular chemistry but IN LIFE this would be distinct from the same physical agents effect in decompostion between the reproductions of the human "type" extended as an example. The "transition" would have a grade.Now I am going to add my own idea. Sex is a spatial equilibrium
of supramoleucular chemistry
due to temporal discrepencies
of heat flowing from the Hot SUN to the Cold Earth
&
rearragnements of material on thermal current from heat flux contanctand the same materialism under time due to rotations and revolutions
adapted in LIFE by reproduction.This seperates LIFE from the same physical hierarchy in death. The transition may not need to exist but if it does it must INFER these conditions.Kant got his pre-prolglema ideas from the a concept of space with time attached and then simply kept both seperated for reasons sake but Russel did not thing with Kant's time so if sex is about time like Einstein saw space then sex may be nothing but another Keplarian supramolecular solid equilibrium needed to take account of temproal hetergoentiy of geography on earth due to the tilt of the Earth's axis and the different effects of heating as Kant witnessed. Why Gould insisted only only seeing PLATO and the FORMALIST-FUNCITONALIST DEBATE in Aggaze was simply NOT THERE FOR ME and the LUNG was simply the error that Kant showed of his reviewer of the Prolegemma write spatially subsequently circumscripted to any object by Croizat. Gould was simply wrong to assert that there was no philosophy current to understand Agassiz for macrothermodynaics does fine and it is not all that certain that Creationism MUST take the back seat. I tried really hard to reject creationism on Georgi's balder claims than mine but I did not succeed beacuse I think using Mendel's DEVELOPEMTAL BINOMIAL it is possible to explain in terms of the MAN not the TURTLE how a Reptile could subtract (like the female human with baby in womb) the effects of the physical agent (chemsitry etc) and why is this not JUST the removal in a Gladyshev hierarchy of a cell or organ etc which I had at first questioned. Again, I see NO significant difference in fact between my views and GG's. Romer simply misread Agassiz who said IF "trace" and not "invent". Since metaphysically that was how it had to be said A HAD also to say that Darwinists had NO RIGHT (to INFER) the absence etc. IN FACT CORNELL TOOK THIS RIGHT, in time and I WAS "SUBTRACTED" for the herps I loved best. There was a very good reason for A's use of the PLACE RUSSIA and the seperation of the KEntucky CAVE from the Eurpeon salamander but may we all learn to listen to bird calls and pay less attention to the internet.