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

Qoute: "Excuse me redstang281,
But were your words just idle chatter when you requested we post evidence for transitionals so that the YECies could "research and rebut" ?Can we conclude that the Young Earth Creation model is BUST ? and completely incapable of explaining the evidence presented here ?
...and the YECies are overjoyed that this embarrassing question has rolled off the page ...from their neglect ?Well Alrighty, then !!Creationism has conceded defeat. This anti-Intellectual excercise has ended with victory to science !!next." JeffAnd in this corner, weighing in at 165 pounds, YEC the conquerer. We need not explain the "EVIDENCE" here because you assume that what you have submited is evidence. "Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:
Scales had to have mutated into hair.
Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.
Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb."Transitional Forms:
One, transitional means we can see a clear line of change from one SPECIES to another SPECIES. You haven't shown this. You have shown adaptations WITHIN a SPECIES. In order for a transitional form to acure, the DNA must change. We know that DNA does change but its method of change is through degradation of the genetic information not additions to it which is what would have to happen in order for a transition to occur. This simply does not happen. Another thing, if the so-called transition were to occure, it would have to occure in both a male and female member of the species for that new form to carry on. Second, the theory of evolution being a natural science HAS TO FOLLOW NATURAL LAWS. The Second law of thermodynamics states that ALL THINGS move toward entropy. The idea that information is added to our DNA defies this law. Further, "The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility!" - Wistar Institute, 1966DATING METHODS:
The ...ologists who date rocks make several assumptions. The two largest are. 1. that carbon decay is a steady process and that 2. no external force influenced the material being dated. The first point has been demonstrated in a labratory to be false: the decay rate does show variation. The second point: Catastrophies like a flood would reset the clock because much of the material would have been washed away.The fact of the matter is this. We were either created by something or evolved from nothing. When you see how impossible the evolution model truely is, you are left with one conclusion. We were created. Now you just need to find out by whom. And, lets be honest her, most people who don't believe in a creator do so merely because they do not believe in the supernatural but, for God, the supernatural is natural.Sorry science buffs. And the winner is...

The information I am refering to is DNA so I guess I should have said the 2nd Law would degrade the DNA as energy was lost (aging)not the other way around.Second request:
Here are the calculations Page not found | Creation SafarisThird:
What other options are there? Spontaneous generation?Fourth:
See second request.Fifth:
Yes, a generalization but not nonsensical scince I have heard unbelievers state so much several times.

Quote: reptiles to mammals; note how the repitilian jaw joint evolves into the mammalian inner ear, just like evolution predicted it would, even though creationists insisted this was impossible.apes to humans; look at the picture - can you tell which belong to ape-kind and which to human-kind?whales some good stuff on how whales evolved.The first one and the third one were drawings. My neice has created some preety amazing animals too in her sketch book. You should ask yourself WHYARE THEY GIVING ME A DRAWING INSTEAD OF THE SO-CALLED FOSSIL? The second one Ape to Man. What am I supposed to notice? Simularities? Well of course they are simular. Apes lokk like men men look like apes; some more than others. It does not however prove that we were once apes. If anything we (homo Sapien)existed alongside these apes just as we have now found out to be true about the neanderathals. Remember about twenty years ago when the evolutionists were saying neanderathals were a direct descendant in our evolutionary chain. Until they found a homo sapien skull from the period they said the neanderathals reigned.Quote:"Of course, any organism's genome will come from both mother and father. Except for sex-linked traits, no gene will remain confined to either male or female."You misunderstand. I am speaking in reference to mating the changed organisms.Quote: "When you can pass gallo's thermodynamics test you can then lecture us about the second law."Don't even go there.Quote: "I can demonstrate that the probability of all the cells in your body coming together to form you are essentially nil. So what?"You prove my point.

Quote: "Why should this be true? Why would God create animals that look so much like humans? Why should a heirachical, branching classification of the species be possible?"I think the better question is "Why doesn't the pictures of ape/man show the inner part of the skulls roof of the mouth?" Here is your answer: Because if they did you might notice that the skulls that are ape have a simean plate and those which are not apes nor ever have been apes do not have this plate which still exists by the way in modern apes.Quote: " Or if there are only a couple of species, why did the species vary so much so as to merge into one another? How did the flood put the skulls in strata with just the right radiometric ages so we can put them in the right order? That is the important question!"First of all, we can talk about all the species here since evolution holds that all things evolve. Second, the strata is given a date dependent upon many variables not limited to erosion, continental drifts and upheavles etc. Therefore, many assumptions are made as to the actual date a specimen is deposited. Think about the fossils that are found spreading across more than one strata level. How old are they? Lets get back to this idea of progressive steps though in the evolutionary model. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possess. Now if evolution is correct, we should be able to see these changes in any given species if given enough time. Correct? If however we find that there are no changes (I am speaking of MACRO evolution here (a change from one species into another through the mechanism of natural selection not MICROevolution-changes within a species)then I think one should question what they have been LEAD TO BELIEVE to be true.
Here are some examples:http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_05.htmlHere is something on your whale too.http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_15.htmlRemember, everyone has an agenda. I am not trying to convince you of God's existance, I am trying to convince you that just becuase someone says a thing that doesn't mean it is true. Reality(What is real) is true.

Quote: "Of course it's not clear if Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of birds or (according to my Animal Diversity text) if it's a dead-end lineage with a common ancestor to birds. Nonetheless you'd have to be pretty ignorant not to recognize that it has both reptile and bird traits."I would have to be pretty ignorant to make a claim "that it has both reptile and bird traits." Here is why-sorry I keep linking, but they say it much metter than I can.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_06.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_08.html

I was simply pointing out that to use Archy.. as an example of a transitional form, to make the case for evolution occuring, falls apart when you see what this BIRD truly represents. A BIRD. Not a part reptile part bird. Consider the Platapus is it part duck, part beaver, part kangaroo yada yada yada. No, it is simply a platapus; a very odd creature indeed. Just because some organism has some features of another organism does not mean there is a direct or even an indirrect connection between the two.

A watermelon is 80% water. A cloud is 80% water. A jellyfish is 80%water. It appears that a 20% difference is huge for variations in nature.

How many reptiles do you know that have the breastbone of a bird (necessary for flight)The absence of a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The sternum is a bone found under the thorax to which the muscles required for flight are attached. In our day, this breastbone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats, a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.)
However, the seventh Archopteryx fossil, which was found in 1992, had the breastbone that was long assumed by evolutionists to be missing This fossil was described in Nature magazine as follows:"The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles." (Nature, Vol 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401)
This discovery invalidated the claims that Archopteryx was a half-bird that could not fly properly.Moreover, the asymmetric feather structure of Archopteryx is indistinguishable from that of modern birds and indicates that it could fly perfectly well. As the paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "because of its feathers [Archopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird."(Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961, p. 310)
Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. Reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostatically regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archopteryx had feathers showed that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to regulate its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs.It is true that Archopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its mouth, but these traits do not imply that the creature bore any kind of relationship to reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today, Taouraco and Hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto branches. These creatures are fully birds, with no reptilian characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert that Archopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on its wings.Neither do the teeth in Archopteryx's beak imply that it is a transitional form. Evolutionists use deception by saying that these teeth are reptile characteristics, since teeth are not a typical feature of reptiles. Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archopteryx is not the only bird species to possess teeth. It is true that there are no toothed birds in existence today, but when we look at the fossil record, we see that both during the time of Archopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct bird genus existed that could be categorised as "birds with teeth".The most important point is that the tooth structure of Archopteryx and other birds with teeth is totally different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Steward, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archopteryx and other similar birds have teeth with flat-topped surfaces and large roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, are protuberant like saws and have narrow roots. (L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone, The Auk, Vol 98, 1980, p. 86)
These researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archopteryx and their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them.All these findings indicate that Archopteryx was not a transitional link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called "toothed birds".

Quote: "A fossil possessing traits normally associated with different taxa is what is expected of a transitional, it is an evolutionary prediction borne out."Explain to me how Archy came to be. (A) Did a dinosaur such as a raptor lay an egg and out popped Archy? or (B)Did Archy develop the wings over a long period of time? If (A), then punctuated equalibrium is your game; a theory not even accepted by most evolutionists. If (B) then wouldn't One, partly formed wings be a disadvantage in that they would be useless until fully formed and two, does evolution cause changes in such a way that predicts future forms as being advantages. and Three, we have found the supposed dino ancestor of Archy and we have found Archy, why haven't we found anything between the two as we would expect if it were a true transitional form? These are the questions you should ask yourself. A watermelon is 80% water, a jellyfish is 80% water, and a cloud is 80% water. There is only 20% difference. Do they have a common ancestor? Where are the transitionals of plants and insects? Why would only a few speicies experiance evolutionary change while others seem to vertually identical to their prehistoric ancestors. The Nautilus is one example, the Cealocanth (not sure of spelling)is another, as well as bacteria, amphibians, and insects found in amber.

Quote:"First, How many birds do you know that have a reptilelike long bony tail such as Archaeopteryx?"There are many unique species which are now extinct (the Dodo bird for one. How many reptiles do you know that have feathers or are warm blooded, or have a sternum.Quote: "Second, Are you just pasting somebody else's material? You sound like Harun Yahya."No. I don't know who Harun Yahya is. If it sounds like him perhaps you heard him refer to the same quotes I did and I do paraphrase at time info. from my research which comes from many different sources maybe one of his. If so, I apologize for having a like mind; I don't apologize for being correct.

From the same web site:"Some people like to claim that the finding of a fossil bird from the Triassic of Texas (Protavis) proves that Archae cannot be transitional between dinosaurs and birds because Protoavis predates Archae by 75 million years. This is, of course, errant nonsense, mainly because (no one is claiming that Archae is the transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, merely that Archae represents a grade of organisation which the proposed lineage went through to get from dinosaurs to birds. Archae is, I'm sorry to say, out on a limb, evolutionarily speaking. It represents a side branch, useful for comparative purposes, but not in the thick of things.) So even if there were birds in the Triassic, that fact would not diminish Archae's importance as an indicator that "yes, birds could have evolved from dinosaurs."See parenthesis.

Concerning Archy, here is some info. for you to consider. http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_08.html
For examples of unchanged species see:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_05.htmlSorry about refering but you won't take my word for it then take it from the one's who study this delimma.Oops, I realized I may still be skirting. I do not believe it to be a transitional form because you, nor anyone else has shown it to be in a line of transition. It has both bird and reptile features which can tell us one of three things. One, it is a bird with reptile features. Two, it is a reptile with bird features. or Three, it is a unique species which is now extinct having no transitional link to either dinos or birds. I opt for three. We have an example like this today. The platapus One, is it a duck with beaver or muskrat features? Two, is it a beaver or muskrat with duck features? or Three, a unique species with features of both? Now, I don't think you would ever try to claim if after finding a fossil in a million years of one of these creatures that they evolved from a duck or a beaver just because they have some common characteristics. By the way, do you think the evolutionists in that future time would be able to reconcile how a mammle could lay eggs or would they even be able to know this fact based on the fossil this animal might leave?[This message has been edited by ex libres, 03-02-2004]

It is a short article you know. However, here are some points you can address.
"A report on the discovery appears in the Nov. 15 issue of the journal Science. Besides Feduccia, [Biologist and ORNITHOLOGIST]authors are Dr. Lianhai Hou of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing and Dr. Larry D. Martin and graduate student Zonghe Zhou of the University of Kansas' Natural History Museum." ...Feduccia said, they have found fossils of a modern-type, probably warm-blooded bird they call Liaoningornis together with Confuciusornis. Unlike the latter, the former had a keeled sternum, which is the earliest evidence of that distinctly bird-like structure, one that acted as a pump for air sacs in the lungs and facilitated longer flights. All modern flying birds show that keeled breastbone. "We would expect that the common ancestor of the two groups -- which we call `Sauriurine' for reptile-like and `Ornithurine' for bird-like -- predates Archaeopteryx and that we may reasonably search for birds in Middle Jurassic and older beds," Feduccia said."This exacerbates one of the most obvious conundrums facing the theory that birds descended from dinosaurs. The dinosaurs thought to be most like birds are primarily Late Cretaceous in age and are younger than Archaeopteryx by more than 76 million years."Writing in volume two of their Modern Creation Trilogy on this matter in regard to Archaeopteryx, Henry Morris and John Morris stated:"Archaeopteryx is a mosaic of useful and functioning structures found also in other creatures, not a transition between them. A true transitional structure would be, say, a sceatherthat is, a half-scale, half-featheror a linghalf-leg, half-wingor, perhaps a half-evolved heart or liver or eye. Such transitional structures, however, would not survive in any struggle for existence (1996, 2:70)."More problems:
1. The hands of theropod dinosaurs and birds differ in important ways.
2. Theropod wishbones differ significantly from those of birds.3. Avian lungs are very complex and could not have evolved from theropod dinosaur lungs.4. Theropod dinosaurs appear to have been exclusively ground dwellers; thus, flight would have had to originate from the cursorial or ground-up theory, which many scientists do not accept5. The much smaller theropod forelimb (relative to body size) in comparison with the Archaeopteryx wing. Such small limbs are not convincing as proto-wings for a ground-up origin of flight.6. The rarity in theropods of the semilunate wrist boneknown in only four species. Most theropods have relatively large numbers of wrist elements difficult to homologize with those of Archaeopteryx.7. The time problem. Theropod dinosaurs are found too recently in the fossil record to have given rise to Archaeopteryx.

You seem to be mixing definitions. You are using micro-evolution to support macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is without a doubt a fact. We have no problems on that issue. However, macro-evolution is not a fact. 1. Were you here when life began? If not, then we are making our best guess at the very least. 2. How is it that 99%, if you don't believe this number ask a geneticist, of observed mutations (the mechanism by which macro-evolution is supposed to occur)result in damage and often death to the organism (See fruitfly experiments). This is a step DOWN the evolutionary ladder. 3. Mendel's experiments on flowers proved that DNA has a LIMITED variation capacity and once you reach its limit, well look up the word limit. Dog breeders can verify this point as well. 4. In order for even the most basic life forms, Bacteria, there must be both a right handed and a left handed amino acid for life. Coupled with the many pairs which have to come together PERFECTLY, the odds of such a thing happening is enormous let alone happening millions of times. 5. If your archy is a transitional form, then it should be evidence that there may be more transitional forms out there. Well, we have collected thousands upon thousands of fossils since Darwin's time and yet this creature (possibly a prehistoric example of a platapus type of creature with a variety of traits associated with other animals) is your only hope? Oh yeah, piltdown man, opps a deliberate fraud or Nabraska man, opps, a pig, or .... Why is it that these supposedly unbiased scientists are faking evidence if the evidence is so apparent? 6. Why do we find fully formed complex creatures in pre-cambrian rock with no transitional forms? Can you answer these questions straight forwardly or are you going to avoid the questions by talking about my lack of scientific knowledge? This is a serious question.

But, I am right.