What would a transitional fossil look like?

This would mean that every person is a new Kind because everyone is born with mutations, a new genome that has never existed before.We can sequence the genomes of parents and their offspring, and we can detect the mutations. At this point, you are simply arguing against reality.

What does that even mean? Outside of identical twins, no two humans has the same genome. Every person is born with 50 to 100 mutations, meaning every human is born with a genome that has never existed before. The best we can do is find similarities between genomes. There are new variations that occur in every generation, and those variations accumulate over time. This is why humans and chimps are separated by 40 million mutations.

How did you determine that? How did you determine that?Humans and chimps are separated by 40 million mutations. Why couldn't the accumulation of mutations over millions of years accomplish this?

Exactly. For neutral drift, the number of fixed mutations per generation is equal to the mutation rate. The human mutation rate is ~100 mutations per individual per generation, and the latest research indicates that the rate is about 50% higher in other apes.Using these numbers, we would expect 20 million fixed mutations in the human lineage in 5 million years and 30 million in the chimp lineage for a total of 50 million. That's right where it should be.

First, here are the points that we should all agree on:1. Humans look like humans because of the DNA sequences in our genomes.2. Chimps look like chimps because of the DNA sequences in their genomes.3. The physical differences between humans and chimps is due to the DNA sequence differences in our genomes.Faith claims there is no way that adding mutations to the human genome can produce anything different than humans. So here is the challenge: If we changed the human genome so that it exactly matched the genome of a chimp, would the result look like a human or a chimp?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

That contradicts your argument. You claimed that no amount of mutations could ever result in anything that is not human. Obviously, this can happen. You just spelled it out. If those mutations happened in the human genome then you would get a chimp. Of the genetic differences that separate humans and chimps, which are you saying could not be produced by known mechanisms of mutation?

Then how are humans able to survive with 40 million differences compared to the chimp genome? But you just said that adding the 40 million mutations that separates humans from chimps would make a chimp from the human genome. How do you explain this? Again, how are humans able to live with 40 million mutations compared to the chimp genome?

You have already stated that they will have the same effect, so there is no difference between them. Show me the differences between the human and chimp genomes that natural processes could not produce, and the reasoning you used to reach that conclusion. For example, this comparison of chimp and human mmp9

Query  61   RGESkslgpallllqkqlslpETGELDSATLKAMRTPRCGVPDLGRFQTFEGDLKWHHHN  120
            RGESKSLGPALLLLQKQLSLPETGELDSATLKAMRTPRCGVPDLG+FQTFEGDLKWHHHN
Sbjct  61   RGESKSLGPALLLLQKQLSLPETGELDSATLKAMRTPRCGVPDLGKFQTFEGDLKWHHHN  120

There is a mutation in that protein sequence (LGRFQ vs. LGKFQ). Could you explain how the known natural processes of mutation that we see in every generation could not produce that difference?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

You would have to show how the transitional mechanics fit into a nested hierarchy. This is the concept creationists consistently ignore, the nested hierarchy. If we were to find a fossil that is transitional between mammals and birds it would FALSIFY evolution. It is the PATTERN of transitionals that evidences evolution.

The theory of evolution predicts that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. That same theory also predicts that there were, at one time, species with a mixture of earlier ape features and modern human features. Why wouldn't a fossil with a mixture of earlier ape and modern human features be evidence in support of that prediction? Then why don't we see a smorgasboard of features? Why don't we see mammal to bird transitionals, or lizard to whale transitionals? Why do we only see the transitionals predicted by a nested hierarchy, the same pattern that the theory of evolution predicts we should see?

There are multiple violations of your proposed hierarchy. For example, there are models of light trucks and cars that share the same engine while two cars from the same model have different engines. Automobiles do not fit into a nested hierarchy.

Homoplasies are extremely rare in evolutionary trees, but they are rampant in any attempt at putting vehicles in a nested hierarchy. Vehicles don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Complex eukaryotes do. That's the difference. Your point is worthless since it is the nested hierarchy that evidences evolution, and your examples don't fall into a nested hierarchy.

That's such a tightly woven circular argument that it may collapse into a singularity. You have to assume from the start that life is designed in order to claim that they are designed.

We have the genomes which tell us all of the mutations that are needed. You don't have to assume or imagine anything. They are right there. The explanation for how humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes is the mutations that separate us from other species.

Then how do you explain the physical differences between chimps and humans if it isn't the genetic differences that separate them? What causes those physical differences if it isn't mutations? If most mutations are deleterious, then how are humans able to survive with 40 million mutations compared to the chimp genome? If we look at other species there are even more differences. How is this possible?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.