What would a transitional fossil look like?

I'm sorry, I do get impatient. So far you haven't but others accuse me of stuff that is false and everybody seems to have to find some nitpicky way what i'm saying is wrong whereas if you just read what I wrote and thought about it I don't think it would look that way to you. Cats' bodies are flexibility, dogs' are not. This doesn't show on skeletal illustrations except by the upright posture of the dogs, it's just something that is also true and differentiates between them. AND behavioral characteristics as well. OK? I guess I should spell it all out every time but I don't see why normal intelligent people can't figure it out. Cats and dogs ARE built differently AND they act differently even if their skeletons look the same in an illustration. \\And I continue to insist that a chimpanzee is NOT built the same as a human being. Long muscular torso, long muscular arms, very short legs, hand-like feet, heavy head with jaw forward , squashed nose, etc etc etc etc etc. Cats and dogs have the same skeletal parts too but they are very different creatures by their flexibility versus rigidity and behavior, and so are the chimp and the human being that different. The differences are far greater than the similarities.

Not by MY logic, by YOUR twisted logic. You simply refuse to get the whole picture. All you and everybody else is doing is refusing to consider a different way of putting the facts together out of sheer prejudice in favor of the ToE. What a bunch of self serving boobs.

...Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's not that cats NEVER raise their heads or that dogs never lower theirs, and it isn't always about stalking, but I'm claiming that cats more characteristically move with their heads lowered than dogs do. MORE LATEREdited by Faith, : No reason given.

I already counted dogs' tailwagging among other things. You really do need to pay attention.

I brought up genomes many times. Where have you been?

Yeah this is a fairly new angle for me on this subject. I'm still big on the argument that you have to run out of genetic variability with strong selection that produces dramatic new gene frequencies in a reproductively isolated population, but just from the point of view of how a given creature is put together and how it behaves there is certainly enough reason to consider this a likely definition of a Kind, and recognizing that the basic structure doesn't change (HOX genes) while many other changes occur from generation to generation and all the more so under selection pressure and the formation of reproductively isolated populations, similarly points to a built in limit to evolution. Once you've got fixed loci for the main characteristics you just don't have enough variability for the population to keep on changing. You can talk about it from the point of view of the genome or from the point of view of the phenotype. The evo bias is hard to overcome of course.You know, the evo bias that says microevolution just continues and continues until you have a completely new species. Now that IS hilarious.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The bodies I have in mind are identical, not merely similar, except that they may vary in proportions: size and length and that sort of thing. But all dogs have a rigid skeleton with the same kind of feet, all of them, and dogs all bark and wag their tails etc etc etc. Cats have somewhat similar skeletons but they are very flexible. If you pick one up it will drape floppily over your arm unless you support it whereas a dog doesn't bend. Cats also have retractable claws that are not at all like a dog's toenails, and they meow. Etc etc etc. Your comparisons are ludicrous, the similarities are really broad and there is no way you are going to get a seal from a penguin. Sheesh. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm happy to hear about regulatory genes that determine what the HOX genes do in a given creature. That makes sense.Yes genes make proteins but particular alleles make particular proteins that form particular traits. Are you going to argue with that? If HOX genes make an arm in one creature but a flipper in another I'm not sure why you'd want to make a big deal out of that.As for some trilobites rolling up I'll have to think about that but offhand it doesn't suggest more than some difference in the way the appendages are arranged, or whatever they are called. The fact that they all have that same overall shape means structure versus a less fixed sort of characteristic. I just can't look at all those various trilobites without putting them in the same class, even the ones where they look like they've unraveled as it were, because they still have that same basic arramgnement of parts.I don't know which part of what I've said you find so difficult. Body structure doesn't vary much from generation to generation although I suppose it could under certain circumstances, at least in the sense of size, proportion etc., but when I'm talking about changed gene frequencies I'm thinking of what I call the "superficial" characteristics, the eye color, fur color, textures, shapes of features, stuff like that, which vary a lot and

Cats' claws are very sharp, dogs' aren't. That's the difference I have in mind. But it's interesting that cheetahs have a different kind from other cats -- "semi" retractible according to Google. Offhand I'd guess there may be a genetic reason for the difference due to the large number of homozygous characteristics of the cheetah, but of course the design does suit the creature's needs. But the difference isn't really all that great. It's still a cat and nowhere nearly doglike. However, I will take it under advisement. Overall I'm interested in the fact that there is a catness to cats that sets them apart as a species, a dogness to dogs and so on and so forth.

Piffle.Not to mention pish and tosh and the like.

Yes, which is not exactly news to me. But I'm one creationist against what, a dozen, hidebound believers in the ToE which makes the contest extremely unbalanced. I suppose I just shouldn't be here at all.

CUZ all cats have sharp claws, with a slight exception for the cheetah I guess, whereas singular characteristics aren't structural IMHO.

I'm a creationist, I'm objecting to the ToE, capiche? I'm not impressed with the "Job-like" patience of people who believe something I object to so strenuously. Why would you expect me to? Sometimes I do get useful information from my opponents, however.Your apparent certainty that I need "help" is of course a measure of your faith in the ToE. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You think those forty million differences are mutations, I do not. That much ought to be clear from everything I've said. I think the differences are built in from Creation. Mutations don't do much of any value where they do occur.We have a disagreement about what I meant. I was only saying that IF you could get a chimp genome from a human genome you'd get a chimp. But I don't think it's possible at all, and mutations certainly couldn't do it.