Evolution is not science

They are all transitional. So, the only thing you could be saying here is that there is some debate over whether or not they are fossils.Can you either a) demonstrate that there is in fact a debate over whether or not they are fossils? or b) Can you provide a list of the finds which you think are not fossils (or at least an explaination as to what they are if they are not fossils)?As for the off chance that you meant that they are not transitional, there are only three posibilities.
1) You are extremely ignorant of the topic in which you are trying to hold a discussion
2) You are not ignorant, but are deliberately pretending to be in order to try and score some unfathomable point.
3) You are not ignorant, but are deliberately pretnending to be because you have some sort of bizarre sense of humor which is going over all of our heads.Is it 3? Please say it's 3

Haha! Now I know you are joking!You had us going for a bit there, but you gave it away with your other posts.You say that fossils should be tranistional. We point out that they are.
You say that transitonal fossils should have features present in different animals. We point out that they do.
You say that "tranisitional" only makes sense as a word if you believe in evolution.Since you are the one that brought up "tranisional" in the first place, you've pretty much given away the store. You're an evolutionist playing Devil's advocate.You really had me going for a bit there, though. Good game.Here's a great one to use for people in the future though."You guys claim that all numers are transitional. You say that there's a 1 and that there's a 5, but then shouldn't there be a... I don't know, a "3" or something?""Actually there is a 3""Oh, sure, you say that now, but what about a 2 or a 4?""Yeah, we've got a 2 and a 4""Oh yeah, but what's in between 2 and 3?""That would be 2.5""Yeah, but then what's between 2.5 and 3?""2.75""Oh yeah, well, I don't believe in decimals, therefore God created 1 and 5 and there is no 2,3 or 4! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm taking my ball and I'm going home."That's a great one! Use it in some other thread, you'll really trick the fundies into thinking you're one of them

What the heck is "net information"?Are you saying that if you take a person and they have X amount of DNA and you make a chance inside the DNA, they still have X amount of DNA?In other words, this number is 5 digits long: 12345
This other number is also 5 digits long: 82395Both numbers have the same "net" information, in that they are both 5 digits long?If those numbers represented dollar amounts, you would be happy with either because they contain the same net information? Or do you think, maybe, that one of the numbers has a different value than the other?

Frank.Prove me wrong.

I dunno how late or short he was. Wallace had his paper written and sent it to Darwin who'd been dillydallying for decades. Kinda kicked the old man into high gear.Wallace's work, though significantly less controversial, was extraordinarily well documented. It just happened to be nearly completely about beetles.The jump from beetles to all of life was an obvious one, but one that stirred up the thumpers.Perhaps if it was "Wallacism" we were talking about, there wouldn't be such a feverent backlash.