And if evolution is assumed to happen then fossils exhibiting certain characteristics will be slotted in as transitional because the assumption demands that there be some.
I dealing with the rather narrow issue of defining a transitional. And the definitions so far assume the traits to be transitional (derived descendent is the term used) which make the definitions evolutionist definitions not scientific ones. Razd quoted what was described as a neutral (read: scientific) definition when it most certainly is not.
His complaint seems to be that opponants twist 'scientific definitions' whereas they are actually evolutionist definitions of fossils found. If it is as I see it then its a complaint that rings hollow. "You may oppose but you must assume our definitions to correctly describe the fossil found"
You have this ass-backwards.
The theory of evolution requires that if two markedly different species are related by descent, there will have been species transitional between these species. As there is no particular reason why these transitional species, of all species, should not be fossilized, some, if not all of them, should have been. As the form of these supposed transitional species would have been intermediate between the start and end species of the transition, this leads to a prediction:
If the theory of evolution is correct, there will be intermediate forms in the fossil record.
Now the question of whether form B is intermediate between form A and form C is
purely morphological: it can be decided from the study of form alone. No-one claims, as evidence for the theory, the theory-dependent proposition that intermediate forms represent transitional species; this would be circular reasoning, and scientists aren't idiots. Rather, the evidence for the theory is the theory-independent proposition that intermediate forms exist in the fossil record.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
