[jeafl]

Quote by: MerlinsByte I should have clarified this term, as a debate is raging between the secular evolutionist and the creationists about this word. Transitional species is a misnomer of sorts, and I am leaning towards the secular evolutionists on the use of this term. Allow me to clarify my position. The fossil record prevents the complete specification of the line of human descent.

And the transitional sequence for any other living organism is any better?

Any legitimate scientist would do well to acknowledge that paleontology is a very inexact science- and since it not based on experimentation, I would not call it a true science at all.

Hard fossils (the most abundant type we have) usually can tell us nothing about its producer’s physiology. If we find a T. Rex without any fossilized internal organs, can we really know what it ate? If we find no fossilized reproductive organs, can we really know how this animal reproduced?

But, yet you can find a fragment of a jawbone and few teeth and you have an ape-man intermediate.

The gaps in the fossil record indicate that mans lineage cannot be traced back through the record with accuracy, and there is not a smooth progressive transition (of early hominoids) thus there is no transition to modern man.

In fact, some evolutionists, such as Lord Zuckerman, insist that Australopithecus was nothing more than an ape. It has the same characterizes that are found in modern apes now living in Africa.

But, the Australpithecines have become sacrosanct in standard biology textbooks- and God help any student who tries to tell his teacher otherwise.

On Archaeopteryx

I havent researched this , but it would be nice if true.

It’s in my notes, buried on my hard drive. I’ll try to find the reference for you.

BTW: Anyone know why the quotes in a message I am replying to are not included when I cut and paste so I can prepare a reply with a word processor? I’ve never known any other board to operate this way.