</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) As for Archaeopteryx, there is evidence that it is simply a different species of bird, now extinct.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Perhaps biologists would classify it as a bird. How we would classify it makes absolutely zero difference. What matters are the physical characteristics of the animal. This bird/reptile/thing has characteristics of both birds and reptiles. This is what is considered to be "transitional" as opposed to what YOU would consider to be "transitional" which is made very obvious in the following statement...
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Do we see a fully formed turtle or a transitional one?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
By "transitional" it appears that you mean "partially formed" which is absurd. Based on that statement it is safe to say that you still don't understand how natural selection or evolution works and you either misunderstood my last post or just ignored it. Evolution predicts that we will very very rarely if ever find a "partially formed" animal. If you had read/understood my last post you'd realize that every organism is "transitional" between its parents and its children. You are "transitional" between your parents and your children. Office 2000 is "transitional" between Office 98 and Office XP.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) The purpose set out at the beginning of this discussion was to debate evolution, not Creation.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
You clearly disagree with the theory of evolution. This indicates that you have an alternative explanation. As I said before, we want to hear this alternative and the evidence that supports it. Explaining evolution is fun, defending evolution is boring as it is its best defense.
LogicaLunatic