Barbarian observes:
Since RD seems to have conceded the fact that evolutionary theory is supported by numerous transitional forms and by the lack of transitionals where they shouldn't be, let's move on to other unequivocal and unambiguous evidence for common descent.
Anyone want to look at genetics next?
Since RD has done no such thing,
Since you haven't been able to find any examples, I assume you now realize that the claim of missing intermediate forms is a lie. If you'd like to backtrack and show us an example now, we can reopen the question. But until then, it's dead.
let's actually talk about facts instead.
Does that mean you're going to actually provide some evidence for your new beliefs, instead of generic ad homs?
The Barbarian is a very confused individual who has accepted fake knowledge in place of real knowledge.
Guess not.
Genetics will fail your theory even more so than "transitional fossils",
Sounds like another testable claim. Let's see if your belief matches reality...
since genetics is actually something that CAN be studied with repeated experimentation
Yep. For example, Linnaeus, hundreds of years ago, worked out a family tree of living things, based on their structure. Darwin predicted that it would be shown to be a map of common descent. And not surprisingly, genetic analysis shows the same lines of descent as Linnaeus, to a very high degree of precision.
Another example was the discovery that humans and other apes have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have one pair less, but one pair looks remarkably like two ape chromosomes linked together. Scientists predicted that there was a fusion of the two chromosomes. Investigation showed the remains of telomeres (sequences marking the end of a chromosome) precisely where they would be if there had been a fusion.
Another experiment involved the GULO gene, which was at one time responsible for producing vitamin C in primates. But all apes, including humans, have a broken version of the gene. It doesn't matter, because apes have a diet so high in vitamin C that it's unnecessary.
Other groups of animals also have inactive genes for vitamin C, but they are damaged in a different way than in apes. So we know this mutation occurred before the evolution of apes.
Stuff like that, as opposed to creationists making assumption about old bones in the ground. This is a major difference between creationism and science.
..challenged you to substantiate your claim that there are no transitional forms, is not something I really expect any of you to do. But if you claim that there are no transitional forms, perhaps you can step up and show me where they missing. You might have read the statement from YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, who conceded that they are numerous, giving many examples. Would you like me to show you that, again?
(more generic ad hom)
Perfect.
Are you suggesting that all life on earth shares a single common ancestor or do you have some other theory about the origin of life?
So far, all surviving life shows that there was a common ancestor. You have about as much in common, genetically with bacteria as you have differences. And we know this indicates common descent, since we can check genes of populations of known descent.
"Transitional fossils" have been the playground of the imagination for a very long time.
Since you can't find one case where there isn't a transitional, your claim falls apart on inspection.
Barbarian observes:
Dr. Wise (an honest creationist, remember) says you are wrong. If you're honest with yourself, you'll accept the fact and go on.
(desultory ad hom)
Pretty much all you have left, it seems.
