Originally posted by Hortlund
But that is the entire point. There are no transitional forms.
OK here's the quote again with the proper emphasis for the hard of comprehension:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level
but are abundant between larger groups."
Now as I understood it you were saying that they were no tranistional fossils. "Make no misstake[sic] about it. NO such fossil has ever been found." So with that fairly unambiguous statement in mind: "generally lacking" doesn't mean there aren't any. Indeed neither does "extreme rarity" in the original quote. It just means there aren't many.
That means there ARE some. And the area where there aren't so many is species transition.
It becomes pointless if you want to argue that there are transitional forms "between larger groups". For example, someone claims that the axchepoluys (yeah, I know I spelled it wrong) is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. But the problem is that there were birds before the axchepoploulys. It is clear then that the evolution from dinosaurs to birds was not
dinosaur -> axcopopulous -> bird.
In fact it seems to be more like
dinosaur ->dinosaur
bird -> bird
axcoipolopus->axciopolus
Axcopoluoys is simply a species of its own. But it fits to place it between dinosaur and bird, simply because it looks like half bird, half dino. It is kinda like that Australian abomination with that I forgot the name of right now which looks like a weird collision between a duck and a beaver. I mean, no one claims that that animial is the transitional form between beavers and ducks, but 100 000 000 years from now, when the scientists look at the fossil record they'll go "yes, the link between birds and mammals, finally".
I just based the argument according to
your definition of a transitional fossil - "Transitional fossils can occur between groups of
any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc"
As to archaeopteryx being simply a species on its own - that is not in any doubt. Just like lions are a species on their own. But is it a bird or a dinosaur (hint: "bird" and "dinosaur" are not species)? It has teeth - which birds don't, but dinosaurs do - it has feathers & and an opposable big toe which birds do but dinosaurs don't.... (although there were a couple of other feathered dinosaurs discovered recently).
Could we say that it's "an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two." In which case it fits your definition again.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html .
Interesting you should mention the duck-billed platypus because it (like the other two monotremes) does have transitional qualities too -
"In general, the platypus has a fascinating mixture of reptilian and mammalian features. Mammalian traits include fur and mammary glands. Reptilian traits include the laying of eggs, and a common rectal and urinogenital opening, or cloaca (hence 'monotreme', Latin for 'single hole'). There are a number of skeletal features of the pectoral girdle that are found only in therapsids, extinct mammal-like reptiles thought to be ancestral to mammals. This mixture is even found at the cellular level; the chromosomes and sperm of platypuses display both reptilian and mammalian traits." (Griffiths, 1988)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html And while the second law of thermodynamics may not have been proven wrong, your ridiculous interpretation/extrapolation of it doesn't stand up to even a cursory gedankenexperiment. Evolution no more violates the second law than a baby developing in the womb does, or the formation of chemical compounds or crystals... or etc etc etc...
