Quote Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

Originally Posted by Pahu78
True, but the fact remains that after finding millions of fossils of perfectly functioning life forms, not one transition has been found from one species to a different species as evolution requires. Doesn't that seem odd, if they really exist?

Well that's an age-old creationist lie, one of the most blatant and persistant.

You mean transitions that don't exist like this list:
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^^There are even nice little paintings to help you understand
I read the article and found that it speaks of similarities, not transitions from one species to a different species. The pictures confirm this fact. That is why it can make the assertion that ??Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception.?

Since ??transition? is being substituted for ??similarities,? (??An ideal list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, i.e. those forms morphologically similar to the ancestors of the monophyletic group containing the derived relative, and not intermediate forms.?) that assertion is valid since all life forms share similarities.

This is what some scientists say on the subject:

??The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.? [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.? [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

??Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.? [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]

??At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the ??official? position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).? [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

??The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ??fully formed.??? [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

or maybe these:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

I could go on.

The only place that they don't exist is in your own mind

Don't even get me started on the retroviral evidence - it'll make a monkey's uncle out of you!

More creationist double-think.
Or, the only place where transitional fossils exist is in your imagination. If you are interested in the truth, you will find a thorough rebuttal of ??29 Evidences For Macroevolution? here: - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1 -