Some definiton... There's nothing one can name that isn't "transitional" by that standard. Which is the whole point. You can say lizard is "transitional" between fish and porcupine; but you can just as easily rearrange it any way you please. Porcupine is "transitional" between lizard and fish; fish is "transitional" between porcupine and lizard. All three have some traits which are common and some which differ.
Certainly you are aware of the theory's statements that all organisms are transitionals. However, predictions of the future body plans for the decendents of living organisms is difficult and error prone.
Your straw version of what I said is quite untenable.
Untenable? It's non-existent. I don't need to make a straw man. Here's your definition again, as you seem to have forgotten, and can't be bothered to scroll up
Transitional forms are organisms that contain some traits of one type of organism and also traits of another type of organism which are not found in the first type of organism.
Of course a living fish isn't a transitional organism for a living species of animal.
According to that definition it sure is. Fish have spines and porcupines have spines. Lizards don't. That means the fish contains traits in common with the porcupine which the lizard does not share. Fish and lizards both have scales, but porcupines don't. It works just fine that way. Finally, Porcupines and lizards breathe air, but fish breathe water.
Your definition is all about sharing traits and not sharing traits. It becomes just a matter of looking for the traits, and you can plug in any critters you like any which way you like.
If a brother has a longer nose than his sister, he's a "transitional" with an anteater. If he has red hair and his sister doesn't, he's a "transitional" with a fox.
I didn't write that junk definition. Don't blame me. I'm just pointing out how absurd it is.
What strange books have you been reading that says the theory of evolution states anything like that?
I think you might try asking this question to yourself. You provided the definition.
Predictions like the silly thing you said don't exist except in those storybook websites you seem to browse. Predictions about the physical make up of transitional organisms almost exclusively restricts itself to fossil characteristics and locations.
Read what I said again, if you think I made a prediction.
Where would we be if Newton's laws of motion just said "an object may or may not move, and no matter what happens, I'm right"? Would such science do anyone any good under any circumstance? ANY AT ALL?
Yes it wouldn't be any good. I guess it is a good thing that is not anything like what I said.
Every last time the issue of "transitional" forms comes up, we get the same story: directly or indirectly evolutionists say every creature is a "transitional" form, so the "prediction" that transitional forms will be found has been "fulfilled". Well no kidding. Life has been found. Big whup!
Then we have to put up with all the talk about how ignorant or dishonest we are for not accepting it. It's a non-prediction when bogus definitions are plugged in. It's a mockery of science, and it has no value whatsoever.
Now when they're so inclined, evolutionists can define terms meaningfully. Those who do so, well, they end up concluding there ain't no transitionals, as we know.
Really? Then a few examples of evolution biologists or geneticists writing that there are no transitionals would help your cause. Care to present some? One?
Well, I may be too late. I don't know how many of the people Bex listed are "evolution biologists", whatever that's supposed to mean...
