The comment was not directed at you but you seem to be saying that there is no way to determine what a transitional creature would look like. If this is so, then how can you be so positive that the transitional forms put forth by paleontologists are not transitional forms? What do you use to determine the creature is not a transitional between x and y?
I can't speak for others. I use my brain, and such common sense as I have obtained one way or another.
When a story is internally inconsistent, I reject it. Same happens when it includes special pleading or other fallacies.
"Dinosaurs evolved into a 'primitive bird', which was the ancestor of all birds at a time when 'modern birds' already existed." That's an internally inconsistent story. I don't think anyone can actually believe it on their own. Those who make a large enough effort may receive divine assistance.
Enter special pleading: "The 'primitive bird' had actually been around longer - it just doesn't turn up in the fossils". On the principle that things can exist without leaving fossils, the whole evostory can be discarded if one so chooses. Or is there some rule that special pleading is valid in emergency situations to salvage failing faith?
We have at least a couple of threads already. I'm thinking most of this ground's been covered. Every evolutionist dreams of the day when they'll find a "transitional" series. If one is ever found, they won't need to quibble over what "transitional" or "intermediate" means any longer.
