For any thinking person, calling fossils "transitional" without requiring them to show signs of being transitional is openly and blatantly deceptive.
Yes readers, you read the article right.
Talk origins claims that the only requirement to call a fossil "transitional" is this:
What a transitional fossil is...is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
This is so blatant that I will leave it up to the reader to make this observation for themselves:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M002AWhat is deeply ironic is that they (talk origins) accuse creationists of redefining the word "transitional". This is astounding considering that talk origins does it in the same paragraph.
Consider this simple, common sense question:
Don't you think a "transitional fossil" should show clear signs of being from a transitional form?
Clearly, fossils that have "a mosaic of [similar] features" does not prove that they are transitional. It does not even infer that they are transitional.
This logic is not only a scientific deception, it is deceptive even on the basis of common human communication.
It is like saying that a ceiling fan has blades so it must be a jet turbine engine.
