Originally Posted by Russ
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:

Originally Posted by talk origins website
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/M002A

What 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.
You obviously disagree with this definition. So, maybe you will answer my question: What is the original (correct) definition of "transitional"? You know...the one that Talk Origins redefined.

Quote
Consider this simple, common sense question:

Don't you think a "transitional fossil" should show clear signs of being from a transitional form?
And those "clear signs" would be what exactly? For example, if a transitional existed between reptiles and mammals, what "clear signs" should we see to identify it as a transitional form?

Quote
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.
Do you believe that "mosaic of features" is the only criteria that paleontologists use to classify a fossil as a transitional?


A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke