I already told you.

A fossil should only be called "transitional" if it is from a transitional form.

Well, since no transitional forms exist, and since transitional forms are required to maintain faith in the religion of evolution, talk origins -- and other evolution believers -- redefines the very concept of "transitional" to a wide-open definition so as to be blatantly deception.

Now, using their new definition, they can claim that "transitional" fossils exist simply because they have found "similar" fossils.

This is plain dishonesty. It certainly should not be considered within the realm of science.



You should know.

Let me help you.

First of all, because their are -- supposedly -- a very high ratio of harmful mutations to beneficial ones, we should find an enormous number of fossils that contain harmful mutations.

We don't.

We should also consider whether or not there really is such a concept as a beneficial mutation.

When you actually try to name one, you have to develop supporting subsystems with internal feedback mechanisms with supporting structures on multiple levels.

We all know that complex subsystems don't just form from a single mutation. So then you have to claim that each individual mutation forms a "part" that will later become part of a bigger, more complex system, and in order for this new "part" to prevent getting "selected out" by "natural selection", it must serve some beneficial function.

So you then paint yourself into a corner -- as do all religious cult beliefs -- that each and every part of every system and every subsystem and every feedback machanism upon every structure served a "beneficial" function at one time all by itself.

This problem becomes so absurd, that once a person is exposed to it, if they cannot see the absurdity of evolution, they can only be categorized as one of the following:

(1) Blinded (unable to think rationally) by their own overwhelming desires for evolution to be true,

(2) Blinded (unable to think rationally) by their fear of what others would think if they departed from a mainstream belief system, or

(3) Blinded (unable to think rationally) by their fear that such a large hoax could be perpetrated upon the world.

In any case, the evolution "believer" is unable to think rationally.

This is not an insult. I do not intend to insult people.

I tell the truth simply because the need for truth supersedes the need for emotional satisfaction in any civilized culture.

The current seduction leading the masses into emotionalism is leading to irrational behavior on a grand scale.

In short, your question cannot be answered in its current form because there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation.

Why?

Because complex systems, subsystems, and feedback mechanisms were designed to work together. If you change (mutate) any part of a system, it operates less efficiently or breaks down completely.

Short-sighted humans often claim that certain changes to nature are beneficial, but eventually come to realize that they are not beneficial at all.

Think genetically-engineered foods, for example.



There are none. The question is nonsensical and rhetorical -- which was my original point.

Systems are many parts working together.

Unless you believe that complex, interrelated systems form in a single mutation, you cannot rationally believe in evolution.



Yes, and according to the talk origins website, that is exactly the definition they use.

To you believe the talk origins website to be incorrect?