Popoi: Forms don't fossilize, individual organisms do. Counting forms to determine the probability of finding a particular form makes no sense. If you have 1000 pennies, and 19 other coins from various countries and denominations all in a bag, what are your odds of finding a penny if you draw one at random? By your fossil reasoning, you have a better chance of finding a foreign coin than a penny because there's only 1 penny form but there are 19 non-penny forms. In reality, your chances are higher of finding a penny because there are more individual pennies than there are other coins.
Now this is an example of a false analogy. In this analogy I would predict you have more chance of finding a penny, and the 1000 pennies would represent the transitionals but you haven't given a reason why there would be so many pennies. That's your error - there is no SPECIAL reason why we would treat evolutionary forms as different from real lifeforms that show up in the fossils.
You can't say that we would expect a thousand forms of bat, or millions in numver, but only small numbers for the several species that led to them because transitional forms WOULD BE no different from any other forms of life.
Again, the logic fails, because you have to go back to awarding evolutionary forms some type of special permission or some special value real lifeforms don't have. You forget these evolutionary forms were supposed to also be real. So you are committing special pleading, only in a more subtle way. You can never say, "transitional forms have this special value and would be few, all of them, but real lifeforms wouldn always be plentiful in number" because you have to reason that "ALL" evolutionary transitionals would be few.
Think about it - no matter what argument you come up with, you still have to argue that ALL evolutionary forms would have value X, but real lifeforms would not, because ALL of the intermediates are missing.
So what circumstance can you imagine where only evolutionary forms would happen to be missing? Even if we accept some astronomically silly argument that "all evolutionary transitions should be missing but not real lifeforms" then what would that make your argument? It would make your argument the weakest conjecture on earth that could be described adequately as, "utterly plastic, unfalsifiable gibberish that gets evolution off the hook".
Until you see why whatever reason you come up with you have to apply it to all transitions alone but not real life, you won't see why it will always be a double standard.
Individual organisms are forms, when I say, "form" I simply mean an organism you find in the fossil, of a form that tells you the anatomy. You just don't get what I mean, that's all that's happening here Popoi.
Let me explain something very simple - if life on earth evolved, then to get something with legs, you need something else to become wings through transitionals, to get something that flies, of all the types of fliers, if they propose they evolved from something non-flying with limbs, they have to go through intermediate transitionals. So for every such comment we can add the question; "by chance would we only ever expect to see the final product of bat, butterfly, pterodactyl, dragon-fly, pterosaur, winged beetle but never any intermediates?"
Now logically you MUST ask that question of every such transition. So from four-legged reptile to sea reptile or four-legged mammal to sea-mammal, you ask the question again; "by chance would we expect to NEVER see the intermediates showing how evolution achieved this but always the final product?"
Now go through the list of things that MUST have went through intermediate stages. You end up asking that question again and again and again, and if your argument is that it is realistic we would only ever see the final product then you're being ridiculous, for there can be no special reason that would allow all such evolutionary forms to always be hidden, but the final product revealed.
If life on earth evolved, it follows that most of life on earth has been transitionals, for everything we now have, platypus, bunnies, snakes, turtles, bats, pterosaurs, dolphins, jellyfish, seahorses, whatever it is, it had to evolve from something else, and that route of evolution from A to Z means they had to go through B, C, D, E, etc....so for example a bat evolved they say, from a quadruped mammal, meaning it had to lose it's design of all four legs on the ground, so to get to a bat-wing, that's many more "forms" in order to evolve bats. It is the same with all the dinosaur kinds, none of them have ancestors and there are hundreds of them.
Your problem is, these intermediates would just be lifeforms the same as any other, meaning if we put all of life in the mix, and all of the evolutionary forms in the mix, if you count those thousand pennies again as the transitionals of evolution, imagine if to represent the fossils record, you chose only a portion, say 16 coins, and all of them were NOT pennies.
That would never happen. I'm sorry but that is what you must argue for evolution, because those intermediates are simply not there, and the problem is, there is simply no reason why the fossils would only hide evolution.
Popoi: The difficulty with fossils is that we can't know how many of a particular type we should expect (if any) based only on the fact that there had to be a bunch of types
But does that allow us to infer that, "therefore we would only expect non-transitional fossils, and only real lifeforms"? You see, you can reason all you want, but you're in a cul-de-sac, and there isn't any way out for evolution.
Popoi: This is another apparent fundamental error.
No, this is a second question-begging-epithet from you. "another" implies there was a mistake to begin with, which thus far you have not shown, let alone a second error.
Popoi: As I explained before, fossils are not a matter of "If X exists, we can find it here".
Well, this is an error from you, because it isn't my argument. Strawman fallacy. My argument is, with a WHOLE fossil record which must reflect the life that has existed on earth, there is no reason why that record would hide all of the transitionals of evolution.
Popoi: But it's still not that, because not everything that exists leaves behind remains to find. It's "If X existed, we might find evidence of it". Because it's not something that happens every time, finding a fossil of a species does not imply that you will find another fossil of a different species in the same area. The best you can do is a statistical argument that if there were X individuals present and the probability of them ending up fossilized is Y we can expect to find X*Y fossils, but to do that you need to know X and Y, which as far as I know haven't appeared in your arugments yet.
You didn't address the double-standard fallacy, which is the most important part of my argument. Even if you don't expect to find X fossils, it would never, ever, ever follow that you could say; "we would not expect to find any transitional intermediates at all, for bats, pterosaurs, butterflies, ichthyosaurs, dugongs, dolphins, seahorses, jellyfish, bunnies, platypus, trees of all sorts, turtles, apes, and every kind of dinosaur".
Popoi the point is, no matter what excuses you come up with, evolutionary transitionals are just species like all others, and if we evolved, transitionals would outnumber the real lifeforms I have just listed, by 10 to 1. Think about it, if there are 500 basic dinosaur kinds and they MUST have each evolved from an ancestor, even if we only say each needs say 5 transitions, which is immensely generous of me logically, then that would mean 2500 transitionals for dinosaurs had to evolve between the permian or thereabouts, and the jurassic, and there are 500 dinosaur basic kinds.
So 2500 transitionals, 500 basic dino kinds. We find the dinos, we find ZERO intermediates. Or are you saying dinosaurs didn't evolve? If pterosaurs/pterodactyls and bats had to evolve from quadrupeds that walk on all fours, are you saying there wouldn't be any intermediate stages between walking on all fours and flying? How many stages would have to occur? I'm generous, let's say 5 major stages, and the same for things going from being terrestrial to sea-dwelling or vice-versa. Add them up, the maths is very easy, very soon you end up with many more transitionals that would have had to exist but have never been found.
Is that a realistic prediction of evolution?
You're determined to find a way out for evolution but there just isn't one, to only ever find the completed and real lifeforms they CLAIM evolved leaves a person of logical understanding with supreme confidence that evolution simply did not happen. That is the best explanation.