Wibble: There are about 250,000 fossil species...............I don’t know how many transitional fossils there are but Wiki has a referenced list of over 200.
Let me come out of debate-resting for just one moment. You do realise that if we assume that 200 fossils are transitionals, this means out of 250, 000 fossil finds 0.08% are transitionals?
But that is being generous, a lot of the "transitionals" on their list are only assigned to be transitionals, without any proof. For example the closest, "transitional" to an Ichthyosaur, which they would no doubt count as a transitional, is a four legged reptile, but an Ichthyosaur is a sea-reptile with fins, that is homoplastic to a dolphin.
So to simply class that as a transitional, would be ludicrous. (so have you checked for each of their claims, if their purported candidates represent any actual "transition", or whether they are just nominated to be transitionals? My experience of evolutionists is that when you look into their claims of transitionals, you find species which are basically simply chosen to represent a transitional, when it seems clear there isn't necessarily any connection between their candidate they call a progenitor, and the, "descendant".)
So before I take my rest from debate, I ask the readers this question - if the fossil record is basically a history of life on earth would you expect 0.08% of the fossils found to be transitionals? To my mind, 0.08% of the fossil record should be the creatures we find living on earth today, if history is a history of macro-evolution.
Your problem is Wibble, you claim macro-evolution evolved everything we see today, including all mammals, at a time when the fossil record, "recorded" this event.
So then logically it is of 100% irrelevance how fragmented that record is.
By analogy, imagine if I said to you, "we have 100 bags, and those bags are largely representative of containing tools, and in 100 bags, there are 80 tools in each bag and 20 toys in each bag."
Now let us open those bags, knowing they are representative of tools like the fossil record is representative of an evolution of life on earth, but now let us pretend that we only get to choose 5% of the objects since you highlighted that figure.
So then 5% of 10,000 is 500. Let us now divide 500 by 100 since there are 100 bags. That's 5 objects we get to pick out of each bag. Now with 80 tools in each bag and 20 toys all evenly mixed (since transitional can occur at any stage in history) imagine if from those bags we got 0.08% tools and 99.92% toys, when there are allegedly 20 toys in each and 80 tools in each.
Would we be able to change our conclusion and in fact say the bags largely represent toys? Somehow I think so.
If 0.25% would be 1 and 1/4 of a tool, then what would 0.08% represent? It means that if we round it up we found out of 500 selections, 499 toys, and about 90% of the 500th toy, and about one quarter of one tool. So that would be like basically picking approximately 500 toys from the bags, out of our 500 selection, and only picking the head off of a hammer, from one bag. And you think our conclusion should be that this selection represents best, tools? That's hilarious!
Toys = Animal kinds, extinct or extant.
Tools = Evolutionary transitionals.
100 bags = 100 "stages" of history. (for arguments sake)
5% of the 10,000 objects = the 5% of the fossils.
.....I rest my case.
[mc]*Applause from the jury*[/mc]
(mc = mischief content)