The distinction gets clouded by the question. Springer asked for a living transition, I posed the fish as an example, one must then realise that the fish are not just going to wait around for millions of years, they too will evolve.
What I am asking for is a species that is transitional between one living species and another.
This is a slightly different question. Please clarify, do you mean you want a transitional for example between a Chimpanzee and a Gorilla (one living species and another)?
As you seem to be suggesting, no living direct ancestors can be found. If you accept the theory of the geologic column, the fossil record tells us that numerous species do not change over eons of time. In fact, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that requires change. Therefore, there is no reason to expect that all transitionals will become obliterated over time. Furthermore, the theory of punctuated equilibrium suggests that only small populations of a species evolve.
Correct, some species remain (outwardly) unchanged for eons.
Correct, stable environments do not produce as much change as changing environments.
Question if a transitional lives to the current does a fish qualify?
You seem not to be factoring in extinction, in addition to the Ã¢â‚¬ËœnaturalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ extinction caused by environmental change one should not forget this http://www.space.com...bar_000907.html
So a living transitional can be represented by an existing species, but it will be very unlikely to not have undergone some change itself, especially the further back in time one goes.
Any living species would qualify as transitional by your definition, because you assume that everything is evolving. Your repeated assertion that it is a species is Ã¢â‚¬Å“very unlikely to not have undergone some change itselfÃ¢â‚¬Â is incorrect. Are you referring to microevolutionary change as Ã¢â‚¬Å“some changeÃ¢â‚¬Â? If so, that would still not preclude my contention that living transitional species should exist today.
Please explain why you think it is incorrect.
Even if one entertains the concept of microevolution being distinct from macroevolution, if one found a fossil of a micro-evolved organism, would that qualify as a transitional? Say African and Indian elephant?
But what you are doing is only saying itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not the exact transitional, realistically what are the odds of finding the exact linage? Chances are you will only find representational finds, in the tree of life. E.g. if fish evolved into land species and the first attempts produced 100 variants but over time only one succeeded (lets say no 5 is our descendant, but the only fossil out of those 100 we find is number 66. 66 will still be a transitional.
I am not splitting hairs, as you imply. If evolution has been a global process in the past, it is reasonable to expect a continuum to exist between species, and that is far from the facts of nature.
No it is not reasonable at all, as I attempted to show with the example above. Please demonstrate why you think it should be reasonable to find the exact linage (given the fossilisation process, animal migratory habits and changing environments).
There are no proven examples of transitional species anywhere. With the myriad of species we have available to analyze, we cannot link any one to another (excluding microevolution). There are no proven transitionals in the fossil record. There are some that are touted to be, but the interpretation is subjective and the data very limited. The coleolocanth was believed for years to be transitional between fish and amphibians. That interpretation was changed only after living specimens became available for study. Similarly, if all apes were unknown to man and a fossilized chimp skeleton were discovered, it would be widely proclaimed to be a human ancestor. However, with the living animal available for study, it is universally agreed that it is not.
My contention is that to prove that if transitionals ever existed, evolutionists should be able to find numerous unequivocal living examples, and they canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. Instead of rigorously evaluating living species, the appeal to the fossil record, which is a highly interpretative area in which they are free to imagine whatever they please.
As a transitional Archaeopteryx qualifies nicely.
Living transitional is fraught with misunderstandings, e.g. would a non-gliding squirrel qualify as a living transitional, with the assumption that it is not yet evolved gliding membranes?