What would a transitional fossil look like?

I don't think this follows as a conditional implication. "If" X then "P". That would presume that people had no biases, but the world has chosen to believe the philosophical assumption that all answers must be scientific. In fact they accepted evolution even when they only thought it happened by natural selection. Had they not discovered mutations they likely would still believe that which deductively proves that people will believe what they want to believe.How in a world of science would I convince people the answer is not scientific if they are determined to believe the cause is scientific? This is a bare assertion fallacy. I asked you to prove the things you are saying to me, you are responding with insulting me, the very thing you accused me of.Just stating I am self-important, and I poorly thought out, etc.....isn't going to change the nature of reality and means those things are true because you stated them.I am not any of those things, but I understand that it makes you feel better by shouting them at me. I myself have no emotional need to insult you back so I will simply say, whatever.

This is a weak hand because the same thing occurs with evolution, it's called "homplasy".(shakes his head and sighs smiley needed.) Didn't you read about reversals and homoplasies? Of course there will be things that don't fit, that is because there was no actual evolution of vehicles.The point isn't to make something perfect because there is no perfect hierarchy for evolution, it has to ignore homoplasies too, to "work". My point is you can create such a hierarchy, it isn't that there was an evolution of cars in reality.LOL.My original point is that we can PROVE there are similar features in vehicles, you can make many look like "transitions", which logically PROVES, that a transitional can exist with designed things. So you're trying to now make out that I have to score through goals that I don't have to score through.My only point is you can expect transitionals ith designed things, therefore the conclusion "they can only mean evolution" is deductively a FALSE inference that doesn't follow.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I have to be fed and watered this has to end somewhere.I wouldn't put this argument forward, no, Lol. My syllogism for design is based on the law of identity, and isn't just a statement. It makes use of deductive reason to infer that design follows where we find the features of design if they are defining characters of design.In terms of a comparison it would obey the modus ponen rule thus;If you have all the defining parts that make you human, you are reasonably human.
Edge has all these parts.
Ergo Edge is human.I also express the potential errors in my own code to simplify;These are the things which DO NOT follow from my I.D syllogism;^x~p,

​

some x~p (equivocation of antecedent premise)

​

^similar x~p (equivocation of antecedent premise.)

​

^x~p, p ~ x. (affirmation of consequent)

​

That's just the formal stuff, the explanation of the formal stuff is tediously long to get into.