Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

So you're conjecture is that the pre hominid (australopithicines for example) were just as smart as we are?You seem to be saying that the ratio of brain to body mass would be the same across australopithicines and early homo species. Have you a reference backing this up. Or are you a "maker-up-of-factoids"
(mouf)(factoid --- something that looks like a fact but is not)
(contrast with factino -- is a fact but a small one)

This is a well understood fact. You've missed the point that the ratio of brain size to body size does correlate with intellectual capacity.And where did you get your brain volume information from. That may be the extremes of the range but it is not the normal range.edited to correct spelling (well make it a bit better)[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-24-2003]

No, of course not, how would you measure intellectual capacity of something that is not only dead but extinct.It refers to humans today mostly.You haven't cleared up some questions, could you do that now?

I hope, exlibres, that the replies to your post point out the danger of just taking stuff from creationist sites and assuming that you actually have some real idea of what the truth of the matter is.You have been mislead. If you wish to actually learn you should dig more deeply into each of the points that you seem to feel are so very telling as evidence against evolution (though even then it isn't evidence for anything.)

---

Common sense isn't

Unfortunately, neither of your references actually deals with the "half and half" aspects of Archaeopteryx.The first points out the bird like characteristics of it. But fails to mention the reptile like characteristics. Why didn't they mention them?The second just goes on about Archaeopteryx not being a modern bird ancestor. That may well be true but doesn't make Archaeopteryx less a part bird, part reptile.If I have misunderstood the point of your references perhaps you could do what you should have done in the first place and used those references to back up your own words. You can explain perhaps?

oops, click happy,deleted duplicate post[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-17-2004]

You have a small bit of confusion here.Let's say, just for a moment, that Archy actually is a 'transitional' form. Ok, what would you call it?There is no taxonomic term for something that isn't a bird but has feathers. Archy can be called a bird because it has several bird specific features, most notably feathers. Archy can be called a reptile because it has very clear reptile features. When it has both there is no name for it.So now the taxonomists start to argue. It's a bird! It's a reptile! It's a plane! The name isn't the point.If you want it to be a bird, then it is a bird with reptile features. If you want it to be a reptile then it is a reptile with bird features. It has both. This is exactly as you would expect in a transitional.

Just for fun, let's see you back this up. Just this once. Ok?

It appears that at least on biologist did say that the fossil specimens would fit in a coffin.Of course, in the last 20 years this has changed. I think but can't prove that it wasn't true in 1982. It certainly isn't now. There are many 10's of specimens. Some of course are easy to cram in since they may be only a tooth, others are skeletons that are much more than half complete.I can't tell if any of these are out of context since we don't have the context online.We'll have to have a look.

Thank you,Very thorough post!