I had a look at the linked page. All I saw there was a pretty weak application of NERI (F) (see the full list of NERIs above). Did I miss something?

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3209

Unfortunately, the author seems to focus on those individuals who made the mistake of digging their own grave by needlessly asserting that transitionals dont exist.
While this may be true, the skeptic merely must demand principles of sound logic.
The evolutionist makes the claim that transitional fossils exist.
He who makes a positive assertion bears the burden of proof.

Rather than claim transitional fossils dont exist, the skeptic merely has to demand that the evolutionist provide examples of these transitional fossils and explain why they are seen as some transition rather than the imaginative interpretation of fossils of different TYPES of the same KIND of animals.

Of course, the discussion would inevitably lead into vestigial organs, irreducible complexity, etc…but the skeptic is within his rights to demand the evolutionists bear the burden of proof that comes with the assertion.

In strict logical & probabilistic terms a fossil can’t be proven to be the direct ancestor of any living species, but this goes for any old bones being ancestral to any living individual today that you don’t have a documented pedigree for. What fossil lineages represent are forms intermediate between one suite of characteristics and another, as required by neo-Darwinian evolution. Organisms with feature changes between two species states must themselves be viable, which is what fossil lines demonstrate. Thus we have the lineage required to link “reptiles” and “mammals” – the mammal-like reptiles are perfectly intermediate showing a clear transition, for example, from multiple bone structures in the lower jaw to a single bone, the maxilla. Yet as a group they are as bushy as fossil horses with many extinct lineages with no living descendents.
(ii)Archaeopteryx is usually claimed to be debunked because either it’s a fake, or else it’s a modern bird. The Hoyle-Wickramasinghe-Spetner fake fantasy was disproven years ago by the exemplar fossil’s owner, the British Museum, but that’s never stopped Creationists from quoting it as fact. The modern bird nonsense is a misreading of claims by ornithologists that Archaeopteryx is more bird and less reptile. This is an out-dated opinion and was never used by the researchers as a claim against evolution.

And as I pointed out before, Darwin did not say that we should expect to find an “infinitude” of intermediate forms.

This is still true, despite “mynym”‘s long-winded misunderstanding of what I said.

Again, “mynym” fails to address the evidence, preferring the comfort of Non-Evidentiary Response Items. I can understand the need the ideologically precommitted feel for hand-waving away the evidence, but I don’t have to concur with them.

I can answer these questions and objections only on the supposition that the geological record is…imperfect…”

There is the Darwinism of the gaps. Whatever looks a little similar or somehow supposedly fits a sequence, generally of smaller to bigger, aquatic to semi-aquatic to land and so on, will all support the evolutionist’s typical urge to merge. It’s not that they just arranged the environment in a sequence. No, the organisms must all be ancestral because of that arrangement and perhaps some just so narratives are thrown in or, “Hey, this has legs. And would you look at that, that has legs too!”

It’s not that they arranged things smaller to bigger. No, it is because the little things are ancestral to the bigger things. Or morphology, “Hey, you know, this looks a little like that! This leg, it looks like the one on the other side too. Hey, that must mean that the left leg is ancestral to the right leg!”

You can have fun with people who make the overbroad claim that “no” transitional fossils exist. What they’re really referring to is what type of narrative about origins is warranted based on the evidence.

And the simple fact is, people don’t care about the silly jargon and cherry picked examples based on micropaleontology and millions of fossils.

With that many things in transit it is easier to arrange a transition and begin to say, “Hey, all things share the same ancestor!”

Most micropaleontologists will have the urge to merge, so they will not tend to say anything until they feel safe enough to begin to argue among themselves. That is typical for evolutionists.

But anyway, the general pattern of Nature is typological, not sequential. This is what is observed empirically, again and again…and then, again and again. Some people willfully choose do fit the empirical to their type of psychology. Their type of psychology is quite clear, using esoteric jargon and dealing in foraminifera does not change that.

Most people are not interested in dealing with it. You should not assume that means anything other than that they are not interested in all the jargon and such. That’s why I did not reply until now when I came across an old bookmark. I’m not that interested in it either.

You’re making up the terms of what is “transitional.” And you don’t seem to understand that those who say there are “no” transitionals are also making up their terms.

It’s something that humans do, to name and classify.