Is tiktaalik or archeopteryx a “transitional form”?
Of course they are transitional forms. Tiktaalik has some features of a fish, but is not a fish, and some features of an amphibian but is not an amphibian. (See first link below.) What else would one need to qualify as a transitional form between fish and amphibians? And archaeopteryx has some reptilian features and some bird features, and yet does not clearly fall into either category. So again, what else is needed to qualify as a transition form between reptilians and birds? So the only way to stick to the claim that there are “no transitional fossils” is if one maintains a definition of ‘transitional fossil’ so vague, so badly defined, that it is *by definition* impossible to meet! >”I believe all fossils are transitional, but the top search results are “_____is a hoax/fraud/lie/debunked/creationism so I’m kind of confused. ” That’s because that is the express goal of Creationist sites … to leave you confused! If they actually had any respect for science, they would not refer to t
