Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!asgb!hao!ward
From: ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Not Surprising, Twice
Message-ID: <1503@hao.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Apr-85 19:39:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: hao.1503
Posted: Tue Apr 30 19:39:59 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 3-May-85 03:32:06 EDT
References: <982@uwmacc.UUCP> <515@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 18

> I think that was precisely *my* point.  Creationists claim there are no
> transitional forms.  When transitional forms are pointed out they say
> "Well, that isn't a transitional form..."  I have, on previous occasions,
> tried to elicit from creationists exactly what they would expect a tran-
> sitional form on the reptile-bird continuum to be -- if not the sorts of
> things that we find in the fossil record.  I have yet to get an answer,
> reasonable or otherwise.  Methinks they expect a unicorn...(it's a whole
> lot safer if nothing can meet the criterion.)

It's obvious from the writings of creationsist what they think
a transitional form should be: anything that would prevent an
organism from surviving.  If an adaptation has survival value,
it's evidence for a designer.  If a unicorn were discovered,
it would be evidence for a designer.  A transitional form is
a form that bridges any two forms that we know about.  If we
know about it it cannot be transitional.  

Isn't that simple?