Well, how are they defining a "transitional fossil"?

Every fossil is transitional, but only in a tiny degree.

Take your pick! There's plenty of transitional fossils in the evolution of...

whales...

butterflies (albeit quite recent evolution)...

and, well, how about the transitional forms from amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, reptiles to birds, and primate evolution... HERE

I mean, these include, but are not limited to:

Thrinaxodon
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Exaeretodon
Adelobasileus cromptoni
The famous Archeopteryx lithographica
Sinornis santensis
Aegyptopithecus
Australopithecus afarensis

...and I'm tired of pasting links. There's gotta be a catch here somewhere, because as demonstrated here, there are thousands of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

>> ^thinker247:
But seriously, how about showing him a duck-billed platypus. Or maybe a carnivorous plant? Not that they're transitional by nature, but I want someone to refute evolution based on the belief that God created plants that eat insects, or a venomous mammal who lays eggs and looks like five animals put together.
That guy is going to be writing a lot of checks.


You sound confused. If you believe in creation, why not just come right out and say it?

In the debate between evolution and creationism, the creationist claim that science has not found the transitional fossils necessary to confirm the theory of evolution, i.e. 'we don't have all the evidene'. Yet, scientists, like myself, don't see that as a valid critique, because of the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports evolution.

My point being that, you don't need the whole story to find enough evidence to draw a conclusion, or at least eliminate an erroneous alternative hypothesis. As it stands, all of the scientific evidence examined and computer simulations done by NIST and other universities such as UMD, and CU supports the thesis that the collapse of all of the Towers(Including WT7) was initiated by the airplanes crashing. The fact that you and others like you have not read NIST's report to effectively know the points you are arguing against is similar to a creationist saying "I don't need to understand the theory of evolution, because I have read the bible".

Read the report. If you still don't agree with it, then your opinion, at least, is based on scientific fact and not conjecture. I should reiterate the fact that no accredited scientific source supports your conjecture. According to Wikipedia, Steven Jones, is regarded very poorly, and at the least is seen as incompetent and in the worst case a fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

Jeff King, as I pointed out in a previous post, cannot be confirmed as a research scientist of any kind, let alone at MIT.

You asked me to present you three scientists who were not related to the NIST investigation. That is a very challenging task, primarily because the federal government essentially charged NIST with the scientific investigation. In order to be involved in this research a significant part of the structural and metallurgical engineering community have collaborated. In fact, the way scientific research is done in most countries virtually NO SCINETIFIC RESEARCH IS DONE WITHOUT FEDERAL FUNDING. As a scientist in my experience, these granting agencies have absolutely no influence over the findings of the researchers. Moreover, unlike small research efforts like the cold fusion experiments in the 1980s, such a large collaborative effort makes the likely hood of scientific fraud exceedingly unlikely.

That said there are numerous examples of researchers who are not affiliated with NIST - here are three.

MIT civil engineers Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm
UMD fire protection engineer Howard R. Baum

A simple literature research would reveal more, but I am at home and I don't have time to go into work today and do a literature search for you.

I encourage you to go to your local library or university and do a literature search for yourself.

In reply to this comment by choggie:
....

You may compile a mountain of data, that describes in detail the whys and hows this event was as they say....and you forget, the most important aspect of arriving at a conclusion that there is.

How can you draw a conclusion, without all the information? You can't-and close don't cut it-There are too many holes in the data that any of these websites whose mission it is to prove it was a conspiracy, and the ones that say it can't possibly be. We are quite simply, not in the need to know group-...