"It must be LARGER than the difference WITHIN a kind such as the various breeds of dog or the various kinds of birds...Having a TRUE perching bird with modern feathers capable of flight is NOT a way to show a lizard "becoming a bird"."
Bob, I have shown you in exquisite detail how Archaeopteryx has a large number of features that are well outside of the variation seen within any modern birds. Furthermore, and this is the important part, these same traits are well within the variation seen in the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved.
"I think a transitional must show stepwise MACRO evolution itself and not merely the MACRO differences that exist between species...SHOW the stepwise evolutionary changes in macro evolution."
But you ignore it when I do. How detailed do you want me to get here? I have given you a slice of the transitional series of animals that connect back to undisputed dinosaurs. I have given you hints at how the bodies of these animals changed during the process. I guess I can go into great detail if you wish, but there is a world of knowledge out there that you could look at on your own. I have given you several transitionals between archy and theropods. It is not that hard to Google them. You will find the bodies changing between that of the dinosaurs and that of the birds. You will find the developement of feathers. (Some of the theropods had simple feathers. As you move towards creatures like Caudipteryx you get larger, more complex feathers that are symmetrical indicating they were not flight feathers. Finally you get the asymmetrical flight feathers. That should work for step by step macro changes.) But I predict you will ignore this.
Likewise we can go through the evolution of whales. We can start with Pakicetus moving on to Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus. As we do, we can trace the changing body as a land dwelling creature becomes a sea going creature. We can see it in the bones. We can even measure ratios of oxygen isotopes to tell which ones spent how much of their time in the ocean and on land. Once we get sea going creatures, we can go on and look at the changes in Dorudon and Basilosaurus. We can even get into some of the others like Indocetus and Kutchicetus if you like. But again, I predict you will ignore the "macro"evolution no mattter how well it is presented to you.
Likewise, we can step through the evolution of the lobe finned fish from primitive fish. Show how some of the lobe finned fish developed a shoulder and pelvis and limbs and digits. We can show how these turned into actual legs. I can give you transitionals that spent more and more of their time on the land until you get full fledged amphibians. Have you even looked at anything on Acanthostega and Ichthyostega? I have given a brief description of them as transitional but there is a world of informaition out there for you.
I have given you a long series of progressive modifications that show the evolution of mammals from reptiles. http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html? Have you read it? Can you object to it? This is quite detailed in the "macro" changes and can get quite a bit more detailed if you wish.
If you want to get into finely detailed transitions between species then we can talk about Eocoelia or Foraminiferida or Orbulina or Pelycodus. But you would have to deny all this also. You might want to Google them just in case, see what you think.
You have even been shown the series of apes leading to modern humans. Of course, this you deny also.
The macro changes have been spelled out for you time and time again. You refuse to accept any of it. There is nothing wrong with the data that has been shown to you. You cannot find any real fault in it. Yet you continue to claim no transitionals. How do you deny the weight of the evidence before you? Do I need to become encyclopedic? Does it take research paper length posts?
"Show a trilobite with a simple eye-spot, then a single eye, then the emergence of multiple eye-spots around a single fully developed eye that merge over millions of years into compound eyes."
And I don't know why you continue to throw out this bizarre request. This is the same as asking to show you the early mammal with nothing more than an eye spot. By the time triolobites had evolved, they had eyes. Now I have shown you that the early trilobites had simple eyes and you can see the evolution of their complex eyes as you follow them with time. But you ignore this. Cannot let data interfere here. Besides, surely you are aware of how rarely soft tissue fossilizes. How often do you think something as delicate as an eye will fossilize with detail? Ever? (With trilobites we get lucky that their lens contains some calcite which let's us see some fossilized trilobite eyes, or at least the lens.) What would a fossil eyespot look like? You know that would not fossilize.
"This is "obvious" - but it is the data that the religion of evolutionism "needs to avoid"."
I do not think I am the one here ignoring data. Just an opinion.
Bob, I have shown you in exquisite detail how Archaeopteryx has a large number of features that are well outside of the variation seen within any modern birds. Furthermore, and this is the important part, these same traits are well within the variation seen in the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved.
"I think a transitional must show stepwise MACRO evolution itself and not merely the MACRO differences that exist between species...SHOW the stepwise evolutionary changes in macro evolution."
But you ignore it when I do. How detailed do you want me to get here? I have given you a slice of the transitional series of animals that connect back to undisputed dinosaurs. I have given you hints at how the bodies of these animals changed during the process. I guess I can go into great detail if you wish, but there is a world of knowledge out there that you could look at on your own. I have given you several transitionals between archy and theropods. It is not that hard to Google them. You will find the bodies changing between that of the dinosaurs and that of the birds. You will find the developement of feathers. (Some of the theropods had simple feathers. As you move towards creatures like Caudipteryx you get larger, more complex feathers that are symmetrical indicating they were not flight feathers. Finally you get the asymmetrical flight feathers. That should work for step by step macro changes.) But I predict you will ignore this.
Likewise we can go through the evolution of whales. We can start with Pakicetus moving on to Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus. As we do, we can trace the changing body as a land dwelling creature becomes a sea going creature. We can see it in the bones. We can even measure ratios of oxygen isotopes to tell which ones spent how much of their time in the ocean and on land. Once we get sea going creatures, we can go on and look at the changes in Dorudon and Basilosaurus. We can even get into some of the others like Indocetus and Kutchicetus if you like. But again, I predict you will ignore the "macro"evolution no mattter how well it is presented to you.
Likewise, we can step through the evolution of the lobe finned fish from primitive fish. Show how some of the lobe finned fish developed a shoulder and pelvis and limbs and digits. We can show how these turned into actual legs. I can give you transitionals that spent more and more of their time on the land until you get full fledged amphibians. Have you even looked at anything on Acanthostega and Ichthyostega? I have given a brief description of them as transitional but there is a world of informaition out there for you.
I have given you a long series of progressive modifications that show the evolution of mammals from reptiles. http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html? Have you read it? Can you object to it? This is quite detailed in the "macro" changes and can get quite a bit more detailed if you wish.
If you want to get into finely detailed transitions between species then we can talk about Eocoelia or Foraminiferida or Orbulina or Pelycodus. But you would have to deny all this also. You might want to Google them just in case, see what you think.
You have even been shown the series of apes leading to modern humans. Of course, this you deny also.
The macro changes have been spelled out for you time and time again. You refuse to accept any of it. There is nothing wrong with the data that has been shown to you. You cannot find any real fault in it. Yet you continue to claim no transitionals. How do you deny the weight of the evidence before you? Do I need to become encyclopedic? Does it take research paper length posts?
"Show a trilobite with a simple eye-spot, then a single eye, then the emergence of multiple eye-spots around a single fully developed eye that merge over millions of years into compound eyes."
And I don't know why you continue to throw out this bizarre request. This is the same as asking to show you the early mammal with nothing more than an eye spot. By the time triolobites had evolved, they had eyes. Now I have shown you that the early trilobites had simple eyes and you can see the evolution of their complex eyes as you follow them with time. But you ignore this. Cannot let data interfere here. Besides, surely you are aware of how rarely soft tissue fossilizes. How often do you think something as delicate as an eye will fossilize with detail? Ever? (With trilobites we get lucky that their lens contains some calcite which let's us see some fossilized trilobite eyes, or at least the lens.) What would a fossil eyespot look like? You know that would not fossilize.
"This is "obvious" - but it is the data that the religion of evolutionism "needs to avoid"."
I do not think I am the one here ignoring data. Just an opinion.
Most of his argument boils down to incredulity that scientists can actually learn what they can learn from the fossils.