To the contrary there are no transitional species to species of anything.
Is this a hypothesis? Would you like to attempt to prove that claim?
Much less a proliferation. You know part one species, and parts of others.
They do not exist.
Evolution is not a combination of species. That's intra-species breeding, and quite often those animals are produced sterile and die off. Perhaps that is why you don't see hybrids proliferating everywhere?
Despite that caveat, I can see where you're going with this and I'll try to interpolate the meanings behind your grossly misguided perception of what we're saying.
Everything is a transitional species because there is no "final" species. Similarly, a hole in the Earth 10 feet deep is no more or less of a hole than one that is 2,000 feet deep:
a hole is a hole. A species is a species because it
exists, not because it has reached a qualifying stage of sorts in the annals of genetics or layman observations.
All species are transitionary species because there is a 99.999% chance that within a given number of reproductions, there will be such significant genetic variation that the species will have
A) branched off into one that is unique, leaving the "parent" species to continue reproducing at will, perhaps due to localised environmental factors which have affected the outcome of the creatures. Or,
B) the species branches off (genetically mutates or
adapts* and retains advantageous qualities), and due to similarly different or changing environmental factors, the "parent" species dies off.
This brings into question "transition" species. Since the one that branched off has become a different species, what do you expect it to transition
to? Regardless of its' direction, it's always going to be either its' own species (which it very much is) or one that is in transition (which is also highly likely, providing it doesn't become extinct or environmental factors don't conspire against it.); it will always be
both.
*Adapt: Used here as a placeholder verb for an unintendedly beneficial change in the creatures' abilities at birth: they don't
will themselves to adapt—evolution isn't a conscious effort on the part of birds or cats and dogs who want to become more competitive in their environments. Their biology changes from generation to generation based the stresses of living conditions.
So, providing your definition of "transition" species isn't the same as it was before (was this really
that futile, or are you just looking to condescend to us?), do you see now the prolific amount of creatures "in transition"?
(If you would like a resource of species which have recently been shown to have "adapted" to their environments over the course of generations—not single lifetimes, since a creature that is already born can no longer "adapt"—I would be happy to provide you with one.)
You are confusing a "theory" about an exsisting, observable and readily demonstrative force or phenomenon with another (evolution) that is anything but.
Actually,
you are confusing the layman's use and interpretation of the word
theory with its' use within the fields of science. They are not interchangeable.
Just as Newton's theories of gravity were validated by observation (heavy ball falls at same speed of less heavy ball), so too are Einstein's theories on Relativity, which themselves are even an extension of the theory of Gravity.
A theory is not an idea—
that is a hypothesis—it's a theory because it can't be said to perform
exactly the same way ad infinitum, because we can't logically account for the infinite variations of conditions to affect it: hence it's left as a theory to accommodate for the off-chance that, if say
A cat in heat with four heads howls loudly enough, then gravity is reversed, the theory can be re-worked to appreciate that caveat.
(Einstein's path to fame was similarly marred with caveats—it took him another 10 years to complete the second theory of General Relativity, as distinct from Special Relativity, both of which have been experimentally verified.) In short, it leaves room for the unforeseen.
To make it a law, despite nontillion-and-two real-life observations, would still be jumping the gun: In science, a theory only becomes
theory once its' actually passed rigorous scrutiny—do you think it was
easy for Relativity to come acceptance? It had to compete with the conveniently simple explanation that light floated through a mysterious substance called "ether" (which wasn't actually a substance at all), that none of us could see or feel.
Changes might occur, with or without intervention, however evolution claims it occurred naturally without intervention so you have already left proof of the concept with any intervention.
No, there is no necessity of it occurring naturally. New genetic material is new genetic material—a lab result or not, it's still evolution. You are conflating this with Darwin's Victorian proposal of
Natural Selection—one which claims that a species better suited to its' environment will prevail over the inferior. (Thusly, their dominance results in the proliferation of those genes, and so it occurs that the better suited species flourishes.) These are closely linked, and though Natural Selection
is more appropriately observed
in situ, it also is not a requirement as defined to occur outside of a laboratory setting.
If, for instance, one creature being tested in a laboratory spawns offspring which are better suited to the environs present, and the previous generations are still struggling to survive long enough to reproduce, then it has still evolved, and prevailed in a form of Natural Selection (assuming the newer, more fit organism can survive to pass on its' "good" genes); setting (lab) has nothing and everything (struggle to pass on genes) to do with Evolution.
Since as demonstrated, a theory about a theory or even hypothesis are not proof, unless again individually believed to be, my question is on what do you base your belief in such as "matter of fact".
Since we're no longer operating under the previous definition of "theory", the one mostly commonly known as an "idea" (rather than the correct one that is a
scientifically derived series of observations explaining an event), would you agree then that this argument is moot?
It does go without saying, however, that dogma will be found within all circles of appreciation, be it religion, videogames, scientific endeavors—animé, even. Unfortunately, where the very nature of that appreciation often rests on forming logically coherent arguments, the reputations thus can oft suffer. In the case of Creation Vs. Evolution, I can only implore our contributors to take a breath and consider the methods of argument they're going to use.
Additionally, your comments help reinforce that.
And hopefully I've helped dispel it.
Sureboss
Oh my...
Seriously pal, do some research on evolution, so you actually get an understanding of this scientific phenomenom.
Platypus anyone?
Though I don't know why I'm bothering..
.
Sureboss, he's clearly here because he hopes to
A) shake our own assurances, or
B) learn more about it. If in the case of
A, he's failing terribly and needs to step up his game, as his arguments don't comprise of anything logically compelling. If in the case of
B, you're not helping anybody by telling someone to go look it up themselves (even if many who are/were genuinely interested had), and are suffering from the same pitfalls of not making a compelling (or logically valid) argument.
