With all the millions of years inbetween these major transformations, there would obviously be hundreds of millions of transitional fossils in between. I have never seen one (let alone millions), which I find unusual and hard to explain. Can you offer some ideas on this?

Mike
Have you ever been to a museum? If so, then you've seen transitional fossils. QED.

Mike C and Hardwood83 really need to watch the show and get some education. Here's the answer: EVERY species is a transitional one - from what is was before to what it will be. This show just concentrates on the dramatic ones. Evolution doesn't 'push' upward or any other way. There is no 'direction'.

Here's a simple example:

Start with a single species. Some of the members migrate, walk, fly, are pushed, etc into another different environment. They will evolve to match the new environment, the ones who remained behind won't. Eventually you have two species where there used to be one. The old ones didn't 'go away' and there is no 'upward' push - just change. There are many excellent books explaining this much better than I can in a blog comment. Have fun learning, it's an exciting subject.

Ok, Darth, I'll accept that for arguments sake- evolution is just random change then, not refining or improving, per se. But that doesn't explain the mechanic that is driving it, why are things changing and how do they get from innanimate to alive, simple to complex? We can't observe that so we have to go on the evidence, Agreed? So IF evolution is the epitome of life science then 'just because' is much less satisfactory then "In the beginning..." I need to know why something as incredible as abiogenesis happened (contrary to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics) before I will give any credence to evolutionary theory. Is that unreasonable, to expect a scientific theory to be scientific?

Trying to figure out the origins of life on Earth is like trying to win the lottery, which is essentially how the origin of life happened anyway. We are one planet in an unknown number in the universe, and the number of factors involved in life happing to exist here are beyond anyone's imagination. While we seek to scientifically try to disprove theories in order to arrive at the truth of how life arrived here, isn't it safe to say we won the cosmic lottery? Honestly, it's probably something like a 50 trillion to one shot we exist in the first place. Trying to find that one key combination is like trying to crack encryption methods we haven't even concieved yet with a Commodore Vic 20.
The fact that the Earth is even here for life itself is yet another lottery won. To say that were here because of aliens is actually not too far off from my own theory. Judging by the fact that mathematics seems to be the universal language, it's possible to say that intelligent design of a kind is responsible for our being here. Since the universe is structured and ordered, it's not beyond reason to believe that someone or something created it since in both mathematics and logic, there is no equation that arrives at a purely random pattern. We can get close, to it, but randomnality is theoretically impossible in this universe.
While nature seems in most instances to be random, the patterns and events that make up evolution make for major changes with little room for minor mistakes. What this means is nature selects changes by 2 factors. The first factor would Natural Selection, or simply the ability to survive, and the second being the ability to procreate. Changes happen all the time in animals, which we normally name as defects. Weather these changes are evolutionary or because of chemicals or other environmental changes, these are still in my opinion natural attempts for evolutionary change. We affect this all the time with modern medical science attempting to change these defects back to what we currently accept as our natural being. All this does is allow a break down in the natural selection process as people that should have been unable to survive are now able too. This also allows these same people the possibility to procreate and carry over these bad changes when they should have died out, resulting a polluted gene pool that will now only get considerably worse, and only force a slowdown in the evolutionary process. While I don't condone we simply let people with supposed defects die off, with the advent of gene therapy, we should be careful as to what defects we should absolutely work on trying to eliminate as it could have substantial impact on our survival as a species.
Even if a change happens to make it past the Natural Selection process, this is no guarantee that the change will propagate enough to become a new trait in the species. The surviving animal that is carrying forth a new change would still need to procreate in order to pass on those genes, and the succeeding generations would also have to procreate in order for the change to become relevant. Some changes many make it initially, but suffer extinction later on prior to the change propagating throughout the species.
To add to the problems in evolution, we traditionally think of evolutionary changes to be adaptations to the environmental changes. I personally believe that evolutionary change is more or less more random changes that are propagated by the ability to survive in the current environment.
And what about the discoveries of transitional bones or remains? We simply have to look at geology for this. Most of the continental plates that make up the crust of the earth are usually growing on one side while the other side is constantly being driven down into the mantel on the other side, where it is melted down into molten rock and lava and thereby destroying anything it carries with it. Grated, we have found dinosaur bones in some areas that allow us a glance at that overall puzzle. This is no guarantee that we will ever be able to discover enough to fill all the gaps. Evolutionary change can also happen at a dreadfully slow pace making it hard to prove a line of evolution since other factors like the species being nomadic can make piecing the entire line together a chore. Some evolution could possibly take place over a few generations, limiting the number of fossils we could find. Being that the chance of going out in the back yard and digging up some fossils is quite a large number, the chance of finding the entire line of a species is almost astronomical. People can continue to point at the lack of evidence that evolution exist, but this does nothing to prove or disprove it, and only serves to say that they shouldn't be a scientist in the first place since we have yet to search every square inch of earth to disprove it.

I know - God did it seven days and the earth is only 6 thousand years old give or take a few hundred years. WAIT - MAYBE THE SCIENTOLOGIETS ARE RIGHT! (SIC)

First of all, reptiles never flew. Evolution is missing some very important facts. How did the world begin? The big bang theory?
Really? How then do man and woman come about? They just happened? Are you people for real?
God created all that we see. Earth has only been around a few thousand years. Where do scientists get their facts about dinosaurs being here millions of years ago? NOT TRUE!
Fossilized rock means that the rock was here in prehistoric ages?
1980, Mt St. Helens erupts nand spews volcanic ash over miles and miles of earth in Washington state. Trees are stripped of bark and covered. Three years later, these same trees are found fossilized! Gee, three years, not millions!

LOL! Yes mountain girl and topfly - god is the creator of heaven and earth and all the stars in the heaven! The earth is actually flat! cause if not we would fly off it! Science is always trying to trick us! If the bible says it, it must be so! It is the word of god written by the hand of god, not man! Ask the Mormons!

When I logged on to this site, I expected to exchange thoughts about evolution with like-minded, if "smarmy, intellectually dishonest. . .sociopath(s)." Instead I found the ite polluted with bible-thumping, intellectually lazy louts. I teach science in a fundamentally Christian area of the south, and I've heard these "convenient," albeit false objections to the science of biology. They don't like intellectual objectivity, they refuse to be "confused by the facts," and they really don't want to hear the answers to their questions. When confronted with a scientific, fact-based answer, they obfuscate the debate with more questions. Mountain girl, I fear you and your ilk are the sociopaths. I'm only sorry that the scientists among us aren't allowed to exchange ideas.

I wonder what kind of stuff Kirk Cameron and crew will come up with after NGC just proved that a small land walking wolf-like creature can turn into a gianormous Ocean swimming Whales.

In order to come to a full understanding of the origin of life we need only to think of earth as a fruit tree.If we think of earth as a living life form that is able to bear fruit.Able to recreate itself.Sort of like evolving.And that all life form are able to recreate themselves.And that evolution is just a naturally process of all life form.All because of our living planet EARTH!

If you don't understand how evolution works, or can work, first understand a couple of simple concepts about evolution.
1. The question of *how* life began from a lifeless world is outside the scope of evolutionary theory. Evolution is concerned with how life diversified.
2. Evolution is not deterministic. There is no lifeform that is more evolved than another and there is no goal to evolution.
3. Evolution is not about changes occuring in single organisms. Evolution works on *populations* of organisms. Generation to generation-- not during the life of a particular creature; your dog will not evolve, the species will.

And the Theory of Gravity is 'only' a theory! Doesn't change the fact gravity exists, it happens, it's observable, it's a fact. The theory of gravity explains the why and how. The same is true for evolution.

On a side note, I find this very amusing, and sadly typical of what I see of many creataionists, trying to stuff so many lies and fallacies and strawmen into as little time as they can. It sickens me so thoroughly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUYi0076CwE&feature=related

"Theory Wars"
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
Op-Ed
By Martin Musatov

Picture if you will an Ouroboros of ignorance. Except this particular snake
eating its own tail keeps getting bigger and bigger with each bite.

The debate of Darwinian evolution versus intelligent design and its teaching
in our public schools is at its core a push-pull between religion and
politics. Mark twain posited, "In religion and politics peoples beliefs and
convictions are in almost every case acquired second-hand, and without
examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions
at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners."

Heady, perhaps, but is it true? Twain also said, "God made idiots for
practice, and then he made school boards." The number of school boards with
members having strong conflicted opinions is increasing.

The conservative religious right protests that the teaching of evolution and
the exclusion of intelligent design from the curriculum in public schools
violate their constitutional right to religion by excluding scientific
theory that supports their beliefs. Furthermore, they demonize the theory
of evolution, hard selling it as an attack on faith itself. Flip the coin
and you have civil libertarians proclaiming that the teaching of intelligent
design favors religion, is intolerant of other belief-systems, and violates
the separation of church and state.

Political debates over divisive issues such as abortion traditionally have a
polarizing effect. The participants in these debates tend not to be a
homogeneous representation of the political spectrum. With respect to the
electorate, they are (at the risk of sounding like Mountain Dew's next
beverage spin-off) extreme overkill.

In political forensics we find that when the loudest voice belongs to the
strongest opinion, the murmurs of non-committed centrists are rarely heard.
In the spirit of debate, the examination of opposing sides from an unbiased
middle is the side mirror of your car; it makes objectives appear closer
than they really are. Conversely, adversarial bias in a debate compounds
ambiguity, making each side appear further away than it is.

Being that the issue is ultimately going to be decided by the courts we need
to recognize that spirituality is personal and intangible; it dulls the
brilliance of our laws. You can bring logic to your beliefs, but you can't
bring your beliefs to logic. However, it is important to never lose sight of
the fact that spirituality is very important to us, and that logic,
especially as it pertains to our legal system is cold and concrete. Unless
we guide with our hearts it is of no use.

So, with each side feeling attacked and pointing fingers at the other, who
should you choose to side with? Neither. In other words, both sides are
wrong. Not the smartest thing to say in a political sense, considering it's
potentially alienating to people who believe in God and people who don't
believe in God, and that's pretty much everybody.

But this is politics. Politicians know better than to insult the beliefs of
a majority of the electorate. That's what spin is for.

A potentially more popular and fundamentally equivalent way to approach the
issue would be to say that both sides are right, in that both sides have a
right to insist the scientific fact and theory they support be included.

Scientific is the key word here. Science is the observation,
identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical
explanation of phenomena. Science transcends beliefs. Unfortunately, so does
ignorance.

Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, are we so weak in
our convictions that we feel threatened by science that may or may not cause
us to doubt our spirituality?

Practically speaking, does exposure to scientific theory contrary to what we
believe corrupt our minds and destroy the foundation of our beliefs? Talk
to people on both sides of the gamut and you will often hear that a second
look at previous assumptions and doubts is exactly what helps us be more
comfortable with our spiritual beliefs.

The real issue here is one of distinction, the distinction of scientific
theory and beliefs. Theories are not beliefs. Until they are proven,
theories are conjecture. The difference between conjecture and belief is
faith. Faith or lack thereof has no place in science or our schools. A
belief as personal as ones belief or disbelief in God is not something that
can be taught; it can only be learned, through each of our unique
experiences.

So let's leave the science to the scientists and our beliefs to our hearts.
And regarding those inevitable agendas, let's at least get our facts
straight before we start to distort them.