This is going to be a long one but bear with me please. Recently I’ve encountered the claim that “transitional fossils don’t count as evidence for evolution because red pandas are transitional between bears and raccoons and obviously there’s no evolutionary lineage there.” There’s a lot wrong with this claim so let’s take it from the top.
Firstly, let us establish what a “transitional form” is according to the scientists. Biologists define a transitional form/species as any organism, which possesses traits common to its ancestors as well as traits common to its descendants. When concerning fossil species its better if the organism is geologically intermediate between its ancestors and descendants but because of the rarity of fossilisation this often does not occur, which is why it is not part of the definition.
Creationists are predisposed to deny the existence of any transitional species discovered in the fossil record because their existence does not align with their fixed presuppositions. This is obviously highly dishonest and a complete rejection of the scientific method, which works from no preconceived conclusions and instead forms its conclusions after evidence is gathered rather than collecting evidence, which affirms an already assumed conviction. This is why creationists often claim there are no transitional species even though according to palaeontologists and biologists hundreds of obviously transitional organisms have been discovered since the 1860s. Creationists claim that a fossil organism is not evidence of anything except the fact that the organism died (According to renowned creationist and convicted fraud, Kent Hovid). The description continues in the comment section.