I don't want to give the impression that I spend a significant amount of time arguing with folks on the internet about evolution, but it's not exactly and insignificant amount of time either. And one of the arguments that creationists love to bring up is the lack of transitional fossils/forms. And it just really pisses me off because:
a) there isn't a lack of transitional forms--they exist, all over. For example, I could show you members of the Stereocaulaceae family of lichens that all still exist today going from "simplest" form:
(Lepraria caesiella R.C. Harris)
to the most complex form:
(Stereocaulon myriocarpum Th. Fr.)
with plenty of examples in between, like L. albicans here!
Like, L. albicans helps to draw a clear line between the relatedness of dusty little Lepraria and statuesque Stereocaulon, right?
and b) the idea of "transitional" states, as if everything is always progressing linearly upwards to a "more advanced state," is kinda bullshit. Like L. albicans doesn't look the way it does because it got stuck somewhere in evolution between a leprous Lepraria and a fruticose Stereocaulon--its looks that way because, well, it does! It is one of millions of divergent paths that has proven successful in its niche, and it turns out that this form was just right for what it needed to do. It's a branch on a tree, not a step on a ladder, if that makes sense. And talking about evolution as if we are talking about hierarchies is a pretty big dog whistle for being a bit of an asshole about a lot of other stuff, not just evolutionary biology, amirght? So like, don't argue with the science-deniers out there, but instead rest in the knowledge that not everything is about progression toward some end-all, be-all final state, but a journey where diversity is our greatest strength, and progression can look however the fuck you want it to look.
