“In transition”, as in “half-formed.
This is still very unclear to me what you might mean.
No such thing exists, or is thought to have existed, so I do not know why you speak of it.
Any organism is going to be fully what it is. The auroch
ancestor of the dairy cow was fully formed. So is the cow.
What, do you think a fish fin evolves into an appendage with digits, in one generation?
No, though I do hear creationists complain about supposed "jumps" in evolution, Still, no sensible person with a little education would think such a thing. The fish-ancestors of the early amphibians, btw, had the basic bone structure in place, complete with "digits". Look up some Sarcopterygian
fish, the modern Coelacanth being one of them. The rest are all long extinct.
The intermediate forms would lose function while transitioning from a water environment to living on land
A curious idea. It does not seem to bother the muskrat
or the frog,nor yet the walking catfish or mudskipper
to move back and forth, land to water and back no loss of function involved.
I wonder why you even say that? What would be an example?
Natural selection would stop selecting for ‘loss of function’!
huh? what does that even mean?
the organism would simultaneously have to transition from breathing water, to air.
There is a whole series of intermediate steps involved,
not just one sudden leap. The trout and the carp
can be seen to gulp air. There are lungfish, that live
in water, but can only breathe air, into, yes, lungs.
There is the mudskipper, which will drown if kept in water.
What problem are you envisioning?
Are you even aware of all the mutations required, in order for the following generations to evolve from one form to another?
Better, perhaps, for me to ask you if you are even aware of-well,no, you have shown you are not aware of
how easily and well your stump-a-chump questions
about gills-to-lungs, or fins-to-legs have been worked out, generations ago.
May I recommend Romer's Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy.