The Definition and Description of a "Transitional"

The issue of transitional fossils comes up in many places in discussions here. One side says there are none and the other makes lists of them.What I haven't seen from the literalist "creationist" side is a definition of what a transitional is. What do they expect them to look like? How would we know when we have one?I would expect a literalist to supply a pair of "kinds" and the describe what they think a "transitional" between them would be.Note: This thread is NOT for science types to show examples of transitionals or for literalists to debunk any given transitional. It is only to clarify what is meant my this.The science types may supply their own definitions. I expect there will be a goodly amount of congruence in those definitions.We need many definitions from the non-science camp since I will guess that there are a lot of them (one per person? ).This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-22-2004 05:08 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

How about a fossil of an animal with a tail of an iguana, a body of a dog encased in a shell like the turtle, 2 hind legs of a horse, 2 front logs of an elephant, a head of a t-rex with 8 eyes like the spider, and a mouth of an ant-eater?

---

The Laminator

​

The OT asks for the "things" that the transitional is between. You failed to supply that.You also gave an example but not a definition? Why is that an example of whatever the heck you define "transitional" as?

Funny, we had some bringing up transitionals who now seem to have forgotten how to define them.

Nosy, A transitional is a form that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa.Ta-da!Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Don't those characteristics need to be "defining" characteristics of the taxa? So things that lots have in common don't count?

Sorry Ned! I was giving an example of what some creationists wanted in the past. The message I was trying get across was that if it wasn't a part dog part cat, part lion part tiger, or part of anything part of another thing, it's not transitional.I'll go with mark's definition.

---

The Laminator

​

Ned, No. The defining characters of a taxa are relatively few in number. For example, what are the defining characters of birds? It's not feathers... As a result we have to take a more stochastic view regarding characters. Characters that are generally associated with one taxa can be found in reasonable quantities with characters found in another taxa. So something like Archaeopteryx having a long bony tail when no modern bird has one, can says something of the "basality" of the genus even when lots of taxa have bony tails, not just therapod repiles, taken in conjunction with other character dis/similarities. This is basically how cladistics works.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

Don't those characteristics need to be "defining" characteristics of the taxa? So things that lots have in common don't count?

---

When looking at two taxa you look for characteristics that are easily fossilized (such as bones/feathers) and are distinctly and objectively different between the taxa.One example that I like to go with is the reptillian and mammalian middle ears. These two systems are objectively different, they are different both in structure and what bones make them up. We should then find fossils that are in transition between the two states, and we do.Another example (staying with mammals and reptiles) is the teeth. Mammals have very specialized teeth (canines, molors, incisors) while reptiles have teeth that are uniform in shape (conical). We should expect to see fossils that have a mixture of these two types of teeth.These are just a couple of examples, but such differences can be found between almost any taxa, especially at the level of reptiles and mammals. However, we wouldn't expect every feature or characteristic to be half way. Rather, you expect to see a mosaic, with some features nearing complete cross over while other features lag behind. As mark24 pointed out, we look for fossil species that have characteristics of both, or characteristics that are in transition between the two states.

We seem to be getting there. I'll take it on myself to bump this at any literalists who use the work "transitional".

I will as a creationist try to deal with this.
But first you must allow me something.We Don't believe there are transitionals so our defining what they are or look like is,ah,unnatural.We are told all creatures evolved from one body type to another over great amounts of time.
A deer was, to go back father by father, a rodent like creature and before that something else.
We have elephants, cats, pandas, and millions of years ago thier biological ancesters would be totally different and unrecognizable.So from that point to this since the process of change happened because of natural selection etc it is concluded that the change of body type must of happened a lot and so fossils of this should be evident. Remembering that fossils are used as the evidence for the conclusions now insisted on.What is a transition?
Well all or some or any fossils of all the body types between point a and point b.
A long time. Lots of oppourtunity. So many "kinds" must of existed.Its up to you to show them. Then we can answer if you have proven ancestry or making a guess.

quote:

---

What is a transition?
Well all or some or any fossils of all the body types between point a and point b.
A long time. Lots of oppourtunity. So many "kinds" must of existed.

---

We aren't talking about what a transition is.We want to know what a transitional fossil would look like, according to you, and why.You say they don't exist, but if they did, what do you think it should look like? Please explain why it would look that way.

quote:

---

I will as a creationist try to deal with this.
But first you must allow me something.
We Don't believe there are transitionals so our defining what they are or look like is,ah,unnatural.

---

Creationists claim that that evolutionists have not FOUND any transitional fossils. Evolutionists claim that they have, and they define in detail why it is a transitional fossil. Creationist claim that it isn't transitional because it doens't jive with their Bible, a very subjective and empty reason. Instead of giving concrete, objective reasons for rejecting these fossils, creationists instead claim that they SHOULDN'T exist, which, I guess, allows them to ignore their very exisitence. IOW, creationists are scared so they refuse to look at them or define what a transitional fossil should look like.

OK. What would something look like that I hold could never actually of come to pass. HMMMMThe creature must be suitable to survive in its envirorment. And yet be an ancester of a body type that was sucessful in another envirorment. HMMMThis is hard.External/internal anatomy realignment. Fluffy or not fluffy.
I'm stumped.
There are by defination no intermediate kinds as each is suitable to its place in order to survive.For example for sure there was no intermediate kind between a tree kangaroo and a kangaroo.I'm not being resistant. I'm having great trouble presenting what a transition would look like.
I need help perhaps a animal in particular.
Regards Rob