Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   All species are transitional
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 4 of 246 (248850)
10-04-2005 1:17 PM


This is kindof a trivial point, but it a creature dies without breeding then it isn't transitional.
Or, if we are using "species" as a valid classification then a species that goes extinct, without some of it's populations evolving into another species, is not transitional.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 10-04-2005 1:24 PM JustinC has replied
 Message 6 by Parasomnium, posted 10-04-2005 4:46 PM JustinC has not replied
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 10-04-2005 7:20 PM JustinC has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 8 of 246 (248944)
10-04-2005 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Chiroptera
10-04-2005 1:24 PM


I don't know if I agree. Where did you get your definition of transitional species? I always considered a transitional to be a direct link between two species. So it would have to fit in the timeline between the two species and share features of the oldest species while showing characteristics of the later one.
I wouldn't say the platypus is transitional, I would say it is closely related (atleast morphologically) to the the transitional species between placental mammals and non-mammal therapsids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 10-04-2005 1:24 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 10-05-2005 8:37 AM JustinC has replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 18 of 246 (249197)
10-05-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Chiroptera
10-05-2005 8:37 AM


quote:
Scientists consider archeaopteryx to be a transitional species between modern birds and theropod dinosaurs. No scientist considers archaeopteryx to be an ancestral species to modern birds. Is this consistent with your concept of "transitional"?
I'd say they are using a very loose definition of transitional species. Transition means to change from one form to another. So if archeaopteryx wasn't a species in the lineage going from a species of theropod dinosaur to modern birds, it wasn't a transitional species between the two. It may be an offshoot of a transitional.
I think there is a difference between showing characteristics between two groups and being a transitional between two groups. The former would blur the distinction between groups, maybe even showing the dichotomy wasn't warrented. The latter would show they are related by a descent-ancestor relation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 10-05-2005 8:37 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Chiroptera, posted 10-05-2005 6:08 PM JustinC has replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 20 of 246 (249223)
10-05-2005 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Chiroptera
10-05-2005 6:08 PM


Well, nothing is certain in science. So I would say there no transitional fossils "known".
We hypothesize that there should be a transitional between two species, and we find likely canidates for this transitional.
There is much utility in defining transitionals the way you do. The creatures you are referring to show there are no "kinds" in nature. But should be redefine what "transition" means in order to say we "know" there are transitionals?
But if I'm looking for the evolutionary link (a transitional) between therapsids and placentals, and you show me a platypus I'd be a little incredulous.
Also, i've had this discussion with my Evo professor so I know I'm in the "wrong" compared to the scientific consensus. In the end it's just semantics. It makes more sense, to me, to define transitional the way I did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Chiroptera, posted 10-05-2005 6:08 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 10-05-2005 7:15 PM JustinC has replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 22 of 246 (249277)
10-05-2005 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Chiroptera
10-05-2005 7:15 PM


quote:
The purpose of have precise definitions in science is to avoid semantics issues. When laypersons insist on making up words or using their own definitions, they are creating semantics issues that scientists would prefer to avoid.
The thing is I'm not making up my own definition. That is what transitional means to 99% of the public.
When a layperson hears that there is a transitional between two species, they think there is an evolutionary link. This is what creationists think the word means, and I think this causes much confusion when debating them. When a creationist says there are no transitional fossils, aren't they just saying there are no missing links? And isn't it disingenuous to tell them we have have transitionals when we are using a different definition than them?
It seems absurd to say there is a transitional species between chimpanzees and humans since we are contemporaries known not to be in an ancestor-descendent relationship. Doesn't your definition basically say there are transitionals between any two species we pick? What is the utility in that?
And interestingly enough, I never heard my professor once use the word transitional. Nor is it found anywhere in my text book, Evolution by Mark Ridley. Is it even used within formal evolutionary biology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 10-05-2005 7:15 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 10-05-2005 9:49 PM JustinC has replied
 Message 29 by Chiroptera, posted 10-06-2005 8:05 AM JustinC has replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 23 of 246 (249281)
10-05-2005 9:24 PM


I just looked through "What Evolution Is" by Mayr, and he also doesn't mention transitional species. At best, he mentions "missing links showing the transition between two taxon" or something to that effect.

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 25 of 246 (249292)
10-05-2005 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by nator
10-05-2005 9:49 PM


I, personally, have never heard an expert use the word.
I've read a couple of Evo textbooks as well. They mention missing links forming transitions between two species. That is the closest I have seen, and it uses transition in normal sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 10-05-2005 9:49 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Brad McFall, posted 10-06-2005 7:21 AM JustinC has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 26 of 246 (249303)
10-05-2005 10:28 PM


I just read a little bit of the FAQ of transitionals from Talk Origins.
Here's what they have to say:
"General lineage":
This is a sequence of similar genera or families, linking an older group to a very different younger group. Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a span of tens of millions of years. A lineage like this shows obvious morphological intermediates for every major structural change, and the fossils occur roughly (but often not exactly) in the expected order. Usually there are still gaps between each of the groups -- few or none of the speciation events are preserved. Sometimes the individual specimens are not thought to be directly ancestral to the next-youngest fossils (i.e., they may be "cousins" or "uncles" rather than "parents"). However, they are assumed to be closely related to the actual ancestor, since they have intermediate morphology compared to the next-oldest and next-youngest "links". The major point of these general lineages is that animals with intermediate morphology existed at the appropriate times, and thus that the transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible. General lineages are known for almost all modern groups of vertebrates, and make up the bulk of this FAQ.
I'll concede that it is too stringent a definition to say that a transitional must be directly ancestral.
But the main problem I have with your definition is that it doesn't take time into account. Notice TalkOrigins says:
quote:
The major point of these general lineages is that animals with intermediate morphology existed at the appropriate times, and thus that the transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible.
It just doesn't make sense to call the platypus a transitional species since there is no evidence of it existing during the therapsid (cynodont specifically)-mammal transition period (i.e., before 245 million years ago).

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ausar_maat, posted 10-06-2005 7:23 AM JustinC has replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 30 of 246 (249497)
10-06-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Chiroptera
10-06-2005 8:05 AM


quote:
No, since almost everything I have read about "transitionals" written for the layperson explains what a transitional is.
I'd assume that the TalkOrigins site is written for the layperson, and they use "transitional" as synonomous with "possible missing link", which is much closer to the definition I gave than yours.
I have yet to see a site that gives a definition so broad that the platypus is considered a transitional.
This message has been edited by JustinC, 10-06-2005 11:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Chiroptera, posted 10-06-2005 8:05 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Chiroptera, posted 10-06-2005 2:00 PM JustinC has replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 31 of 246 (249500)
10-06-2005 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by ausar_maat
10-06-2005 7:23 AM


It would destroy every model of human evolution to date. Even so, the time frame is still short evolutionary speaking, so I don't think it would be that devestating to the evolutionary paradigm as a whole.
Now, if humans were found in fossils dating before the Triassic I think that would be devestating.
This message has been edited by JustinC, 10-06-2005 11:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ausar_maat, posted 10-06-2005 7:23 AM ausar_maat has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 36 of 246 (249546)
10-06-2005 1:24 PM


I meant that it really wouldn't be pushing the date back that far, in terms of the evolutionary time scale. You'd push it from about 200,000 years ago to 4 million years ago. There were mammals, more specificaly primates, 4mya so it could just indicate we evolved from a different lineage of which we have no knowledge.
If you push it back 300 mya, as jar said, we'd be in trouble in terms of our view of common descent. The reason being is that there weren't any official "mammals" back then, and therefore no primates. This wouldn't make sense in terms of common descent since we are most related to primates and should therefore have a relatively synchronous origin in the record (by synchronous I mean within the range of 30-50mya or so).
It would really hurt the common descent paradigm if organisms just showed up randomly in the fossil record, i.e., humans 300mya, chimps 2.5mya, lizards 200,000 ya, etc.

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 40 of 246 (249580)
10-06-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Chiroptera
10-06-2005 2:00 PM


[deleted]
This message has been edited by JustinC, 10-06-2005 05:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Chiroptera, posted 10-06-2005 2:00 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by JustinC, posted 10-06-2005 5:06 PM JustinC has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 41 of 246 (249583)
10-06-2005 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by JustinC
10-06-2005 4:52 PM


To wrap this up, I'll concede that my definition was too stringent (which I did a few posts back).
My only concern with your definition is that it didn't mention chronology, which I think is a very important factor when we call something a transitional.
You're definition would seem to show that a platypus is a transitional in the cynodont-mammal transition, which would lead me to believe there is something wrong with your definition.
I'll also concede that my original statement "if a species goes extinct without another species budding off it, then it is not transitional" is wrong. The reason being is that this species can be very closely related to an animal that is a "missing link" in an ancestor-descendent relationship. So even though it is not the missing link, it could be considered transitional in that it shows intermediate morphology and existed in the correct time period.
Transitional is intimately linked to the idea of missing links and really can't be defined otherwise.
Any objections to the above?
This message has been edited by JustinC, 10-06-2005 05:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by JustinC, posted 10-06-2005 4:52 PM JustinC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Chiroptera, posted 10-06-2005 5:18 PM JustinC has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024