On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

Right. I guess the Order Monotremata could be considered transitional. However, I would be more likely to think of some of the early fossil families of Monotremes (11 species, 7 genera, 4 families) as transitional. They would certainly be transitional between a primitive, mammal like reptile and the modern Monotremes (5 species, 3 genera, 2 families). Are you sure that Monotremes don't have any unique derived traits (i.e., traits that do not exist in either reptiles or other lineages of mammal)? It is? How can that be when you have given an example in discussing Monotremes? You were aware that Montremata is a taxonomic Order, weren't you? Because they represent only one of several species that fit the description. The entire lineage is transitional. Really? What derived traits in Archaeopteryx are not present in birds? My investigations have been about only those traits which are reptilian or avian. To be honest, I'm not even aware of any that are neither.But at least you didn't use Wikipedia and completely misunderstand what even that less than stellar source says. Just because all populations can be considered to be "in transition" does not mean that they are transitional forms. Even Wikipedia makes it clear that a transitional is a form that represents the point at which lineages diverge.Just as an exercise I thought I would dig up some argument from authority. For example, noted evolutionary geneticist Jerry A. Coyne says in his book Why Evolution Is True that evolutionary theory predicts that: Moreover, in 25 index entries under "transitional forms", not one discusses a living species that is not an intermediate between two groups.Zoologist Tim Berra says in his book, Evolution And The Myth Of Creationism, under the section heading "Transitional Fossils", says: My emphasis.In 10 other discussions of transitional fossils in the book, all are discussions of fossils that are intermediate between two major groups of organisms.Pat Shipman, a paleoanthropologist who became interested in the Archaeopteryx because of Fred Hoyle's embarrassing effort to discredit the London specimen. Shipman mentions that a traditional argument against The Origin of Species was that if over time there has been a gradual evolutionary change of one type of organism into another, where are the transitional forms? It is clear that, to Shipman, a transitional form is a form between two other groups. Shipman even points out that Darwin mentioned in the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory" the "absence or rarity of transitional varieties" in the fossil record. So it seems that even Darwin meant an intermediate between two other forms when he used the word.Finally, there is Donald Prothero, a respected paleontologist. In his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, discusses Gould's often misquoted statement about the frequency of transitional forms. As Gould later explained, he actually meant that transitional forms between species are rare while there are many between larger groups.Finally, there is the web site from the University of California Museum of Paleontology. A page from that site is entitled Transitional Forms On that page it states: I know of nowhere on that rather extensive site where the term "transitional" is used in reference to a living species that has not diverged.But, if you want to call seals and manatees transitional, feel free. But please be aware and make it clear when you do so that you are using a word with a non-standard definition outside the field of evolutionary biology.

Right. You can't and you don't. That's why no one ever claims to know which specific organism was an ancestor. The only claim about ancestry is that the transitional form in question descended from some unknown population in the larger group. If we use Archaeopteryx as an example, all that is claimed is that it descended from some population of maniraptoran dinosaur. The specific population is unknown. Of course, there is no claim that there is or ever was a lineage descended from the transitional form. As you point out, evolutionary biology borrows terms from genealogy. A lineal ancestor would be a line of direct descent - in a human lineage that would be your parents and grandparents and so on. A transitional form is in the nature of a collateral ancestor, only sharing an ancestor. Thus, Archaeopteryx shares an ancestral population with other maniraptors. Yep. That was the prediction and it was verified. Darwin imagined the constant diversification of species to form new species. Thus, even though we can't identify a specific ancestor, we can identify other close branches. Which are most frequently fossil species.

No. What? If that's what you think then you don't understand. We're saying that A->[b]->[c]->D where [b] and [c] are unknown, and A->[e]->F, where [e] is unknown. We are saying that F is a transitional between A and D because it has a mixture of traits from each. But it is worse than that. A isn't a population but a group of populations that are related. Your example uses individuals to illustrate and it therefore gives the impression that transitionals need to be in a straight line lineage. Transitional forms are individual fossils or small groups that show a mixture of traits between large (sometimes very large) groups of populations. Archaeopteryx doesn't have a single trait that would prevent it from being the ancestor to all birds and it is without doubt descended from some lineage of dinosaur. However, no one actually thinks that all birds are descended from Archy. In fact, no one thinks that some birds are descended from Archy. It is believed that Archy's lineage went extinct.You are familiar with Archaeopteryx aren't you?

The Canadian Museum of Nature has a site about this transitional fossil. Lots of pictures. A Prehistoric Walking Seal

Sweetie, you can use the word however you want. However, you don't get to define what evolutionary biologists and paleontologists mean by the word. Evolutionary biologists and paleontologists get to do that. If you don't like that or can't understand that, then perhaps you shouldn't enter discussions on evolutionary biology. If you pretend to discuss evolutionary biology, the the vocabulary used is defined by evolutionary biologists. While you may assign any meaning you wish, unless you understand what evolutionary biologists mean by their vocabulary and use the vocabulary with those meanings, you aren't discussing evolutionary biology. All you have accomplished in your discussion is to demonstrate that you have little knowledge of the topic.So, yes. Puijila darwini is an actual transitional form, even though it is not an ancestor modern seals. Just as Archaeopteryx is an actual transitional form, even though it is not an ancestor to modern birds.But, again, you can use the words however you want and continue to demonstrate that you don't quite grasp the discussion. I didn't define the vocabulary. That was done long before I ever began my studies of evolutionary biology. I can only tell you what biologists and paleontologists mean when we use the word in the context of evolutionary biology.Obviously, you don't understand.

It is quite obvious that you don't understand. And now you prove that you don't understand. Apparently you can't grasp the meaning of the word transitional as used in evolutionary biology and paleontology. That's what I get for trying to make it simple enough for you to understand. I called them "forms" because there are at least two species of Archaeopteryx. And now that you admit that the definitions of the words used by evolutionary biologists are determined by a consensus of evolutionary biologists, where does that leave you when you insist that they are wrong and you are right? Who cares what you creationists buy? Science isn't done for the benefit of creationists. You can make any silly argument you wish. What creationists have in "there" book is irrelevant to how scientists define words. It only looks foolish to intentionally misrepresent science by using incorrect definitions of words. But you haven't listened to a single thing I have had to say up to this point. Perhaps you mean that you will not participate in discussions that you don't understand in the future. That would be nice.

Your arguments and methods belie that claim. I did try to explain to you. Your response, based on no knowledge whatsoever, was that scientists should follow your definitions of terminology and throw out the meanings that were reached many years ago. So you arrogantly decide that the definitions agreed upon and used by scientists when talking to other scientists are wrong because you think that your mother is a transitional species. But, of course, redefining the vocabulary of science is often done by you creationists. It's nothing new and it only works when you preach to the choir. That's degrees, sweetie. And no, it didn't. Earning those degrees was a humbling experience. I had so many teachers who knew so much more than I did. It was humbling to defend a thesis before a panel of 5 professors, some of whom were aggressive in their questioning even to the point of belligerence. But I passed unanimously. I think because I admitted that I had been wrong in a previous discussion with that one belligerent professor. He was right. I just didn't understand until I had done some research. When I admitted my error, he had no more questions. It seems that you can't admit your error.And then I read books by people like Ernst Mayr, John Maynard Smith, Stephen Gould, Richard Dawkins, Kenneth Miller, Douglas Futuyma, Matt Ridley, Ian Tattersol, Niles Eldredge and I am humbled. I listen to people like Paul Serano and Craig Stanford talk about their work and I am humbled. And then I encounter someone like Carl Zimmer, with less formal education in evolutionary biology than I, and yet with so much more knowledge, and able to explain it better to boot. That makes me humble.So I don't have the scientific chops to decide on the definitions used by all evolutionary scientists. I haven't made any shocking discoveries that required new terminology that I coined. Instead, I just use the definitions that have been developed over time and that were taught to me by my more accomplished teachers and that I have learned from books and papers by other esteemed evolutionary scientists. All I can do is pass along the consensus of evolutionary biologists.This is an old argument. Creationists often argue about the meaning of scientific terms like "theory", "transitional", "adaptation", "scientific proof", and the like. And now you join the chorus.If you are not a creationist (who are all smug and arrogant because of their (note: spelling) unwillingness to learn), how are you different? Why is your insistence that you are better able to define the vocabulary of evolutionary biology arrogant? Simply because you don't understand? I wonder if you are actually able to understand.So, right! I'm arrogant because I made an attempt to inform you of the meaning of a term as it is used by many thousands of evolutionary biologists. On the other hand, your presumption that you are better able to define those terms isn't arrogant at all.I'm done with you. You're a pompous ass who seems unable to learn. Grow up.

You can use the word however you want. But you should be aware that you are not discussing evolutionary biology. That was my point. And since the title of this forum is "Biological Evolution", I thought you should be aware of it. If you engage evolutionary biologists in a discussion and use the term as you propose, you will be misunderstood. In fact, to declare that all living organisms are transitionals removes all meaning from the word. What's the point?

Grossly incorrect. Darwin didn't realize that his birds were all finches. It was done by Owen, partly based on examination of Darwin's inadequate collection, but mostly based on the examination of the Beagle's Captain, Robert FitzRoy's collection. Darwin did think that his mockingbirds were separate species, as well as the turtles. Darwin was correct in the first case and incorrect in the second. Nonsense. Only three of the 13 species have been observed to interbreed, and those are three of the species of ground finch, already known to be closely related. All in all, this isn't evidence against Darwin's theories, but rather great support for them. Just think, there are related species of bird that will interbreed under certain stressful conditions. That, by the way, is what biologists know as gene flow. Gene flow is one of the ways that genetic diversity in a population is increased (in other words, a mechanism of evolution). Nope. That's not evolution. It really doesn't matter whether or not you like it, evolution happens. Take Darwin's finches. Genetic analysis has shown that they are all descended from a common ancestor. The grass quit from Ecuador appears to also share a common ancestor. That's just silly. Many who have studied Darwin's life in detail have opined that the final blow to Darwin's shaky faith was the death of his daughter Anne in 1851. It was Darwin who tended his sick daughter for some time as she died. Some have thought that he may have prayed and found his prayers unanswered and therefore decided that if there is a god, it isn't a caring god. But then, Darwin didn't say much about his religious beliefs. Some have speculated that he may have been deist or agnostic (like his friend T.H. Huxley). All are secure with the idea that not a glimmer of creationism remained by 1859, at least, no more than that expressed by deism.

Actually, mutations have nothing to do with upgrading or downgrading anything. "Upgrading and downgrading" have nothing to do with evolution. That's pretty much an illogical and discredited position of those who are motivated by the blind faith of some religion. In fact, mutations create genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is neither an upgrade nor a down grade. Evolution is not an upward progression. Evolution is just a certain kind of change. Why? Denton is a mathematician, not a biologist. Why would his opinion about biology be relevant. Especially since he is a a YEC who also rejects geology, yet another science of which he is ignorant. Why? Of course, to get the Tower of Babel built, and the pyramids built after the FLUD we would have to propose a population growth rate of more than 200% per year. RADZ pretty much showed you how mindless creationist assumptions about population are with his calculations. I know. And every time I meet someone who does it gives me a spaced feeling a bit like I got when the Houston Rockets, without Yao and Tracy, blew out the LA Lakers in game 4. It's one of those things that leaves one speechless. That isn't evident from your posts. And that's not simplistic? You reduce nature to magic and claim that you are not being simplistic? How bizarre.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added blank lines.

Three points:1) I'm not sure why getting "primate soft tissue" would answer any questions about relationships. It would be unlikely that any DNA could be found. As far as I know, the morphology is enough to call this fossil a primate.2) I'm not sure what you mean by "the primate vs lemur question." Lemurs are primates. Again, as far as I know, this fossil is what is expected as a species very close to the point at which the lemur, bush baby, aye-aye, and loris lineage separated from the tarsier, monkey, ape lineage. The age is correct, as is the location.3) I don't quite grasp your implication that the recovery of soft tissue from the interior of this fossil might be possible, as it was possible from a massive dinosaur bone. The thickness of the fossil rock around the dinosaur soft tissue far exceeds the entire thickness of any bone of the fossil in question. I suspect that recovery of soft tissue would not be possible.

I think that you misunderstand. The fur was not preserved, only the impressions of the fur in the sediment. But there don't seem to be any proteins recoverable for the reasons that I mentioned before. Even in the famous case of the soft tissue recovered from a T. rex, there was no protein recovered, only some short sequences of amino acids. Since it is unlikely that any proteins will ever be found in this fossil, we'll just have to depend on the morphology to conclude that it is a transitional very near the split of the lemur, bush baby, aye-aye, and loris lineage from the tarsier, monkey, ape lineage. It shows traits of each lineage.