On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

The problems here are two fold. How do you determine that a fossil is directly in the lineage of another? The short answer is that you can not determine this. As Henry Gee says, fossils don't come with birth certificates.Secondly, even Darwin stated that the collateral ancestors of those transitional forms can preserve features that evidence a transition."In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--Origin of Species, Chapter 6So what we are really talking about is the transitional form, and the species who carry this transitional form are transitional species.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

You know what's funny?The definitions you're providing basically describe A -> B -> C, where B is the transitional.Your definitions also basically state that the transitionals are descended from group A and are ancestral to group C.So what, exactly, was the problem with my example?

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.

Debatable, I suppose. Allegories are symbolic representations, whereas analogies are more tied to logic/reason. The ring (from LoTR is supposedly allegorical to the nuke. Shall we read my statement again? Here's what I said:"To be clear, a transitional species is B in the series A->B->C. It has nothing to do with their environment but with their placement in the genealogical family tree." Then I say "in that sense", meaning, in the sense of placement within the family tree, given that transitionals are the link between A and C, "my mother (B) is the transitional from my maternal grandparents (A) to me (C)."I'm not actually talking about species in my example. I'm talking about what would qualify as a transitional. Your very definitions of transitional species rely upon knowledge of descendancy and ancestry. If we don't know the descendant, or even have a possible candidate, of a transitional species, it's not yet a transitional. If we don't have a possible candidate for it's ancestor, we don't have a transitional, but instead only the beginning of the line. Because as you like to say, "transitional to what?" So far I still fail to see how this is the case. The definitions you are providing from paleontologists and biologists really do seem to suggest that B in the series A -> B -> C is a transitional and that there is implied ancestry and descendancy at some level.I'm not too sure that I would bring up sinonyx, since DNA analyses and other molecular studies are apparently placing whales and such closer to hippos and other artiodactyls than to mesonychids, which brings into question just whether sinonyx is a transitional to whales. And no, the artist's rendering on wikipedia does not look very dog or wolf-like to me at all. You must be familiar with different creationists, because the creationist misunderstanding I'm familiar with demands the "croco-duck" or some other miraculous beast, or they demand a transitional that has half of something, such that it (in their minds) would be nonfunctional.

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?

Early steps to a sealThe creature was a very early step toward seals etc. and lived about 23 Mya.

From the article: So is this species an actual transitional? I would say no, since it appears it didn't lead to today's seals. On the other hand, by being in the same group as that ancestor, as the researcher says, it shows what the actual ancestor, the actual transitional could have looked like.

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.

Oh, I understand quite clearly.I just think it's foolish to call something a transitional species when it doesn't have any known or possible ancestors.Apparently you think the same, since you call both the proto-seal and archaeopteryx transitional forms. Not transitional species. And yeah, you guys get to set the definitions. But definitions can change and/or have problems with them.I especially think it's stupid to present something like P. darwini as a transitional species because creationists aren't going to buy it. First, because they don't accept evolution, second, because we now have two more holes to fill (since they claim there are no transitional species), and third, because P. darwini isn't even a missing link in their book (since they want to know what actually led to seals, not what might look like something that did actually lead to seals).And please, don't patronize me. Really good way to get me to not listen to a single damn thing you say. Are you now going to wash my mouth out with soap?Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

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.

Yeah, fuck off.I know you're new here, still learning who everyone is, but I am certainly not a creationist. Yeah, fuck off. Shouldn't you want to invite me into discussions on things (you think) I don't understand so I can begin to understand them? Instead you've been nothing but patronizing and annoyingly arrogant to me and suggested that I should leave any discussion of things I don't understand, thus relegating me to ignorance (of this or any other subject).Did your degree really inflate your ego that much?Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

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.

Arrogance isn't defined by the point you make, it is defined by the way you make the point.For example, the following would be an arrogant statement: Sorry, but Kuresu is far from a creationist.

Yeah, whatever. Nice thing about this forum. It saves every damn post you make, every damn thread you've participated in. So long, of course, as you don't go back and delete them all through the edit function.I've got a three year record that speaks for itself.
EvC Forum: kuresu Topic IndexPlenty of mistakes, to be sure, but overall, it's the record of someone who generally understands evolutionary theory, the evidence behind it, and why it works. It's the record of a non-creationist.Ask buz, randman, faith, or any of the other multiple creationists we've had over the years (buz is still around, the other's aren't) which side of the debate I'm on. Jesus christ. Still on this? I never claimed my mother was an actual transitional species, only that she demonstrates the characteristic of linking me to my grandmother like transitionals would link some descendant group to an ancestral group. That's not my argument whatsoever. My argument (lately, at any rate), is that it wouldn't be accurate to call something like P. darwini a transitional species because it's a dead end. But, and here's the big but, the important but, it's still important because it does show us what the actual transitional could have, and likely did, look like.Why do I think that more accurate? Because transitional species imply some sort of ancestor/descendant relationships. And darwin himself said that finding that actual links would be damn near impossible, so we should look also for those in the same family to get an idea as to what the real link looked like.Of course, it seems to me as if this is almost an argument over why it's called the coulomb instead of the franklin, when it was Franklin who discovered electrical charges before Coulomb.ABE:
A better example, perhaps, would be the description of the Swedish economy in the 1600s as capitalist. As everybody understands the term (and indeed, as economists use it), the Swedish economy is anything but capitalistic in the 17th century (it's definitely not feudalistic, as Sweden never really experienced feudalism, but it's only somewhat mercantile). So who describes it as such? Historians at Uppsala University who hold to a more communist/marxist interpretation of history with everything being driven by exploitation. Capitalist/ism/ic is the stand-in for exploitation. Any system that exploits, thus, is capitalistic. That's the definition they use, and I find it absolutely bunk. But it's the definition they've agreed on, so who am I to challenge it?Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.