On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

Some confusion is resulting from occasionally reading the word transitional with a meaning different than the one intended by the author. Like most words in the English language, transitional has more than one meaning. Often the meaning is clear from context, but not always.This thread is about transitional species, which like a transitional fossil is representative of an intermediate stage of evolutionary history between different groups.But in some cases reference is made to the fact that all species are always in a state of transition, and in this sense all species are transitional. One wouldn't use the phrase "transitional species" in this context because with all species being transitional it would be redundant.--Percy

quote:

---

kuresu writes:

​

I know you're new here, still learning who everyone is, but I am certainly not a creationist.

Your arguments and methods belie that claim.

---

quote:

---

If you are not a creationist (who are all smug and arrogant because of their (note: spelling) unwillingness to learn), how are you different?

---

Here's a great example of a creationist:
http://EvC Forum: Natural selection proven wrong -->EvC Forum: Natural selection proven wrongHow do I differ? For one, I'm an atheist. Kind of hard to believe that whole god created the earth in 6 days shtick when you don't even believe in a god(ess). Second, I'm not anti-science in any manner. Third, I'm not shit-bat crazy like they tend to be (read: Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Falwell, Roberston, Bush, etc). That's just off the top of my head. Of course, if you could actually read, you'd see that I disassociate myself from creationists in this very thread by referring to them as "them" or "they", never "we". Instead, I associate myself with evolutionists.Of course, when you define creationist as anyone who doesn't understand, then everybody's a creationist. Which seems to be your definition since you have me confused for a creationist when I'm not simply because I'm arguing about the definition of transitional species and you think I'm wrong and don't understand. The irony? At the beginning of this thread you didn't consider me a creationist. Go figure.

The topic of this thread is not "Kuresu is too a creationist," and it is not "I think Kuresu misunderstood something so I have to attach a derogatory label to him." More importantly, at EvC Forum we work very hard to keep discussion focused on topics rather than participants.--Percy

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?

Can't resist not having the last word, can you pandion? I'm pretty sure everyone here knows he was giving an example, rather than an explanation.Edited by Michamus, : No reason given.

Pandion, there is no need cluttering up the thread with reiterations of your opinion of what evolutionary biologists would and wouldn't understand.--Percy

Context is of the utmost importance here, as you mention. In fact, without context you simply can't talk about transitions.As an analogy, let's say I am driving down the road. Someone calls me and asks where I am. I tell them "I'm half way there"."Half way to where?" they ask.I tell them "Since I am always moving in the car I am always half way to somewhere".It becomes quite apparent that I have not answered the original question of "Where are you?". If I would have said "Half-way between Overland and Kootenai on Vista" my friends would know exactly where I am. That is how it is with species. You need to know the origination and destination before a half-way point can be established. You need context.If I had said, "Half way between Overland and Kootenai near Vista" my friends would still have a pretty good idea where I was. That is how it is with transitional fossils. They may not be in the direct flow of the lineage (or Vista Ave. in my analogy), but they give the general trend.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Hobbits 'are a separate species'

Welcome to EvC. Please hang around and join the fun. However, please be more careful with your posts also. There are some problems with your first try.1) It is not clearly on topic here. There is a maybe but I don't think it helps the discussion in this thread.2) It is probably better if it is in "Creation/Evolution in the News" forum.3) It is almost never fair to just supply bare links. You need to at least give a short bit on what they are about. In most cases you should use the link only as further detail to the discussion giving in your own words.Thanks for this.

yes, I will be just reading, sorry for the knee jerk post, I live two doors down to the creation museum here in Pensacola Fla and I very much
believe in my creator God blessEdited by spradling100164, : No reason given.

If you have any Hovind news, there's a Hovind thread that hasn't been updated in a while: Hovind's solitary considerations--Percy

Darwin collected what he regarded as 9 finch species during his voyage on Beagle 1831-1836). These finches were classified as sparate species based on their beak shape, size, colour, feeding etc. darwin's argument sounded so good, no-one bothered to test it by seeing if they were really separate and could not interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Now it has been discovered that Darwins finches can interbreed and produce fertile offspring if given the opportunity, so they are really one species, and provide no evidence for the evolution of new species, and never have. This historic first and foundational evidence for Darwin's theory turns out to be false.
All creatures adapt but they don't evolve into another creature. Adaption is the built in ability of living creatures to cope with changes in their environment. The same goes for humans, the different skin colours were all in-built so that the sons of Noah and their generations adapted to the various climates as they spread across the globe.
Incidently Darwin was still a creationist when he came off the Beagle, but later was influenced by the infamous X-club of humanists.
(David Lack, Darwins Finches 1968)

quote:

---

Incidently Darwin was still a creationist when he came off the Beagle, but later was influenced by the infamous X-club of humanists.

---

Almost everyone in that time period was a creationist. What is your point?

quote:

---

(David Lack, Darwins Finches 1968)

---

The purpose of this is what? You don't quote him or refer to him in your post.By the way if you really attempted to do some research you would know that this book was originally published in 1947. It was reissued in 1961 and in 1983. I see no publish date of 1968. If you put a date down for a reference you need to use the published date not the print date. Makes a bit of a difference.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi, Trev.And, Welcome to EvC!You've provided some great material for a discussion there. I rather disagree with a large portion of your argument (particularly with the insinuation that evolutionists would "lose faith" if they learned that Darwin was wrong about something).However, I don't think Darwin's finches are part of the intended topic of this thread.If you would like to discuss Darwin's finches, you can start a new thread in the "Proposed New Topics" forum (here); or I could do so for you, if you'd like: I (and I'm sure many others) would be interested in discussing it with you.Have fun at EvC!

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi Terv777,I've posted a more complete reply on Message 45.This thread is about transitional species, and transitional species are those that show intermediate forms between ancestor populations and modern population (or more modern than the ancestor population).All we can say about modern species is that they are continuing to evolve, and as such they are intermediate in form between the ancestor population and the theoretical future populations.In this regard the Galapagos Finches show a separation into diverse populations with different traits from their ancestor population. Because of reproductive isolation that minimizes gene transfer (in spite of occasional hybrids), these populations are free to evolve independently of the other populations. Over time that will mean that they will develop further differences between the populations.That's how transitions happen over time, rather than in sudden changes into different whole types of species. They do, it just takes more than one speciation event to make such a significant change.The transition from reptile to mammal took millions of years and many speciation events, speciation events that are grouped into different genera for the sake of clarity (taxonomy above speciation being an arbitrary human description).http://www.geocities.com/...naveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm

quote:

---

The fossil transition from reptile to mammal is one of the most extensive and well-studied of all the transitions, and detailed series of fossils demonstrate how this transition was accomplished.

---

You will see many many different species in the lineage between reptile and mammal, including ones that have two jaw joints, intermediate between the three-bone reptile jaw attached to the ear and the single-bone mammal jaw with the earbones formed from the previous reptile jaw bones no longer used in the jaw.If you want to explore all these different species in this transition, an excellent resource is:Palaeos: Page not foundIt is hyperlinked so you can move up and down in the fossil record and even work your way forward to modern mammals. Totally irrelevant. Curiously, evolution does not depend on Darwin, nor is it affected by his personal faith or what changes he made in his life.Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This is observed to happen, continuously, in all known life forms. This fact does not depend on any person or who or what they were. Interestingly, that is how science works.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •