|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
If evolution was true then there should be millions of remnants leftover in the anatomy of creatures without practical use. NO!!!! Why because that would be very inefficient, providing blood, calcium or anything at all to organs or bones that serve no practical use is a waste of resources and a creature that is wasting its resources has a less likly chance of surviving then a creature that is not wasting its resources, so such organs/bones are selected against and bread out by evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
You are wrong once again Percy. The purpose of the appendix has been known for some time. It is a storage area for helpful bacteria in the digestive tract. Firstly Vestigial does NOT MEAN THAT THAT THING IS TOTALLY USELESS, no vestigial means that the organ/bone in question no longer suits its ORIGINAL PURPOSE.
The purpose of the appendix has been known for some time. It is a storage area for helpful bacteria in the digestive tract. Secondly if humans dint invent medicine and learned how to remove apenidcses the apendics would have been bread out why well ask yourself why do surgeoons rutinely remove a helathy appendix if they happen to be preforming surgery in the abdominal aerea. To anwser your question is because you dont really need it and it is a grater risk to your health if you do have it.
ou also don't know that science still does not have a shred of evidence to support your speculation that small random mutations can add up in complexity to form larger functioning systems Well actualy we do have tons of evidence Evolution is as close to a fact as a fact can get. on a side note to your referal to randomness Genetic mutations <--- for.
The only thing scientific about your theory is that it can't be demonstrated or verified scientifically. There are 2 possibilities to what happens to theories that are not supported by evidence or are contradicted by evidence 1. the theory hasto be revised (changed) to acomodate the contradictive evidence or the lack of evidence 2. The theory lands in the bin,trash. This has not happened to evolution because THERE IS NO CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE AND THERE IS TONNES UPON TONES OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT, AND NEW EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT ARIVES FROM NEARLY EVERY FIELD OF CIENCE EVERY DAY!!!!!!!!!!! The theory of creation is different because it does not play by scientist rules. Option one to what happens to theories is out of the question because your bronze age text cant be changed cause god is always right or theres no reason to believe in him or thats how your logic works anyway.And option 2 is out of the question because that leaves you without a theory and you need one to support your silly beliefs. So what did you go and do you went against the scientific method the method that enabled you to write to me instantly from another part of the world, the method that provided your home with light ........ YOU SAID OUR THEORY IS TRUE THE FACTS ARE WRONG ALL GAZILLION OF THEM ARE WRONG AND OUR BRONZE AGED BOOK IS RIGHT. That is not science that is ANTI-SCIENCE. And that is why your theory is not a scientific theory but mumbo jumbo designed to keep people going to curch and donating loads of cash to the needy preachers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I've been away for a while too ... but I'm not any kind of Creationist.
You say that the transitional nature of species is a matter of interpretation ... which is true ... as is the statement that they are NOT transitional features. It's whether our interpretations stand up to much scrutiny that counts. I would say that the notion that species flow from one to another over expanses of time is one whic DOES stand up to scrutiny ... which is probably why it's been around for so long.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Dead-ends/extinctions are not transitional ... so not every organism can be considered to be involved in transitional species.
However, all extant species could be considered transitional except that we don't know into what yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Oh, okay, I think I understand what you are saying now. But, I do think you're wrong.
You're using the word "transitional" in a colloquial sense, but there is an accepted usage of the word "transitional" by evolutionary biologists when referring to specific species and how they relate within the evolutionary lines. I think you'd be more accurate to use the word "intermediate".
Dead-ends/extinctions are not transitional ... so not every organism can be considered to be involved in transitional species. I agree with you on dead-ends but not on extinctions. Tiktaalik is a transitional that is extinct.
However, all extant species could be considered transitional except that we don't know into what yet. Could be, I suppose, but should be I do not. The better word here would be "intermediate".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dead-ends/extinctions are not transitional . . . I will actually disagree with this. The only requirement for being transitional is having a mixture of characteristics from two divergent taxa. The platypus is a transitional species because it has a mixture of characteristics from mammals and reptiles. Transitional does not mean ancestral. Those are two different concepts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The platypus is a transitional species because it has a mixture of characteristics from mammals and reptiles. From wiki:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
"Transitional" can be used for those forms that do not have a significant number of unique derived traits that the derived relative does not possess as well. In other words, a transitional organism is morphologically close to the actual common ancestor it shares with its more derived relative. I would argue that "close" is completely arbitrary. At what point is a species too distant from the common ancestor to no longer be considered transitional? Also, the transitional nature of a species has nothing to do with ancestry. It only has to do with the morphology of the species. Ancestry is a conclusion derived separately from the transitional nature of the species. A species with a mixture of mammalian and avian features would be transitional, but this fossil would also falsify common ancestry. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Also, the transitional nature of a species has nothing to do with ancestry. It only has to do with the morphology of the species. Ancestry is a conclusion derived separately from the transitional nature of the species. My link did have this to say:
quote: I would argue that "close" is completely arbitrary. At what point is a species too distant from the common ancestor to no longer be considered transitional? Is the "distance" even really a focus of the determination of a transitional or not? I'm under the impression that its about forms and whether they have been uniquely derived or not. Take a hypothetical transition from a fish fin to a foot. Changes to the shape of the fin would be intermediates until it has enough uniquely derived traits that it can be considered a foot and then those species with that proto-foot are the transitional ones. The earlier ones where the shape was just changing are intermediates that don't really count as transitionals. Amirite?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Is the "distance" even really a focus of the determination of a transitional or not? Evolutionary distance is a conclusion. The transitional features of a fossil are the observations. They are different steps in the scientific method.
Take a hypothetical transition from a fish fin to a foot. Changes to the shape of the fin would be intermediates until it has enough uniquely derived traits that it can be considered a foot and then those species with that proto-foot are the transitional ones. Using the same criteria, one could label the platypus to as a proto-mammal and therefore transitional. The only distinction you are making is the time period in which the fossils are found. What I am trying to stress is the need to keep the observation (transitional morphology) separate from the conclusion (shared ancestry and evolution). A fossil can still be transitional/intermediate even if evolution is false. The theory of evolution is so widely accepted because it is able to accurately predict which transitionals we should see and which we should NOT see. I think that is an important point that can be missed if you start to mix the observations with the conclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm just trying to figure out the proper usage of the word but you seem to be focused on something else and its confusing me so I'm just gonna say thanks and stop pursuing this.
So... Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I'm just trying to figure out the proper usage of the word but you seem to be focused on something else and its confusing me so I'm just gonna say thanks and stop pursuing this. I'll give it one more try and see if it helps. For all intents and purposes the terms transitional and intermediate are one in the same. When these terms are put together with the theory of evolution then you can also include evolutionary distance. In this respect there is a tendency to label species close to the common ancestor as transitional and those further away as intermediate. However, it is an arbitrary line just as there is an arbitrary line between being short and tall. They are all shades of grey, if you will. The proper usage of transitional is in relation to the observations, which is what I was trying to stress. You don't observe evolutionary distance, that is the conclusion from analysing the observations. You observe the morphology. Therefore, a transitional fossil must be described in terms of direct observations that are independent of theory. Does that make sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4368 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Yes marine creatures are a special case. They are amongst the few with "unused' remnants of previous body realities.
This is different from you claiming everything is a reused and so vestigial thing. I say and make a good case thats its impossible for all that time of evolution making billions of intermediates to results of living/fossil remains to have just a few creatures with remnants. It demands a conclusion that there was no evolution just as the anatomy of marine mammals demands thee was. You must remember all the intermediates and all the changes that took place by your idea. Saying there would be no memory in the anatomy of so many of previous body types is unlikely to most people. Then evolution invokes the few to make the big case. theory predictions or not there would be heaps of leftovers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Yes marine creatures are a special case. Why?
They are amongst the few with "unused' remnants of previous body realities. No they are not.
This is different from you claiming everything is a reused and so vestigial thing. If reused is the same as vestigial then your arms and legs are vestigial fish fins.
I say and make a good case thats its impossible for all that time of evolution making billions of intermediates to results of living/fossil remains to have just a few creatures with remnants. No you don't. You seem to confuse "make a good case" with "make insane assertions". You simply assert, and then fail to supply evidence. This is usually considered to be a poor case.
You must remember all the intermediates and all the changes that took place by your idea. Saying there would be no memory in the anatomy of so many of previous body types is unlikely to most people. But why would that memory require so many vestigial features as you claim? Are our arms and legs vestigial fish fins?
theory predictions or not there would be heaps of leftovers. Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4368 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
This is not quite the question here.
I understand the claim of how new bodies rework old parts even perfectly. Yet evolution fired first on Fort sumter. they use marine mammal vestigial bits as AHA evidence that evolution occurred in a important way. In using this evidence they must be consistent. I agree marine mammals have vestigial bits showing a land life. Then i insist that in all the millions of years and millions of creatures which can be observed today in living/fossil form THEN there should be great numbers, tremendous, or at least heaps and heaps of anatomical bits and pieces sitting here or tucked there in great numbers of creatures. yet in fact poverty is shown. There are just a tiny, and less, number of critters. whales, snakes etc. This is impossible if evolution was true and impossible if the few are a important point to demonstrate evolution. So two points.Marine mammals can not be used as evidence for evolution in biology. if your retreating to the line that they are special, special cases. 2, Having made the case and anyways its impossible that all anatomical evidence would be selected away/reused so perfectly hiding previous realities of different bodies and life. This is my focus.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024