evolution and the extinction of dinos

fearandloathing writes:Please tell me if my line of thinking is way off. Wouldn't all species be transitional to some extent. Evolution and natural selection processes always are causing change.

Dr Adequate writes:This is exactly why I avoid using the word "transitional". Even if something was direct ancestor, we'd probably never actually know. And most of them probably aren't, because the odds aren't in our favor there.

jar writes:Not actually a potential, more a fact. They do show traits that are intermediary.

jar writes:Huh?Sorry but that just sounds like word salad.Transitional means showing intermediary traits.Honestly, there is no need for any additional evidence FOR evolution, Evolution is as close to being proven as any science will ever be.What transitional fossils help us understand are the details, the minutia.

Bluejay writes:Hi, Peter. They are related, but not necessarily as direct descendants.Let's play with a hypothetical scenario.
Let's say we have a handful of fossils from millions and millions of years ago.
And, let's say that these fossils represent three species of animals that belong in the same genus.
And, let's say that we can tell, from their characteristics, that they are related to mammals.
However, they are so similar to one another, that it isn't clear which (if any) of the three species is an actual ancestor of mammals.
Also, we don't have any fossils that can link mammals to any particular one of these three species.
And, we don't have any other fossils of organisms that might be a better fit for the ancestor of mammals.What steps can we take to determine which (if any) of these three species is the actual, lineal ancestor of mammals?I don't think there is much we can do about it, other than to keep looking for other fossils that might shed light on the issue. So, in the absence of good evidence either way, we conclude for each of these three species that they either are the actual, direct ancestors of mammals, or they are sufficiently closely related to the actual, direct ancestors of mammals to be used as approximate surrogates for the ancestors in demonstrating the evolution of the mammal lineage.For the sake of propriety, paleontologists have made it a habit to assume that any transitional fossil is just a surrogate, rather than the actual ancestor, because this is a less extreme claim.So, to answer your question directly, yes, "transitional form" does bear a connotation of direct relationships. However, sometimes scientists are forced to approximate these direct relationships using surrogate species that are closely related to the direct ancestors, and these are also "transitional forms."

jar writes:Read what I wrote. I said "Honestly, there is no need for any additional evidence FOR evolution, Evolution is as close to being proven as any science will ever be." If you want to play silly word games do so with someone else. I left the kindergarten playground long ago. Next you seem to be playing yet another word game."antecedent/descendent" and "pre-post" are not synonymous. Transitional characteristics are import in understanding the details of evolution. A good example is the mammalian middle ear. Recent discoveries of a small chipmunk (I've always loved the little striped things) like critter that lived around 120 million years ago gave us some exciting information. Now mammals weren't something new 120 million years ago, they had already been around almost that long before. But this little chipmunk size critter had a strange but well preserved middle ear. That's unusual because little bones like those in the middle ear don't often get preserved.Now Mao (I call him Mao even though his real name is Maotherium asiaticus) had a relatively primitive middle ear, partly reptilian, partly mammalian. We know that there were earlier mammals with a more mammalian middle ear. We don't know (and really don't much care) whether Mao was a direct ancestor of any living species.So what did we learn? We learned that the evolution of the mammalian middle ear was not a straight line affair, that there were either several different branches, multiple examples of the trait evolving or the trait evolving and regressing.

Catholic Scientist writes:Nope.

quote:

---

Gen 6:7
So the LORD said, I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have createdand with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the groundfor I regret that I have made them.

---