|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Transitional forms in existence today | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Taq writes: What transitional mammalian features do penguins have? Tuxedos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Don't forget hats.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
...least certain participants transition into observers for a while.
Adminnemooseus Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
I dont really see how humans are transitional forms. We are fully formed creatures. Yes we may be taller or something like that, but that does not mean we will evolve into something else.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
All transitional forms are fully formed creatures. There aren't any "part formed" creatures in evolutionary theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Portillo writes: What do you actually expect a transitional form to look like?
I dont really see how humans are transitional forms. We are fully formed creatures. Portillo writes: Yes, we may be taller and less hairy and more intelligent than our monkey ancestors......oh, we appear to have evolved into something else. Yes we may be taller or something like that, but that does not mean we will evolve into something else. You really need to describe what you think a transitional form would look like.If a semi-aquatic animal is not transitional between a land animal and a aquatic animal - then what is it? If a fish with legs which spends time out of the water is not transitional between a fish and an amphibian - then what is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Maybe this is where most creationist 'arguments' come from. Creationists don't have a clue what the Theory of Evolution is. They don't realize that the Theory of Evolution actually requires all organisms to be 'fully formed' for them topass on their genes.
All organisms are "fully-formed". A virus is a fully-formed organism. Any unicellular organism is a fully-formed unicellular organism. Any Portuguese-Man-Of-war is a fully formed organism, although it is a colony of eukaryotic cells. Any multicellular organism is a fully formed multicellular organism. Archaeopterix was a fully formed Archaeopterix. A Penguin is a fully-formed Penguin. It doesn't use it's fully formed small little wings for flying, but for other purposes. Like balancing. The Theory of Evolution predicts that all organisms have to be fully formed to be alive to be able to pass on their genes to be able to evolve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Mr Jack writes: In general usage, when we talk about transitionals without context what we're talking are transitionals specifically between distinct higher taxonomic groups. The OP revealed that Peter doesn't have a clear concept of what a transitional form is. He said that while he had discovered that there were transitional forms in the fossil record, he wondered why there were no transitional forms in existence today, providing as an example, "fish with half formed limbs and such." This led me to wonder what examples from the fossil record he thought were transitionals with half-formed limbs. Later, in Message 24 he recalled reading a a creationist book that asserted there should be more species "in flux" instead of "wholly formed." So I think what would help Peter most is an understanding that all species are always "in flux" and always "wholly formed." The higher taxonomic groups are just accidents of evolutionary history. In a replay archeopteryx could have been representative of a major taxonomic group rather than a transitional between dinosaurs and birds. What we can point to today as representative of transitions between major taxonomic groups were not in transition any more or less than any other species at the time. I think understanding this is important. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Portillo writes: I dont really see how humans are transitional forms. We are fully formed creatures. Yes we may be taller or something like that, but that does not mean we will evolve into something else. All species are always in transition all the time. This is because the DNA that forms the basis of heredity is only imperfectly copied during reproduction. We are all combinations of imperfect copies of our parents' genes. The copying errors accumulate with time, even under conditions of strong selection because of neutral and nearly neutral mutations (copying errors). The error rate when DNA is copied is very tiny, about 1 nucleotide pair in every hundred million. This is why evolutionary change tends to be slow. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I dont really see how humans are transitional forms. We are fully formed creatures. Yes we may be taller or something like that, but that does not mean we will evolve into something else. Was your father fully formed, even though he was transitional between you and your grandfather? Was Middle English a fully formed language even though it was transitional between Old English and Modern English? I don't understand why you think that a transitional organism has to be less than fully formed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Hi Zen, sorry for the confusion. It was simply a joke.
Actually my only point was that (to me) I think most "transitional" fossils are up for interpretation aren't they? Can the fossils be labeled transitional with 100% accuracy? That was my point. Maybe they can, maybe im just ignorant of the process of establishing which fossils are in transition and which ones arent. If there all in transition how do they know where to place them? I assume it's like a puzzle that you have no picture of and trying to fit the pieces in the best you can. Zen, I havn't started reading those books yet, sorry. I will when I get some time. I work an awful lot and barley have time to comment here. About me being defensive in the debate, im not sure how to answer that. Compared to some of the others i've read it seems im pretty lame as far as making great points. Maybe im trying to make up for it with personality. Im going to end it tonight I think, or atleast concede I can't prove the existance of God, which I obviously knew I couldn't but wanted to atleast debate it some with Straggler. Subjective evidence is always better when it's not subjected to other people. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Actually my only point was that (to me) I think most "transitional" fossils are up for interpretation aren't they? Can the fossils be labeled transitional with 100% accuracy? That was my point. Maybe they can, maybe im just ignorant of the process of establishing which fossils are in transition and which ones arent. If there all in transition how do they know where to plaqce them? I assume ot's alike a puzzle that you have no picture of and trying to fit the pieces in the best you can. It is a matter of interpretation, which is why the best and most knowledgeable scientists studying the specimens are the ones we should listen to. No offense, but it makes no sense whatsoever to listen to creationists who have never studied the fossils, let alone even held one of the casts. What are they going to tell us? Creationists rely on 2,000+ year old tribal myths rather than detailed study and accumulated knowledge. Why should one assume they have any right to an educated opinion in these matters? Or, as Heinlein wrote, "Belief gets in the way of learning." Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Actually my only point was that (to me) I think most "transitional" fossils are up for interpretation aren't they? Yes and no. It is a fact that fossils are transitionals. This is interpreted to mean that evolution occurred in the past.
Can the fossils be labeled transitional with 100% accuracy? It is a fact that some fossils and modern species contain a mixture of features from two separate taxa. The platypus has both mammalian and reptilian features. For example, the platypus lays leathery eggs and uses a cloaca like a reptile. The platypus also has fur and mammary glands like mammals do. It is transitional by definition. Biologists use the fact of transitional fossils to conclude that evolution happened in the past. What you need to keep in mind is that the transitional nature of a fossil is not what is being interpreted. Rather, scientific theories such as evolution predict which transitional fossils one should see and not see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3804 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
Actually my only point was that (to me) I think most "transitional" fossils are up for interpretation aren't they? Can the fossils be labeled transitional with 100% accuracy? That was my point. Maybe they can, maybe im just ignorant of the process of establishing which fossils are in transition and which ones arent. If there all in transition how do they know where to place them? I assume it's like a puzzle that you have no picture of and trying to fit the pieces in the best you can. As Coyote said, we do interpret most fossils when determining which are transitional to which descendents. Evolution is messy and can make creating a clear picture of evolutionary paths difficult. We can tease out a clearer picture on certain paths because we might have fossils which show a clearer evolutionary relationship, such as with whales and with horses. That is why you see them used as explanations of what transitional forms might look like. That doesn't mean that we can say with 100% certainty which each fossil species was on the direct ancestral line to today's species, but they do represent what a transitional form should look like. We expect that a transitional form will have a certain degree of ancestral and derived traits. The more ancestral traits versus derived, the older the fossil species is likely to be. (That isn't to say that we don't find living species today that retain many ancestral features, such as Horseshoe crabs and the coelacanth, which is why they are sometimes called "living fossils") Species that might gone extinct and not left any descendents still likely had a common ancestor with a species alive today. It therefore retained some features that are shared ancestral traits. Even if we didn't have a fossil of the direct ancestor, we can develop a good picture of what the direct ancestor might have looked like, because of those ancestral traits retained by the "dead ender". From this information we develop our best idea of what a tree of ancestry (phylogeny of species) might look like. We also use DNA but that is a different story. Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
I can understand the argument. But what Im saying is what exactly are humans going to evolve to, what kind of human or species? Natural selection creates tall, short, dark skinned, white skinned humans, but that is not evolution.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024