Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 7:07 PM
21 online now:
dwise1, Meddle, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,792 Year: 4,829/19,786 Month: 951/873 Week: 307/376 Day: 100/57 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   Transitional forms in existence today
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 581 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 31 of 62 (623833)
07-13-2011 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Taq
07-13-2011 5:24 PM


Taq writes:

What transitional mammalian features do penguins have?

Tuxedos.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 07-13-2011 5:24 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by subbie, posted 07-13-2011 6:45 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 64 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 32 of 62 (623835)
07-13-2011 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by bluegenes
07-13-2011 6:10 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by bluegenes, posted 07-13-2011 6:10 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 33 of 62 (623844)
07-13-2011 11:12 PM


Messages with real, relevant content...
...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 2265 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 34 of 62 (623864)
07-14-2011 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
07-13-2011 6:48 AM


Re: All Species are Transitional
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 07-13-2011 6:48 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Jack, posted 07-14-2011 4:18 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Panda, posted 07-14-2011 5:50 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Pressie, posted 07-14-2011 6:02 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 07-14-2011 7:23 AM Portillo has responded
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 07-14-2011 3:25 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 35 of 62 (623865)
07-14-2011 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Portillo
07-14-2011 4:12 AM


Re: All Species are Transitional
All transitional forms are fully formed creatures. There aren't any "part formed" creatures in evolutionary theory.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Portillo, posted 07-14-2011 4:12 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 36 of 62 (623870)
07-14-2011 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Portillo
07-14-2011 4:12 AM


Re: All Species are Transitional
Portillo writes:

I dont really see how humans are transitional forms. We are fully formed creatures.

What do you actually expect a transitional form to look like?

Portillo writes:

Yes we may be taller or something like that, but that does not mean we will evolve into something else.

Yes, we may be taller and less hairy and more intelligent than our monkey ancestors......oh, we appear to have evolved 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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Portillo, posted 07-14-2011 4:12 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 37 of 62 (623871)
07-14-2011 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Portillo
07-14-2011 4:12 AM


Re: All Species are Transitional
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Portillo, posted 07-14-2011 4:12 AM Portillo has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18364
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 38 of 62 (623875)
07-14-2011 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Jack
07-13-2011 7:15 AM


Re: Saying "All Species are Transitional" is equivocation
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Jack, posted 07-13-2011 7:15 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18364
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 39 of 62 (623876)
07-14-2011 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Portillo
07-14-2011 4:12 AM


Re: All Species are Transitional
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Portillo, posted 07-14-2011 4:12 AM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Portillo, posted 07-15-2011 3:42 AM Percy has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7693
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 40 of 62 (623938)
07-14-2011 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Portillo
07-14-2011 4:12 AM


Re: All Species are Transitional
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Portillo, posted 07-14-2011 4:12 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 62 (623961)
07-15-2011 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by ZenMonkey
07-13-2011 5:02 PM


Re: Wha?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-13-2011 5:02 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 07-15-2011 12:11 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Taq, posted 07-15-2011 12:36 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 44 by DBlevins, posted 07-15-2011 1:11 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2011 2:57 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 62 (623962)
07-15-2011 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Chuck77
07-15-2011 12:04 AM


Re: Wha?
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Chuck77, posted 07-15-2011 12:04 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7693
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 43 of 62 (623964)
07-15-2011 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Chuck77
07-15-2011 12:04 AM


Re: Wha?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Chuck77, posted 07-15-2011 12:04 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dr Jack, posted 07-15-2011 4:51 AM Taq has responded

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1879 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 44 of 62 (623967)
07-15-2011 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Chuck77
07-15-2011 12:04 AM


Re: Wha?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Chuck77, posted 07-15-2011 12:04 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 2265 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 45 of 62 (623979)
07-15-2011 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Percy
07-14-2011 7:23 AM


Re: All Species are Transitional
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 07-14-2011 7:23 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Larni, posted 07-15-2011 4:34 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Panda, posted 07-15-2011 5:41 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 07-15-2011 7:57 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 50 by misha, posted 07-15-2011 2:31 PM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2011 2:58 PM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Taq, posted 07-15-2011 3:12 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019