Living Transitionals

I have heard all the YEC arguments about the lack of transitional fossils. My question is are there any examples of transitional animals. The duck billed platypus for example seems to be an example of an animal that is caught between forms. Also flightless birds would seem to me to be a terrible design flaw considering the creationist's designer is perfect. I am just curious what if any research has been done on this topis, or subject.Thank you.Edited by Admin, : Change title.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Welcome to EvC, lambkj. And YECs seem to have a learning disorder that makes it difficult for them to comprehend things that are easily understood by most grade school children. The fact is, there are lots and lots of transitional fossils.Google human evolution, and you'll see information about lots of transitionals in the lineage the led to humans. Google Pakicetus, and you'll likely not only learn about Pakicetus itself, but also see information on the later transtionals the led from a land animal to modern whales. And Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega are three of the many transitionals between water creatures and the land animals like reptiles, birds, and mammals. Kathleen Hunt wrote an essay listing a lot of important transitional fossils. It's out of date now; there are more nowadays.- Your thread title says, "Living Transitionals." What are you looking for? What kind of research do you mean?Just so that we understand what is meant (or what is not meant) by a transitional, remember that a platypus is also the end of a lineage that experience a lot of natural selection. So one can say that the platypus is transitional between early tetrapods and modern mammals, but it is just as correct to say that a cat is transitional between early tetrapods and modern monotremes. Kind of cool, yes?

---

...Onward to Victory is the last great illusion the Republican Party has left to sell in this country, even to its own followers. They can't sell fiscal responsibility, they can't sell "values," they can't sell competence, they can't sell small government, they can't even sell the economy. -- Matt Taibbi

It was me who created the title, which was originally "Biological query" or some such. It seemed to me that Lambkj was looking for examples of living animals that appear overtly transitional by their possession of characteristics from more than one major group. If that's not the case perhaps he can clarify.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi lambkj, welcome to EvC Forum. You ask a good question. Transitional forms are one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for evolution and there are plenty out there. In fact, any creature that manages to live long enough to produce viable offspring can be viewed as transitional. It may not seem this way when we look at modern species, but this is because the transition is incredibly slow. Modern species may look fixed, but in fact they are all in transition, even us. Actually, I'm pretty sure that the platypus has remained fairly stable for a very long time, but it is a good example of the transition between reptiles and early mammals. It has both reptilian and mammalian traits. Only if you consider that "perfect" birds must fly. Flight is not part of the purpose of a bird, merely a means to an end, namely survival. Survival is the aim of the game. Some birds achieve this, in part, by being good at flying. Some survive by being good runners. So long as both manage to survive long enough to produce viable offspring and pass on their genes, they pass the test set by natural selection. Neither is more flawed than the other. Natural selection only demands that an individual be just good enough to get by, it need not be perfect.My favourite example of a living transitional form happens to be from probably the most famous flightless bird, the ostrich. Ostriches are fantastic high speed runners, and as such, their feet are well suited to high speed running. This is from the Wikipedia article on ostriches;

quote:

---

The strong legs of the Ostrich lack feathers. The bird has just two toes on each foot (most birds have four), with the nail of the larger, inner one resembling a hoof. The outer toe lacks a nail.[17] This is an adaptation unique to Ostriches that appears to aid in running.

---

Here is a picture; This foot is well on its way to become a hoof. Hooves would actually be more efficient and the ostrich is headed in the same direction. The modern ostrich foot bears a striking similarity to the feet of early horses, which went through much the same process, as can be seen here; You can see how a gradual process of inherited change is occurring, from splayed toes, to a tough single hoof. The side toes become less and less important, and gradually diminish. The ostrich is midway through a similar process. Just look at the similarity between the Merychippus foot above, and this skeletal ostrich foot; This is just one example of course. I hope it helps.

---

Mutate and Survive

Yes, the admin stated it very nicely."It seemed to me that Lambkj was looking for examples of living animals that appear overtly transitional by their possession of characteristics from more than one major group"Thanks for all the great responses.

I have some problems with this: first the ostrich is not on the way to developing a horses hoof -- what we are seeing is convergent evolution to a similar design, one that will have particular differences -- second that you have a balance problem with being bipedal that will probably mean that standing flat-footed will continue to be advantageous. When you look at ostriches running you see them up on the toes, so this foot will serve dual purposes with an adaptable ankle.The real question is what we mean by transitional: in a very real sense all organisms are transitional -- they are between what has been and what will be, even if we don't know what they will be.Every fossil found is a transitional between what went before and what came after -- unless "after" involved extinction.In genetics we can study the rates of change in species and see if some organisms are under higher pressure to evolve and thus select for, and incorporate (fix), more mutations ... and we see that humans have a high rate compared to apes.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : fossils, genetics

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[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) • • •

The greatest example I can think of for a transitional animal now in existance is this: Look in the mirror.

"Only if you consider that "perfect" birds must fly. Flight is not part of the purpose of a bird, merely a means to an end, namely survival. Survival is the aim of the game. Some birds achieve this, in part, by being good at flying. Some survive by being good runners. So long as both manage to survive long enough to produce viable offspring and pass on their genes, they pass the test set by natural selection. Neither is more flawed than the other. Natural selection only demands that an individual be just good enough to get by, it need not be perfect"So in the case of say penguins. The penguin is perfect as a penguin, but as a bird it is flawed in that it cannot fly. So is a penguin perhaps an example of an animal that is in transition between a flighted bird, and some other form. Is there any biological evidence to suggest penguin's, or penguin's early ancestors were flighted. Or perhaps the penguin is evolving the other way, and is evolving into a flighted bird. I think the question, or difficulty I am having is why would a god create a winged creature that could not fly. I do understand that all animals are in transition, but it seems to me that there are some animals that are clearly at some sort of evolutionary crossroads, caught between mammal, and reptile, or flighted bird, grounded mammal.Thank you.

There is a problem here with understanding terms "transitional" and "evolution" -- strictly speaking no organism will incorporate a feature from a different branch of the diversity tree of life. Bats do not grow bird wings. Both bats and birds will show transition from ancient forms to modern forms, but the reason for wings - flight - is enabled by different designs, not by copying the same design from one group to another.In biological evolutionary terms this is known as convergent evolution - a similar function developed independently by the process of evolution in different groups to take advantage of the same basic "form fits function" as optimized as far as practical within each species by natural selection.Likewise all running hoofed herbivorous herd animals are under the same evolutionary pressure to evade predators and develop along similar lines, though some may be split hoofed and others have a single running toe.You can see this in similar animals in the americas compared to africa even though they have diverged a long time ago. You can also see it in marsupials vs placentals occupying similar niches. See sugar gliders vs flying squirrels (and check out the whole series).A typical creationist version of a "transitional" is an organism that is "morphing" from one form to another during its lifetime, and thus would show half-way development. This is not what happens with evolution - evolution does not occur in individuals.In other words you will never - strictly speaking - get any "animals that appear overtly transitional by their possession of characteristics from more than one major group" -- they will always only have characteristics derived from their group. If their group develops a feature similar to another group (for similar reasons) then they will have similar characteristics ... but that are different in the details.Enjoy.ps -- as you are new:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.For other formating tips see Posting TipsEdited by RAZD, : added ps

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[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) • • •

No. Penguins are actually very very good at flying ... in water. If you look at videos you will see that this is what they do. The size of their wings is "perfect" for flying in the medium of water -- the difference between air and water wings has to do with the "Reynolds" number, which makes airplane wings and sailboat keels similar.Enjoy.type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.For other formating tips see Posting Tips

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[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) • • •

Again, I would insist that "perfect" is not a very useful term for understanding biology. The lack of true flight is not an imperfection, or any kind of hindrance whatever, because the penguin doesn't need to fly. It does very well without flight and this is enough for the species to continue. One might as well say that the penguin's inability to shoot laser beams from its eyes is an imperfection. The fact that penguins use modified wings instead of fish-like fins is evidence of their common ancestry with other modern birds. Their ancestors were certainly able to fly. As they moved into a more aquatic environment, their wings gradually became more adept as flippers, and less useful for flying. Many water birds have wings that are a compromise between flight and underwater manoeuvrability. The penguin has just gone that little bit further down the path of specialisation. Good question. It would seem extremely perverse to do so. I would suggest that the answer to your conundrum id that God didn't create the penguin.I am reminded of Darwin's comment;

quote:

---

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice."

---

The Ichneumonidae are wasps, which lay their eggs inside the bodies of living caterpillars, and other creatures. They first paralyse their victim, but make sure that it stays alive, so that when those eggs hatch, the offspring might have fresh meat. The unfortunate caterpillar is consumed from within.I find it hard to believe that a loving god would create such things, just as I find it hard to believe that such a god would bother to make things look so very much as though they evolved independently.P.S. In the bottom right corner of each post there is a "Reply" button, which links your reply to that individual message. Using this button makes it a lot easier to know who you are talking to, and it leaves a reply notification on that member's topic index. Edited by Granny Magda, : Clarity

---

Mutate and Survive

They fly under water, using the same motions as flight rather than the motions of fish swimming. Google for videos.

African penguins swimming and porpoising

© BBC Natural History Unit

If you want to see a modern day transitional on this type of development look at the Galapagos Cormorant. Several diving birds can also use their wings underwater.Note that many island birds and bugs loose wings on islands if there are no predators -- flying can get you blown out to sea. There are many parasitic wasps, didn't you post on one lives in the head of ants? You mean this one?

Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : reply buttonEdited by RAZD, : copy & paste paragraph, not whole post ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[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) • • •

Hi RAZD,Thanks for the video, it makes the point rather better than I did. I was recently lucky enough to spot a Little Grebe swimming underwater in the beautifully clear River Test. I often see them at home in Leicestershire, but our waterways are rarely clear enough to see into, so I had never seen a grebe swimming. It was using its feet as paddles rather more than a penguin, but every now and then, its wings shot out and it manoeuvred with them just as it might in true flight. It put on a dazzling display of speed and agility. Watching birds like this gives one a little window into how birds first became adapted to life under water; they already had the perfect equipment for it. Indeed. I believe that New Zealand boasts a species of flightless bat, truly bizarre. Something like that yeah, me and Brenna swap anecdotes about how various species can make life difficult for ants in this thread. Any god who created those must have a fairly warped sense of aesthetics!
Thanks for the reply button pic btw!

---

Mutate and Survive