All species are transitional

I have a better theory on Brad. I have read several threads on several forums where the writing style by particular posters is similar to Brad's. They always remind me of the this site http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/ It spews out apparently meaningful gibberish.
Could there be a type of poster that uses such a text generator to reply to people's posts?I was pointed to the above web site from a book by Sagan, Gould or Dawkins, I can't quite remember who, but I think the point was that some people people use this "Post Modernist" style to obfuscate their text to confuse thier readers into thinking they are intellectuals.

But is this sentient deliberately planting the evidence that we do see, just to test our faith?

Parasomnium, I think that I get what you are getting at in this thread, not that I think that it helps us evos much. The creationists will just pick holes as usual, especially where there is a difference of opinion on what transitional means, taking JustinC's and Chiropteras differing opinions for example. I tend to agree that all species are transitional as you say, but tend towards Chiroptera's opinion of what transitional means, therefore the qualification that JustinC brings up about extinct species is not valid, extinct species can still be seen as transitional in analogous form. As has been stated, it is impossible to prove that any fossil species is a direct ancestor or descendant of any other fossil species, all we can hope to do is infer that they are because various stages of development are seen in similar species at different times, and especially if these fossils are seen in close proximity in the fossil record, e.g. within the same beds of rock but in different strata.
To a creationist this is just not good enough proof, as has been pointed out so many times before in this type of argument.
Maybe what we need is 2 distinct terms for the meanings of transitional one for the direct lineage meaning and the other for the analogous meaning, maybe "direct-transitional" and "anal-transitional", or should the second one have the first meaning, maybe its not such a good term, (hearing sniggers from the back of the room )
To qualify what we mean by direct transitional I would suggest using the term chronospieces which is well defined as "a species which is reproductively isolated from its relatives by existing in a different time period" (Wiki), thus suggesting a direct lineage.In conclusion I would have to say that all individuals can be seen to be transitional between one species and another (not that all individuals survive to produce offspring that actualy become another species). These individuals, if they survive to produce offspring that actualy become another species, that are therefore in a direct lineage, can be called chronospecies, with respect to thier descendant species. Also some species can be seen to be transitional between higher taxa an an analogous way, or perhaps using a better biological term, in an homologous way (so maybe the above term should be "homo-transitional, hears more sniggers from the back of the room )BTW Brad - there's no such thing as the "missing link" as soon as it's found it's no longer missing therefore disappears in a puff of logic (apologies to Douglas Adams).This message has been edited by halucigenia, 17-10-2005 09:37 AM

Brad, as usual a cryptic post. I assume that you are justifying the use of the term missing link by alluding to what a couple of 19th century geologists thought about the term. I don't think that this will wash with what today's scientists think. The term may have been introduced by Lyell, I don't know, but my point was that as a scientific term it is meaningless.
I agree that there are, by necessity, gaps in the fossil record, but there is no point in giving the absence of evidence a specific term, the evidence either turns up or it does not. When the evidence does turn up, then I guess we can say that this fossil fits within the gap, but the cry from creationists will always be - but what fits the gap between the new fossil and the next, to them there is always a missing link, as if it was something that they perceive should be there, but never will be. Believing that evidence does not exist is an untenable position. But this is why creationists do not accept transitionals.As for I can't begin to imagine what you mean by this, can you explain, I do like trying to understand what others are trying to say. I consume bacteria every day, it's part of a healthy diet don't you know

OK, so "a couple of 19th century geologists" was a bit harsh on Lyell and Agassiz, I do acknowledge them as some of the founders of modern geology. But the point was stated that the term missing link is scientifically meaningless, and I think that we do agree on this don't we, if what you are trying to get across is that the term transitional should not be equated with missing link?
Differences in taphonomy aside, there are still probably huge gaps in the fossil record simply because of the fact that not all fossiliferous rocks are currently accessable, also there must be large volumes of rock that were once laid down that simply no longer exist due to erosion.
However if you want to be pedantic about it these inaccessible rocks are not part of the fossil record untill they are accessed.
Let's just say that there are bound to be gaps in the history of life as seen by the fossil record at any point in time and that some of these gaps are undoubtedly going to be filled in as the fossil record increases. That is not to say that we do not have some fine examples of direct lineages of some species within the fossil record.As for Lyell and Agassiz's "treatises of natural theology" I think that it is a shame that today's creationists can not be as flexible as they were in their theology. Though I do agree with Mayr that "there could not be any truely objective and uncommitted science until science and theology had been cleanly and completely divorced from each other", I always say that I do not trust anyone who is religious because they have an ulterior motive Brad - thanks for the prose in the first few paragraphs keep it up you are becoming clearer in your posts.
Oh dear, now to the last two paragraphs, just when I thought that you were becoming more lucid.Something about the dispute between molecular and whole organism biologists. Are you alluding to the missing link between the living and the non living citing the virus as non living? Are you saying something about the fact that humans, like viruses are adapted to living by using bacteria? Are you suggesting that there are molecular taxonomies like organism taxonomies but having cistrons as nodes instead of species?
Interesting stuff, but as you say - another thread of another topic.

And when I said pick holes I meant it a little more generaly.
I agree that there can be no holes in any lineage, your point is clearly put, but obviously not understood by Herepton as Herepton says Logic actually dictates that there must be transitional fossils and that every fossil found can be thought of as transitional. Herepton appears to be picking holes where no holes exist Also Herepton seems to think that asserting that all species are transitional means no macroevolution instead of realising that accepting that all species are transitional shows that there is no distinction between macro and micro they are just part of the continuous change of species. I think that Herepton still wants us to unearth that illusive half cat half dog or half elephant half mouse fossil as an example of a transitional and until these impossible fossils are unearthed will not accept evolution.

But what if the original population of non-speckled was still able to produce slightly-speckled. As soon as this slightly-speckled offspring appears again the heavily-speckled population is no longer a species any more. Would creationists call this an "un-speciation event"?As NosyNed would say "a bit more odd"As Razd would say "Line ... no line ... line ... "As Schrodinger's cat would say "If I eat this one does the species exist again or not"

Agreed, "on and off" is not seemless but "now it is a species now it's not" still seems a bit odd.The point about the finches, I assume, is that, they are defined as different species because they do not mate rather then they can not mate.
It would be very inconvenient to change species boundaries every time that we see 2 species mate that do not normally mate, and back again when they stop mating again when conditions stabilise.

But how, in reality, do you distinguish this - by taking every species that there is and force them to mate?