Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Definition and Description of a "Transitional"
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 110 (126739)
07-22-2004 6:08 PM


The issue of transitional fossils comes up in many places in discussions here. One side says there are none and the other makes lists of them.
What I haven't seen from the literalist "creationist" side is a definition of what a transitional is. What do they expect them to look like? How would we know when we have one?
I would expect a literalist to supply a pair of "kinds" and the describe what they think a "transitional" between them would be.
Note: This thread is NOT for science types to show examples of transitionals or for literalists to debunk any given transitional. It is only to clarify what is meant my this.
The science types may supply their own definitions. I expect there will be a goodly amount of congruence in those definitions.
We need many definitions from the non-science camp since I will guess that there are a lot of them (one per person? ).
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-22-2004 05:08 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by coffee_addict, posted 07-22-2004 6:20 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 07-23-2004 11:30 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 12 by Robert Byers, posted 07-24-2004 5:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 110 (126740)
07-22-2004 6:08 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 3 of 110 (126744)
07-22-2004 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
07-22-2004 6:08 PM


How about a fossil of an animal with a tail of an iguana, a body of a dog encased in a shell like the turtle, 2 hind legs of a horse, 2 front logs of an elephant, a head of a t-rex with 8 eyes like the spider, and a mouth of an ant-eater?

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2004 6:08 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2004 7:16 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 110 (126761)
07-22-2004 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by coffee_addict
07-22-2004 6:20 PM


Between what?
The OT asks for the "things" that the transitional is between. You failed to supply that.
You also gave an example but not a definition? Why is that an example of whatever the heck you define "transitional" as?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by coffee_addict, posted 07-22-2004 6:20 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 07-23-2004 10:59 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 07-23-2004 11:48 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 110 (126953)
07-23-2004 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
07-22-2004 7:16 PM


Bump
Funny, we had some bringing up transitionals who now seem to have forgotten how to define them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2004 7:16 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 110 (126957)
07-23-2004 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
07-22-2004 6:08 PM


Nosy,
The science types may supply their own definitions. I expect there will be a goodly amount of congruence in those definitions.
A transitional is a form that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa.
Ta-da!
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2004 6:08 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 07-23-2004 11:45 AM mark24 has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 110 (126962)
07-23-2004 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
07-23-2004 11:30 AM


More?
Don't those characteristics need to be "defining" characteristics of the taxa? So things that lots have in common don't count?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 07-23-2004 11:30 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 07-23-2004 1:22 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 07-23-2004 1:38 PM NosyNed has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 8 of 110 (126963)
07-23-2004 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
07-22-2004 7:16 PM


Re: Between what?
Sorry Ned! I was giving an example of what some creationists wanted in the past. The message I was trying get across was that if it wasn't a part dog part cat, part lion part tiger, or part of anything part of another thing, it's not transitional.
I'll go with mark's definition.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2004 7:16 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 110 (126990)
07-23-2004 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
07-23-2004 11:45 AM


Re: More?
Ned,
Don't those characteristics need to be "defining" characteristics of the taxa? So things that lots have in common don't count?
No. The defining characters of a taxa are relatively few in number. For example, what are the defining characters of birds? It's not feathers... As a result we have to take a more stochastic view regarding characters. Characters that are generally associated with one taxa can be found in reasonable quantities with characters found in another taxa. So something like Archaeopteryx having a long bony tail when no modern bird has one, can says something of the "basality" of the genus even when lots of taxa have bony tails, not just therapod repiles, taken in conjunction with other character dis/similarities. This is basically how cladistics works.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 07-23-2004 11:45 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 11-29-2004 8:32 PM mark24 has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 110 (126998)
07-23-2004 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
07-23-2004 11:45 AM


Re: More?
quote:
Don't those characteristics need to be "defining" characteristics of the taxa? So things that lots have in common don't count?
When looking at two taxa you look for characteristics that are easily fossilized (such as bones/feathers) and are distinctly and objectively different between the taxa.
One example that I like to go with is the reptillian and mammalian middle ears. These two systems are objectively different, they are different both in structure and what bones make them up. We should then find fossils that are in transition between the two states, and we do.
Another example (staying with mammals and reptiles) is the teeth. Mammals have very specialized teeth (canines, molors, incisors) while reptiles have teeth that are uniform in shape (conical). We should expect to see fossils that have a mixture of these two types of teeth.
These are just a couple of examples, but such differences can be found between almost any taxa, especially at the level of reptiles and mammals. However, we wouldn't expect every feature or characteristic to be half way. Rather, you expect to see a mosaic, with some features nearing complete cross over while other features lag behind. As mark24 pointed out, we look for fossil species that have characteristics of both, or characteristics that are in transition between the two states.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 07-23-2004 11:45 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 07-23-2004 2:54 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 110 (127019)
07-23-2004 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Loudmouth
07-23-2004 1:38 PM


A defintion, I think
We seem to be getting there. I'll take it on myself to bump this at any literalists who use the work "transitional".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 07-23-2004 1:38 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4359 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 12 of 110 (127359)
07-24-2004 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
07-22-2004 6:08 PM


I will as a creationist try to deal with this.
But first you must allow me something.
We Don't believe there are transitionals so our defining what they are or look like is,ah,unnatural.
We are told all creatures evolved from one body type to another over great amounts of time.
A deer was, to go back father by father, a rodent like creature and before that something else.
We have elephants, cats, pandas, and millions of years ago thier biological ancesters would be totally different and unrecognizable.
So from that point to this since the process of change happened because of natural selection etc it is concluded that the change of body type must of happened a lot and so fossils of this should be evident. Remembering that fossils are used as the evidence for the conclusions now insisted on.
What is a transition?
Well all or some or any fossils of all the body types between point a and point b.
A long time. Lots of oppourtunity. So many "kinds" must of existed.
Its up to you to show them. Then we can answer if you have proven ancestry or making a guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2004 6:08 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by nator, posted 07-24-2004 6:00 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 14 by Loudmouth, posted 07-26-2004 11:47 AM Robert Byers has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 13 of 110 (127362)
07-24-2004 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Robert Byers
07-24-2004 5:48 PM


quote:
What is a transition?
Well all or some or any fossils of all the body types between point a and point b.
A long time. Lots of oppourtunity. So many "kinds" must of existed.
We aren't talking about what a transition is.
We want to know what a transitional fossil would look like, according to you, and why.
You say they don't exist, but if they did, what do you think it should look like? Please explain why it would look that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Robert Byers, posted 07-24-2004 5:48 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Robert Byers, posted 07-26-2004 3:11 PM nator has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 110 (127763)
07-26-2004 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Robert Byers
07-24-2004 5:48 PM


quote:
I will as a creationist try to deal with this.
But first you must allow me something.
We Don't believe there are transitionals so our defining what they are or look like is,ah,unnatural.
Creationists claim that that evolutionists have not FOUND any transitional fossils. Evolutionists claim that they have, and they define in detail why it is a transitional fossil. Creationist claim that it isn't transitional because it doens't jive with their Bible, a very subjective and empty reason. Instead of giving concrete, objective reasons for rejecting these fossils, creationists instead claim that they SHOULDN'T exist, which, I guess, allows them to ignore their very exisitence. IOW, creationists are scared so they refuse to look at them or define what a transitional fossil should look like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Robert Byers, posted 07-24-2004 5:48 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Robert Byers, posted 07-26-2004 3:17 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4359 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 15 of 110 (127844)
07-26-2004 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by nator
07-24-2004 6:00 PM


OK. What would something look like that I hold could never actually of come to pass. HMMMM
The creature must be suitable to survive in its envirorment. And yet be an ancester of a body type that was sucessful in another envirorment. HMMM
This is hard.
External/internal anatomy realignment. Fluffy or not fluffy.
I'm stumped.
There are by defination no intermediate kinds as each is suitable to its place in order to survive.
For example for sure there was no intermediate kind between a tree kangaroo and a kangaroo.
I'm not being resistant. I'm having great trouble presenting what a transition would look like.
I need help perhaps a animal in particular.
Regards Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by nator, posted 07-24-2004 6:00 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Loudmouth, posted 07-26-2004 3:30 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 18 by RRoman, posted 07-26-2004 5:36 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 07-26-2004 7:14 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024