Give your best "transitional form"

LoricaLady said:

See how this debate is endless. I have stated, correctly, that I have studied both sides. For years and years. Like Gould for example. Now there's a real scientist for you. I believe he worked for Harvard.

Click to expand...

"For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994


"Some discoveries in science are exciting because they revise or reverse previous expectations, others because they affirm with elegance something well suspected, but previously undocumented. Our four-case story, culminating in Ambulocetus, falls into the second category. This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology. I cannot imagine a better tale for popular presentation of science, or a more satisfying, and intellectually based, political victory over lingering creationist opposition. As such, I present the story in this series of essays with both delight and relish."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan By Its Past"
Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," 1997

He admitted - though he went through many changes of mind in his career as an evolutionist - at one time that there are no transitional forms.

Click to expand...

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

If you had studied both sides you would know that Stephen Jay Gould never said that there are no transitional fossils. Your own words contradict your claimed unbiased opinion. You constantly link to creationist sources instead of scientific ones. You continue to repeat the lies told by professional creationists.

Either the evidence is there or it's not.

Click to expand...

So what would be evidence? What features would a fossil need in order to be transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor with apes?

You can come up with theories on why people would want to squash opposition to orthodoxy in science, you can see evidence for that galore in history, but while you are doing that you are dodging the Qs I asked.

Click to expand...

Which questions?

LoricaLady said:

Countless billions of fossils have been dug up. Though, as mentioned above re nylon eating bacteria and Tiktaalik/Coelacanth we are told over and over that there are "transitional" forms, the arguments are always based on Correlation Does Not Imply Causation ("looks like....similar morphology") Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison" (Look! Humans have 2 "fused" chromsomes and if you count them right we can say that we and chimps both have 48 chromosomes. See? We evolvded from the apes." But...the chromosomes in humans are 100% human, for ex. of a different size and frequency from that of apes, Fallacy of the Single Cause, i.e. "And only evolution can explain it!" But many animals have fussed chromosomes and as one evolutionist said they are using the cherry picking logical fallacy to say our fused chromosome comes via apes when they are not making evolutionary claims for (or even mentioning) fusions in other animals. Also 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromosome, usually harmless. Since that one makes no match with the evolutionary theory it is simply ignored by evolutionists.

Click to expand...

That's a lot of bluster for one post.

Science uses correlations to infer causation. Get over it. If you think I am wrong, describe a scientific study that doesn't use correlation to infer causation. You aren't arguing against transitional fossils. You are arguing against the scientific method as a whole.

The Q is this: What evidence is there that Ambulocetus ever had a single descendant that is significantly different from itself?

Click to expand...

Irrelevant, since determining the transitional nature of a fossil has nothing to do with determing ancestry.

Transitional does not mean ancestral.

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

I am referring to the possibly most famous "transition", i.e. Tiktaalik I invite people to Google Melbourne Museum's "Replica" of Tiktaalik. There you see that not just with words, but commonly with art work, the public is deceived. The actual fossil has fins that are about 1/3 the size of the replica's, has fins that do not have pronounced musculature as seen in the replica and that do not bend like the replica's. Also the replica has a snout that tilts upward to give the impression it is starting to sniff the air. All b.s. Some evolutionary art work shows leg like things on the back of Tik such as have never been seen in fossils or in real life. And that is totally bogus since the real fossil doesn't even have a back end!

Click to expand...

It's only been 8 days since this material was published, so I wont be too judgemental.

"A major challenge in understanding the origin of terrestrial vertebrates has been knowledge of the pelvis and hind appendage of their closest fish relatives. The pelvic girdle and appendage of tetrapods is dramatically larger and more robust than that of fish and contains a number of structures that provide greater musculoskeletal support for posture and locomotion. . . The mosaic of primitive and derived features in Tiktaalik reveals that the enhancement of the pelvic appendage of tetrapods and, indeed, a trend toward hind limb-based propulsion have antecedents in the fins of their closest relatives."
Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae

Notice that I linked to a scientific, peer reviewed journal. You should try doing that more.

They have found Tiktaalik's pelvic girdle, and it is transitional. Tiktaalik has a mixture of primitive and derived features making it transitional between lobe finned fish and tetrapods.

Jro said:

Thanks dude, appreciate the effort.

Click to expand...

I'm still looking for the discussion I read through about the topic, which contained a link to the paper, but it was a rather obscure find at the time. I'll find it, though.

In the meantime, here is a quote by PZ Myers in the comment section under his blog about the topic:

There are herbivorous lacertid, agamid, and iguanid lizards that have cecal valves.

The question of whether this is a consequence of a new genetic change or developmental plasticity is a good one, and the authors ask it, too. The plasticity argument would be that if you take any of the original lizards and force them to subsist on a diet heavy in plant material, their guts would respond by developing more muscular ridges. More experiments! It’s always more experiments!

Click to expand...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/23/still-just-a-lizard/

The question that struck me was, why are there other lizards with cecal valves? That was what led me into the discovery of the recessive gene and/or plasticity arguments.

46AND2 said:

I'm still looking for the discussion I read through about the topic, which contained a link to the paper, but it was a rather obscure find at the time. I'll find it, though.

In the meantime, here is a quote by PZ Myers in the comment section under his blog about the topic:



Still just a lizard – Pharyngula

The question that struck me was, why are there other lizards with cecal valves? That was what led me into the discovery of the recessive gene and/or plasticity arguments.

Click to expand...

I have always viewed the lizards with a cecal valve to be a weak argument because of the issues you bring up.

A much better example, IMHO, is the study on melanism in pocket mice which I have referenced in other threads. In this case, we do know the mutations that led to the new phenotype.

The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

Loudmouth said:

I have always viewed the lizards with a cecal valve to be a weak argument because of the issues you bring up.

A much better example, IMHO, is the study on melanism in pocket mice which I have referenced in other threads. In this case, we do know the mutations that led to the new phenotype.

The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

Click to expand...

Yeah, that mouse example was really cool; I saw that when you posted it before.

Even the original paper about the lizards indicated that further tests need to be done...

Although the presence of cecal valves and large heads in hatchlings and juveniles suggests a genetic basis for these differences, further studies investigating the potential role of phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects in the divergence between populations are needed.

Click to expand...

Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource

Loudmouth said:

Australopithecus afarensis.

Australopithecus afarensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This species has basal ape characteristics such as heavy brow ridges, sloped forehead, relatively small cranium size, barrel shaped chest, and long arms.

This species also has human-like features such as a short and wide pelvis, ilia on the sides of the pelvis, inward angled femur, reduced canines, a wider palate than in other apes.

This species has a mixture of human-like and ape-like features which is the hallmark of a transitional species.



The only logical fallacies I have seen are the ones put forward by creationists. First, they conflate ancestral and transitional. A fossil can be transitional without being the ancestor to any living individual. Transitional simply means having a mixture of characteristics from two divergent taxa.

The whole point is that evolution predicts which transitionals should have existed in the past, and which should not have existed. That is how the fossil record is used to test the theory. For example, the theory predicts that there should have been species with a mixture of reptile and mammal features, but not mammal and bird features. When we find a fossil with a mixture of mammal features and non-mammal features, each and every time it is a mixture of reptile and mammal features. Never is it a mixture of bird and mammal features. We have thousands of transitional fossils, and each one of them fits the predictions made by the theory of evolution. All of the fossils support the theory.



Your first logical fallacy: unsupported conclusion.



Be careful not to commit the fallacy of begging the question.

Click to expand...

Kind of late to the party here, but...

I like to use T. roaseae as a classic illustration of the ToE in action when discussing science with science deniers.

Tiktaalik is a perfect transitional species, in that Dr. Shubin effectively predicted where he should find one... then he found one!

So, the question I ask science deniers and cdesign proponentsists is,

Was Dr. Shubin effectively using the Theory of Evolution to predict where a transitional tetrapod might be found, or was he just lucky?

HitchSlap said:

Kind of late to the party here, but...

I like to use T. roaseae as a classic illustration of the ToE in action when discussing science with science deniers.

Tiktaalik is a perfect transitional species, in that Dr. Shubin effectively predicted where he should find one... then he found one!

So, the question I ask science deniers and cdesign proponentsists is,

Was Dr. Shubin effectively using the Theory of Evolution to predict where a transitional tetrapod might be found, or was he just lucky?

Click to expand...

Knowing how evolution works, I can say that luck was on his side a bit there. That prediction was spectacularly accurate, even more so than most evolutionists expected.

PsychoSarah said:

Knowing how evolution works, I can say that luck was on his side a bit there. That prediction was spectacularly accurate, even more so than most evolutionists expected.

Click to expand...

If by ToE being a powerful predictor, and opportunity coupled by hard work equals luck, then yes.

HitchSlap said:

If by ToE being a powerful predictor, and opportunity coupled by hard work equals luck, then yes.

Click to expand...

It might not have fossilized is the luck component.

What I would like to know is if all these transitional forms are just 2 out of 3 incorrectly classified as has already been shown to be the case with fossils studied in depth?

PsychoSarah said:

It might not have fossilized is the luck component.

Click to expand...

Or the wishful thinking component. One might buy the other except every fossil found is the same from the oldest fossil to the youngest fossil. All T-Rex ever found have always been T-Rex. All Triceratops have been Triceratops, etc. etc. Seems to me you are relying on bad luck alot for every fossil species ever found to explain away why the fossil record fails to show any transition at all.

LoricaLady said:

I have never seen a so called "transitional form"

Click to expand...

Justatruthseeker said:

Or the wishful thinking component. One might buy the other except every fossil found is the same from the oldest fossil to the youngest fossil. All T-Rex ever found have always been T-Rex. All Triceratops have been Triceratops, etc. etc. Seems to me you are relying on bad luck alot for every fossil species ever found to explain away why the fossil record fails to show any transition at all.

Click to expand...

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps?

I suspect that you will refuse to accept any fossil as being transitional, no matter what it looks like.

Loudmouth said:

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps?

I suspect that you will refuse to accept any fossil as being transitional, no matter what it looks like.

Click to expand...

What would you need to be convinced it happened in the past differently than we observe today? So you want me to believe that despite my eyes, the Husky or the English Mastiff slowly evolved into the Chinook? Instead of accepting what we observe also explains why what you misinterpret as new species in the fossil record, are merely different breeds - and your missing transitions are not there because they are missing, instead they simply did not exist as none exist between the Chinook and the Mastiff or Husky?

So I must imagine a never once observed process instead of accepting real world observations so you can keep your clearly incorrect theory? Don't ask you to believe in creation, just admit that theory is wrong and at least find one that is plausible.

Justatruthseeker said:

What I would like to know is if all these transitional forms are just 2 out of 3 incorrectly classified as has already been shown to be the case with fossils studied in depth?

Click to expand...

How are Australopithecines being incorrectly classified?

What features would a real hominid transitional have that Australopithecines are lacking?

Justatruthseeker said:

What would you need to be convinced it happened in the past differently than we observe today? So you want me to believe that despite my eyes, the Husky or the English Mastiff
slowly evolved into the Chinook?

Click to expand...

How did they get to the Husky and Mastiff from wild wolves?

Loudmouth said:

How are Australopithecines being incorrectly classified?

What features would a real hominid transitional have that Australopithecines are lacking?

Click to expand...

You are still denying real world data. No breed ever evolves into another breed. Two breeds mate and produce another breed. This is confirmed in over 100 years of mutational experiments in plant and animal husbandry. No new species ever arise - just infraspecific taxa.

And the same in any laboratory. Those E coli that were mutated a billion times were still E coli. We might one day classify them as a subspecies, and their descendants below that further infraspecific taxa. But they will all still be E coli.

What about Australopithecus? It's not my fault you can't tell an extinct breed of ape when you see one.

Justatruthseeker said:

You are still denying real world data. No breed ever evolves into another breed.

Click to expand...

Evidence please. Show me that Australopithecines never evolved into another breed.

Loudmouth said:

Evidence please. Show me that Australopithecines never evolved into another breed.

Click to expand...

Don't need to. It's never been observed or even hinted at in any laboratory or in real world observation. You are welcome to fantasize all you like.

The better thing to do would be to show me one thing that has besides in a long past age of myth and magic? Then with supporting evidence I might believe. But so far all the supporting evidence says breed mates with breed and produces a new breed within that Kind. Or a breed of E coli through cellular division inherits nothing new, merely accidental errors in coding results in another breed of, yes, E coli.

There are no gaps, there are no missing links - just what we observe. Two breeds mating and producing another breed which would then appear suddenly in the fossil record. That some misinterpret this as meaning the Husky or Mastiff evolved slowly over time into the Chinook, and we just forgot to document those changes so they are missing, is quite frankly just too much.

Justatruthseeker said:

Don't need to.

Click to expand...

Yes you do. You made the claim. Back it up.

"No breed ever evolves into another breed."--Justa

Where is the evidence that australopithecines never evolved into a new breed?

There are no gaps, there are no missing links - just what we observe.

Click to expand...

Then tell us what features a missing link would have, and how those features on not found in the hominid transitionals.



Back up your claims.