Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Are there transitional fossils?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Job 33:6" data-source="post: 71412657" data-attributes="member: 399299"><p>Of course Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx are pretty popular representations of evolutionary transitions.</p><p></p><p>Tiktaalik has wrist bones and bones like that of an alligator, for lifting of its body. Its eyes are on top of its head, also like an alligator. Yet it has scales like a fish, and fins.</p><p></p><p>Archaeopteryx has longer finger digits and a long tail. Teeth and its reversed first toe, like a theropod dinosaur. Yet it also had feathers and a wishbone like a bird, and by all accounts just looked like a theropod bird.</p><p></p><p>People seem to commonly site the tetrapod tracks found in Norway or wherever they were. However, the age difference between those tetrapod tracks and that of Tiktaalik is no more than 10 or so million years (which sounds like a lot, but considering the fossil record which spans over 600 million (general complex fossils, it isn't as long as it may seem). This isnt an issue for the theory, rather it only reaffirms the existence of the fossil succession in demonstrating the fact that early tetrapods roamed the earth in the middle Devonian or so. If a T rex were found back then (Devonian times), it would be an issue because youre talking about 200 million years in difference. But to say that tetrapods were around only 10 my earlier, is more of an establishment or reaffirmation of the theory.</p><p></p><p>Also, people should understand that a transitional fossil, doesn't necessarily need to be the precise animal that gave birth to our parents. On the contrary, its a given that 99% of living things went extinct in earth history, and what we view in the fossil record is likely just a closely related organism that is used to understand the succession of life as it unfolded. So, really tiktaalik could be viewed more as the close cousin of our ancestor, that went extinct. It may have gone extinct shortly after our ancestor transitioned. It may have gone extinct shortly before, etc.</p><p></p><p>Regardless of all this though, the fossils both do a good job at depicting the transition of life through time, hence why they are considered transitional fossils.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Job 33:6, post: 71412657, member: 399299"] Of course Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx are pretty popular representations of evolutionary transitions. Tiktaalik has wrist bones and bones like that of an alligator, for lifting of its body. Its eyes are on top of its head, also like an alligator. Yet it has scales like a fish, and fins. Archaeopteryx has longer finger digits and a long tail. Teeth and its reversed first toe, like a theropod dinosaur. Yet it also had feathers and a wishbone like a bird, and by all accounts just looked like a theropod bird. People seem to commonly site the tetrapod tracks found in Norway or wherever they were. However, the age difference between those tetrapod tracks and that of Tiktaalik is no more than 10 or so million years (which sounds like a lot, but considering the fossil record which spans over 600 million (general complex fossils, it isn't as long as it may seem). This isnt an issue for the theory, rather it only reaffirms the existence of the fossil succession in demonstrating the fact that early tetrapods roamed the earth in the middle Devonian or so. If a T rex were found back then (Devonian times), it would be an issue because youre talking about 200 million years in difference. But to say that tetrapods were around only 10 my earlier, is more of an establishment or reaffirmation of the theory. Also, people should understand that a transitional fossil, doesn't necessarily need to be the precise animal that gave birth to our parents. On the contrary, its a given that 99% of living things went extinct in earth history, and what we view in the fossil record is likely just a closely related organism that is used to understand the succession of life as it unfolded. So, really tiktaalik could be viewed more as the close cousin of our ancestor, that went extinct. It may have gone extinct shortly after our ancestor transitioned. It may have gone extinct shortly before, etc. Regardless of all this though, the fossils both do a good job at depicting the transition of life through time, hence why they are considered transitional fossils. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Are there transitional fossils?
Top
Bottom