New transitional pterosaur fossil

[Mallon]

From http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/10/darwinopterus_transitional.php

"Pterosaurs - the charismatic flying archosaurs of the Mesozoic Era - fall fairly nearly into two great assemblages: the primitive, mostly long-tailed basal forms (or 'rhamphorhynchoids') and the more strongly modified, consistently short-tailed pterodactyloids... Today see the publication of a remarkable new kind of pterosaur that bridges the gap between non-pterodactyloids and pterodactyloids, and it exhibits a surprising melange of characters."

Another gap filled in the evolution of God's creation.

 

[Chesterton]

Another gap filled in the evolution of God's creation.

And two more created. At this rate...

 

[philadiddle]

Quit posting transitional forms. You're making the creationists here willfully ignorant instead of just ignorant.

 

[juvenissun]

From http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/10/darwinopterus_transitional.php:

"Pterosaurs - the charismatic flying archosaurs of the Mesozoic Era - fall fairly nearly into two great assemblages: the primitive, mostly long-tailed basal forms (or 'rhamphorhynchoids') and the more strongly modified, consistently short-tailed pterodactyloids... Today see the publication of a remarkable new kind of pterosaur that bridges the gap between non-pterodactyloids and pterodactyloids, and it exhibits a surprising melange of characters."

Another gap filled in the evolution of God's creation.

Could you show me any fossil, which is not transitional?

In fact, when you filled one gap, you actually created two gaps.

 

[Chesterton]

Could you show me any fossil, which is not transitional?

For that matter, show me any living thing which is not transitional.

Here's another photo of a group of recently discovered transitional organisms:

 

[Dark_Lite]

Could you show me any fossil, which is not transitional?

In fact, when you filled one gap, you actually created two gaps.

So now it's moved on from "there are no transitional fossils" to "every fossil is transitional but evolution is still wrong?"

What do you mean "two gaps?" My guess is the fossils that would be on either "end" of a given fossil (ancestor and descendant). If that is so, what exactly are you expecting? I think your maths might be a bit off...

 

[Mallon]

Could you show me any fossil, which is not transitional?[/quote[
Nope. Any individual that reproduces is necessarily transitional.

In fact, when you filled one gap, you actually created two gaps.

Thanks for admitting to the transitional nature of this fossil.

 

[juvenissun]

Could you show me any fossil, which is not transitional?[/quote[
Nope. Any individual that reproduces is necessarily transitional.


Thanks for admitting to the transitional nature of this fossil.

This is an old argument:

Draw a circle on one side and a square on the other side, then you can fill any numbers of transitional forms in between, and make up a story of shape transition. Or, look it in another way, you could never fill enough transitional forms in between them to make a completely transition.

Am I arguing for the transitional fossil or am just doing the opposite?

 

[Dark_Lite]

This is an old argument:

Draw a circle on one side and a square on the other side, then you can fill any numbers of transitional forms in between, and make up a story of shape transition. Or, look it in another way, you could never fill enough transitional forms in between them to make a completely transition.

Am I arguing for the transitional fossil or am just doing the opposite?

That's just Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox. Take a distance from point A to point B. Starting at point A, but before you can get to point B, you must get halfway there. But to get halfway there, you have to get halfway to that halfway point. So on and so forth until we go infinitely small and reach zero and thus move nowhere.

What's wrong with that argument? Humans move, and motion works. We clearly go halfway from point A to point B, and even all the way to point B. The same applies to your argument.

 

[Mallon]

Draw a circle on one side and a square on the other side, then you can fill any numbers of transitional forms in between, and make up a story of shape transition. Or, look it in another way, you could never fill enough transitional forms in between them to make a completely transition.

If the transition never occurred, as neocreationists insist, then we should find NO half-circle/half-square shapes in between. The fact that we do suggests that a transition DID occur. Who cares if we can't fill in every gap in between? We shouldn't expect to, given the incomplete nature of the fossil record. The fact that we find transitional fossils at all is evidence of evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

If the transition never occurred, as neocreationists insist, then we should find NO half-circle/half-square shapes in between. The fact that we do suggests that a transition DID occur. Who cares if we can't fill in every gap in between? We shouldn't expect to, given the incomplete nature of the fossil record. The fact that we find transitional fossils at all is evidence of evolution.

The circle represents a species. So does the square.
Would the transitions in between also be given names of species? If you do, you are putting triangle, pentagon, etc. in between the circle and the square, and you get yourself more and more proves to search. If you don't, then should it be called a transitional?

Scarce of fossils? Some of them you got a bunch, some of them you got only one or few. The distribution pattern itself presents a problem which forced you to make up another story (environment?) to deal with it. For example, why is this transitional dino so hard to find? Did they live on mountain peaks in the desert? Or are their bones too soft? Or ... what?

 

[juvenissun]

That's just Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox. Take a distance from point A to point B. Starting at point A, but before you can get to point B, you must get halfway there. But to get halfway there, you have to get halfway to that halfway point. So on and so forth until we go infinitely small and reach zero and thus move nowhere.

What's wrong with that argument? Humans move, and motion works. We clearly go halfway from point A to point B, and even all the way to point B. The same applies to your argument.

No. It is not. We do not need to see so many halves in between. That is theoretical. Use the circle and square example, if I could see three or four transitions in between "two species" "in general", That would probably be OK.

Tell me why is this expectation not reasonable?

 

[Sphinx777]

Pterosaurs (from the Greek πτερόσαυρος, pterosauros, meaning "winged lizard", often referred to as pterodactyls, from the Greek πτεροδάκτυλος, pterodaktulos, meaning "winged finger") were flying reptiles of the clade or order Pterosauria. They existed from the late Triassic to the end of the Cretaceous Period (220 to 65.5 million years ago). Pterosaurs are the earliest vertebrates known to have evolved powered flight. Their wings were formed by a membrane of skin, muscle, and other tissues stretching from the legs to a dramatically lengthened fourth finger. Early species had long, fully-toothed jaws and long tails, while later forms had a highly reduced tail, and some lacked teeth. Many sported furry coats made up of hair-like filaments known as pycnofibres, which covered their bodies and parts of their wings. Pterosaurs spanned a wide range of adult sizes, from the very small Nemicolopterus to the largest known flying creatures of all time, including Quetzalcoatlus and Hatzegopteryx.

Pterosaurs are sometimes referred to in the popular media as dinosaurs, but this is incorrect. The term "dinosaur" is properly restricted to a certain group of terrestrial reptiles with a unique upright stance (superorder Dinosauria), and therefore excludes the pterosaurs, as well as the various groups of extinct aquatic reptiles, such as ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and mosasaurs.

 

[juvenissun]

Pterosaurs (from the Greek πτερόσαυρος, pterosauros, meaning "winged lizard", often referred to as pterodactyls, from the Greek πτεροδάκτυλος, pterodaktulos, meaning "winged finger") were flying reptiles of the clade or order Pterosauria. They existed from the late Triassic to the end of the Cretaceous Period (220 to 65.5 million years ago). Pterosaurs are the earliest vertebrates known to have evolved powered flight. Their wings were formed by a membrane of skin, muscle, and other tissues stretching from the legs to a dramatically lengthened fourth finger. Early species had long, fully-toothed jaws and long tails, while later forms had a highly reduced tail, and some lacked teeth. Many sported furry coats made up of hair-like filaments known as pycnofibres, which covered their bodies and parts of their wings. Pterosaurs spanned a wide range of adult sizes, from the very small Nemicolopterus to the largest known flying creatures of all time, including Quetzalcoatlus and Hatzegopteryx.

Pterosaurs are sometimes referred to in the popular media as dinosaurs, but this is incorrect. The term "dinosaur" is properly restricted to a certain group of terrestrial reptiles with a unique upright stance (superorder Dinosauria), and therefore excludes the pterosaurs, as well as the various groups of extinct aquatic reptiles, such as ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and mosasaurs.

So, if the new fossil served as a bridge or a transition, then why is it so rare? It seems to be more proper to call it a mutant, rather than a transition.

 

[Dark_Lite]

No. It is not. We do not need to see so many halves in between. That is theoretical. Use the circle and square example, if I could see three or four transitions in between "two species" "in general", That would probably be OK.

Tell me why is this expectation not reasonable?

So now we're back to "there are no transitional fossils." Or at least, not enough for it to matter, apparently. Fossilization is a rare process. Yet, we still have many. I'm sure you've seen that series of skull heads posted before.

 

[juvenissun]

So now we're back to "there are no transitional fossils." Or at least, not enough for it to matter, apparently. Fossilization is a rare process. Yet, we still have many. I'm sure you've seen that series of skull heads posted before.

I have never studied taphonomy. But I am interested in the physical part of it. To my current recognition, I feel that if fossil preservation is environmental related, then we are having to many fossil species. If it is not, then we have to few of them. This is particularly true to terrestrial animals.

 

[Mallon]

The circle represents a species. So does the square.
Would the transitions in between also be given names of species?

Now you're thinking, juvie. That's a good question. We likely would give species names to those transitional forms in between if we felt they were distinct enough from either endpoint to merit it. But as we know, species aren't static in time. They evolve. So it's difficult, and somewhat subjective, trying to chose where one species ends and the next begins. Picture a gradient from black to white: how do we choose where 'light gray' begins and 'dark gray' ends? Same problem.

Scarce of fossils? Some of them you got a bunch, some of them you got only one or few. The distribution pattern itself presents a problem which forced you to make up another story (environment?) to deal with it. For example, why is this transitional dino so hard to find? Did they live on mountain peaks in the desert? Or are their bones too soft? Or ... what?

If you claim to be a geologist, juvie, you know know the answer to that one. You can't pass undergrad without knowing that.

 

[juvenissun]

Now you're thinking, juvie. That's a good question. We likely would give species names to those transitional forms in between if we felt they were distinct enough from either endpoint to merit it. But as we know, species aren't static in time. They evolve. So it's difficult, and somewhat subjective, trying to chose where one species ends and the next begins. Picture a gradient from black to white: how do we choose where 'light gray' begins and 'dark gray' ends? Same problem.


If you claim to be a geologist, juvie, you know know the answer to that one. You can't pass undergrad without knowing that.

I would look for kinks or steps in a spectrum. That is where the change is showing a break through. However, I don't think we have the luxury in terms of sample abundance to see that feature in most pre-pliocene fossils.

Have we ever found the second Lucy or Ardi? Why are they so rare?

 

[laconicstudent]

Have we ever found the second Lucy or Ardi? Why are they so rare?

Because fossilization is an exceedingly rare process. Something literally has to DIE in the perfect location, and not be moved. And these fossils are OLD, not everything can survive for millions of years.

Its entirely possible there WAS another Lucy.... And some European colonist inadvertently destroyed it drilling for oil in Africa in the 1800's.

 

[Mallon]

Have we ever found the second Lucy or Ardi?

Yes, we have.

Why are they so rare?

They are rare because all terrestrial fossils are rare -- terrestrial environments aren't generally conducive to fossilization.