Tiktaalik: Data vs. Assumptions

[tas8831]

Finally actually a good point thanks. YES YES YES many creationists also do the exact same thing. YES many of them try to "convince" their target audience by interpreting the evidence though their lens (the presupposed belief they want everyone to accept and believe).

So now you are equating a purposeful misrepresentation (a lie) with "interpreting the evidence though their lens"?


Why do you write things like this when you must know it is complete nonsense?

 

[tas8831]

My own! I wanted to find out techniques and strategies used to convince people so I could learn to oppose and re-program negative attitudes, beliefs, and stereotypes. It began when our class was challenged by Dr. Walter Mott (a sociology professor) to explore what we were convinced of to determine if we were basing them on personal experience, what we were taught, the need to fit in, and so on, after revealing how so much misinformation fills history books. This inspired me to delve much much deeper (I will ever be so grateful).

And from that you posted a list a while back - a list that I was able to use to show YOU engaging in those very tactics.

Oh well...

 

[pshun2404]

Very large?


Here is a bluefin tuna skeleton. They get to be about 800 pounds, 13 feet long.

Please look at its ribs.

And then ask yourself why you write the things you do.



I saw what you wrote. " rib bones do not equal a cavity for lungs"


According to you, with your obvious top-notch background in anatomy, physiology, and paleontology.


According to you, with your obvious top-notch background in anatomy, physiology, and paleontology.

Look at the tuna skeleton again.


Then why is that notion one of your main lines of "argument"?

Show us even the most naive of pro-science poster's on this or any other forum implying what you claim.



Right - you think it is propaganda/brainwashing.

What do you think of the frequent requirement in venues like Vacation Bible school to memorize and be able to recite bible verses?



Funny, I explicitly indicated that I had mentioned Menton:

"Creationists just love to embellish things - I had mentioned Menton (YEC anatomist) ..."


- but you left that out. Part of your propaganda technique, I suppose.


Then why did you bring it up?



So why bring it up?


So, you admit that now?



LOL!

My gosh...

You people do not know when to stop.

African Elephant Loxodonta africana - Detailed Anatomy Notes (Literature Reports)

http://www.walkdinosaur.com/pic/other/2015-11-30-02-51-586.jpg

And the artiodactyls (pigs, deer, bison, etc.) - also, no clavicles.

Please just stop.

Well, except for the parts you coincidentally (propagandistically?) left out...

Wow, and after all that (mostly rant), nothing showed that the bones of the limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton. Amazing...

AGAIN I never said that in the living Tik they were not connected and made no reference to this being some reason they could not have walked on land fro some short insignificant time period (similar to mudskippers)

As for this one, I have read it a number of times for various references.

African Elephant Loxodonta africana - Detailed Anatomy Notes (Literature Reports)

 

[pshun2404]

Can someone please post some pictures of the actual fossils of the multiple isolated Tktaalik pelves? I would love a chance to view some of these. Thanks...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Can someone please post some pictures of the actual fossils of the multiple isolated Tktaalik pelves? I would love a chance to view some of these. Thanks...

The Tiktaalik fossils weren't completely removed from rock to see all the bones, due to the fact that this increases the risk of damage. Rare fossils are usually X-rayed to see structures not outwardly exposed. However, this picture shows one of the pelvic bones of one of the fossils next to a recreation mold made from a fossilized fin:

Here's a Tiktaalik limb:

 

[pshun2404]

The Tiktaalik fossils weren't completely removed from rock to see all the bones, due to the fact that this increases the risk of damage. Rare fossils are usually X-rayed to see structures not outwardly exposed. However, this picture shows one of the pelvic bones of one of the fossils next to a recreation mold made from a fossilized fin:

Here's a Tiktaalik limb:

Thanks Sarah...that original fragment makes 2 finds so far

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thanks Sarah...that original fragment makes 2 finds so far

Oh, if you were wondering how many of the very complete Tiktaalik fossils were discovered, the answer is 3.

 

[pshun2404]

Oh, if you were wondering how many of the very complete Tiktaalik fossils were discovered, the answer is 3.

Cool! Would love to see all of the 3 "very complete Tiktaalik fossils". I have seen the head/front portion, and the later rear portion, and now this one you offered discerned via x-ray (3).

But make no mistake, as the science writers for NetNature have determined from all the evidence so far, “Tiktaalik pelves were still clearly fish-like, with primitive features such as an undivided skeletal configuration, as opposed to the three-part pelvic girdle of early tetrapods.”

Yet they still later repeat the belief that “Tiktaalik roseae represents the best-known transitional species between fish and land-dwelling tetrapods”, when we now have evidence from millions of years before Tik, that land-walking tetrapods already existed? Why are their brains unable to process the contradictory reality in favor of the failed hypothesis?

The fish we labelled Tik, possibly sharing a few characteristics (their interpretation of the data in light of the belief), does not equal it being transitional (between) any more than (Pterodactyl 150 mya; Avians 60 mya; Bats 33 mya) having wings equals Avians being transitionals that led to reptiles becoming mammals. In fact, because the data we have implies that land-walking tetrapods preceded Tik, to think of it as between is illogical and absurd. The offspring cannot precede the parent!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Cool! Would love to see all of the 3 "very complete Tiktaalik fossils". I have seen the head/front portion, and the later rear portion, and now this one you offered discerned via x-ray (3).

Sure, I'll post all three, here you go:
1. Almost perfect skull, nearly every vertebra present in the spine, front legs well preserved, the yellow box is around the pelvic fin it has. Of the three, this one is the most complete:

2. Another near perfect skull, scales well preserved, front limbs present but missing back limbs

3. And the one still left in rock:

The X-rays are used to make 3D models of the bones like this:

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a direct X-ray image for this species. However, I will link some other ones for your viewing pleasure, since they are neat to look at.
https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/2012/07/xray.jpg hey look, Answers in Genesis had one.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inkfish/files/2012/12/88ef9-lizardghost.jpg?w=234 a lizard fossil.
http://www.robertmsullivanphd.com/images/ophisauriscus2_rev_ud24_28gm.jpg

But make no mistake, as the science writers for NetNature have determined from all the evidence so far, “Tiktaalik pelves were still clearly fish-like, with primitive features such as an undivided skeletal configuration, as opposed to the three-part pelvic girdle of early tetrapods.”

-_- it has a lot of other tetrapod features, you know. What makes it transitional is that it has both fish and tetrapod features, as well as some intermediate ones. Why would it be an issue if the pelvis was more fish-like than tetrapod-like? Also, what is NetNature? I tried doing a Google search, and all I found was a conservation site and one that sells supplies to biology teachers... and Bulbapedia, for some reason. In case you don't know what Bulbapedia is, it's basically Wikipedia for all things Pokemon.

Yet they still later repeat the belief that “Tiktaalik roseae represents the best-known transitional species between fish and land-dwelling tetrapods”, when we now have evidence from millions of years before Tik, that land-walking tetrapods already existed? Why are their brains unable to process the contradictory reality in favor of the failed hypothesis?

-_- Tiktaalik being a transitional fossil only refers to it's fish and tetrapod traits, as well as the traits intermediate between the two. I've told you this before, it's demonstration of concept, no one is claiming that Tiktaalik absolutely must be an ancestor of all tetrapods.

The fish we labelled Tik, possibly sharing a few characteristics (their interpretation of the data in light of the belief), does not equal it being transitional (between) any more than (Pterodactyl 150 mya; Avians 60 mya; Bats 33 mya) having wings equals Avians being transitionals that led to reptiles becoming mammals.

Transitional fossils are defined as thus: fossils with traits that bridge between two different groups, such as tetrapods and fish.

No more and no less, dude.

In fact, because the data we have implies that land-walking tetrapods preceded Tik, to think of it as between is illogical and absurd. The offspring cannot precede the parent!

-_- you'd have a point if people were still claiming that Tiktaalik was the ancestor of all tetrapods, but I don't think anyone was making that claim to begin with.

Also, it's not actually impossible that Tiktaalik did exist before the tetrapods that made those footprints. The oldest Tiktaalik fossil is 383 million years old, and the tracks are 390 million years old, which actually means that they are within the dating method's margin of error from each other. Additionally, it is entirely possible that Tiktaalik is a species that existed for tens of millions of years, and that the 3 decent fossils we have found are not representative of the entire range in which it existed.

 

[Ophiolite]

Tiktaalik being a transitional fossil only refers to it's fish and tetrapod traits, as well as the traits intermediate between the two. I've told you this before, it's demonstration of concept, no one is claiming that Tiktaalik absolutely must be an ancestor of all tetrapods.

Transitional fossils are defined as thus: fossils with traits that bridge between two different groups, such as tetrapods and fish.

No more and no less, dude.

-_- you'd have a point if people were still claiming that Tiktaalik was the ancestor of all tetrapods, but I don't think anyone was making that claim to begin with.

In a brief and uncharacteristic defense of creationists, I am certain scientists have done a poor job in making these points clear. Its analogous to the interminable misunderstanding over the technical and colloquial meanings of "theory".

Consequently a majority of creationists, poorly educated in the subject, equate transitional fossil to missing link to direct ancestor. And a small minority take advantage of the confusion to push and support their agenda. [I do not believe pshun is one of that minority.] Popular reporting of such discoveries does not help. [Nor does the general absence of critical thinking from most creationists.]

 

[DogmaHunter]

Now what do you have to contribute to the discussion about Tiktaalik?

Not much.

Other then it having been found by prediction concerning the location, strata and general anatomy.

It symbolizes an epic win for the usefullness of evolution theory.

 

[tas8831]

Wow, and after all that (mostly rant), nothing showed that the bones of the limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton. Amazing...

So this is how a Christian admits they were in the wrong - by insulting the person that 'outed' them.

Wonderful.

RE: this rant:

"...limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton."

Are you really going to argue that this is necessary???

After I just proved that VERY large terrestrial quadrupeds often lack such a connection?????

Is admitting error really that painful and difficult for you?

AGAIN I never said that in the living Tik they were not connected and made no reference to this being some reason they could not have walked on land fro some short insignificant time period (similar to mudskippers)

So why on earth did you write this, just one sentence prior????


"limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton."


???????????

Creationists very frequently contradict themselves and undercut their own naive arguments, but contradicting yourself in the very next sentence is a new one!

As for this one, I have read it a number of times for various references.

African Elephant Loxodonta africana - Detailed Anatomy Notes (Literature Reports)

And in all of that (mostly dissembling and cherry-picking), no explanation or evidence that there was no appendicular-axial connection, no evidence/explanation that this would be necessary for walking (which you admit even Shubin never claimed, so your whole argument is a strawman), no examples of evolutionists posts claiming that Tik ran around on land, no indication of why you looking at pictures while having no relevant background in the first place trumps the writings of those with relevant background and experience who personally examined the specimens, AND most pathetic of all -

You just could not bring yourself to admit your dopey errors about elephants!


"The forelimb has no clavicles but a large flattened triangular scapula" - from the link you claimed to use all the time!

Or did the simple fact elude you - the clavicle is the bone by which vertebrate forelimbs attach to the axial skeleton.

Surely, your 3 decades of scientific self-teaching exposed you to basic vertebrate anatomy?



What was it you wrote?

Ah yes:


"Also, Elephants shoulder bones are indeed connected to its skeleton (or it would fall to the ground)"

LOL!

My gosh - please stop making this so easy (and enjoyable) for me.

 

[tas8831]

Can someone please post some pictures of the actual fossils of the multiple isolated Tktaalik pelves? I would love a chance to view some of these. Thanks...

And your viewing of them would be for the purpose of...?

Do you have a background in vertebrate anatomy (it seems not)? is this just posturing?

 

[tas8831]

Cool! Would love to see all of the 3 "very complete Tiktaalik fossils". I have seen the head/front portion, and the later rear portion, and now this one you offered discerned via x-ray (3).

But make no mistake, as the science writers for NetNature have determined from all the evidence so far, “Tiktaalik pelves were still clearly fish-like, with primitive features such as an undivided skeletal configuration, as opposed to the three-part pelvic girdle of early tetrapods.”

Yet they still later repeat the belief that “Tiktaalik roseae represents the best-known transitional species between fish and land-dwelling tetrapods”, when we now have evidence from millions of years before Tik, that land-walking tetrapods already existed? Why are their brains unable to process the contradictory reality in favor of the failed hypothesis?

By your own criteria, Tik IS a transtional.

What you seem to believe is that everyone, including Shubin, declared Tik to be THE sole transitional, the actual LCA of all tetrapods.

IOW - you are still arguing a strawman.

The fish we labelled Tik, possibly sharing a few characteristics (their interpretation of the data in light of the belief), does not equal it being transitional (between) any more than (Pterodactyl 150 mya; Avians 60 mya; Bats 33 mya) having wings equals Avians being transitionals that led to reptiles becoming mammals.

Strawmen on top of misrepresentations - a regular creationist cacophony of tactics!

In fact, because the data we have implies that land-walking tetrapods preceded Tik, to think of it as between is illogical and absurd. The offspring cannot precede the parent!

LOL!

Such linear thinking.

Comical, really.

Consider this -

You trace your family tree back 10 generations.

8 generations back, a lineage 'split off', with that group moving to Lithuania.

The last living people from that group died around the time of 6 generations back. Someone finds the grave site of the last living member of that group, contacts you and says 'Hey - i found the grave of your great-great-great-great-great (whatever it would be) uncle!'


You reply "Nonsense. He is not in my direct line of descent - plus, I have great-great-great-great-great (whatever it would be+1) uncle that pre-dates his kin moving to Lithuania!

 

[tas8831]

Additionally, it is entirely possible that Tiktaalik is a species that existed for tens of millions of years, and that the 3 decent fossils we have found are not representative of the entire range in which it existed.

Indeed.

pshun's position seems to imply that he thinks all representatives of a fossil find existed only that year.

 

[pshun2404]

Sure, I'll post all three, here you go:
1. Almost perfect skull, nearly every vertebra present in the spine, front legs well preserved, the yellow box is around the pelvic fin it has. Of the three, this one is the most complete:
Unfortunately, I couldn't find a direct X-ray image for this species. However, I will link some other ones for your viewing pleasure, since they are neat to look at.
https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/2012/07/xray.jpg hey look, Answers in Genesis had one.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inkfish/files/2012/12/88ef9-lizardghost.jpg?w=234 a lizard fossil.
http://www.robertmsullivanphd.com/images/ophisauriscus2_rev_ud24_28gm.jpg

-_- it has a lot of other tetrapod features, you know. What makes it transitional is that it has both fish and tetrapod features, as well as some intermediate ones. Why would it be an issue if the pelvis was more fish-like than tetrapod-like? Also, what is NetNature? I tried doing a Google search, and all I found was a conservation site and one that sells supplies to biology teachers... and Bulbapedia, for some reason. In case you don't know what Bulbapedia is, it's basically Wikipedia for all things Pokemon.

-_- Tiktaalik being a transitional fossil only refers to it's fish and tetrapod traits, as well as the traits intermediate between the two. I've told you this before, it's demonstration of concept, no one is claiming that Tiktaalik absolutely must be an ancestor of all tetrapods.

Transitional fossils are defined as thus: fossils with traits that bridge between two different groups, such as tetrapods and fish.

No more and no less, dude.

-_- you'd have a point if people were still claiming that Tiktaalik was the ancestor of all tetrapods, but I don't think anyone was making that claim to begin with.

Also, it's not actually impossible that Tiktaalik did exist before the tetrapods that made those footprints. The oldest Tiktaalik fossil is 383 million years old, and the tracks are 390 million years old, which actually means that they are within the dating method's margin of error from each other. Additionally, it is entirely possible that Tiktaalik is a species that existed for tens of millions of years, and that the 3 decent fossils we have found are not representative of the entire range in which it existed.

First of all Sarah let me thank you. You always bring evidence with your interpretation not just opinions and attempts to personally discredit the one you are discussing with.

So on the first issue again thanks for showing what you were referring to. I have seen these but when you said “complete” I thought you were speaking of fossils of the entire creature (my bad). I have seen these, but always considered the second photo to be a perspective of the first (a slightly more side view) but I could be incorrect there.

And I will check out the links you provided except the AiG one lest I be falsely accused by others...if I view this it will be last (purely out of curiosity).

what is NetNature

Sorry Tiktaalik rosae FOSSIL ANALYSIS PROVIDES NEWS DETAILS ON THE ORIGIN OF VERTEBRATES LEGS

it's demonstration of concept, no one is claiming that Tiktaalik absolutely must be an ancestor of all tetrapods

No not absolutely an ancestor, but you must admit, many claimed it to be an ancestor (thus preceding) and it was being taught as such, but it is not and I have not seen one of them say “Sorry, I was wrong I should not have jumped to that conclusion!” No self-corrections, no admissions of an error in interpretation, and so on. Dawkins for example said it was the “perfect missing link” no longer missing, and described it as “between” fish and land-walking tetrapods. Thus Dawkins was wrong, but where’s the humility? Why no sign of intellectual integrity there? He is a brilliant man no doubt, so why not admit he was incorrect and was interpreting it this way because it fit the hypothesis? Afraid of reductions in sales? That’s what I think...he’s like a televangelist for evolutionism.

I see in your next two comments that you accept the new employed re-definition of what transitional means (sorry but this camp has been known to do this when the evidence piles up contrary to the formerly accepted and taught belief).

So though the real definition of transitional means to transition from one stage or form into another. When this was being called into doubt by more evidence, about a half century ago, the new meaning was being used so frequently it became common place. Now new students think this is what it actually means (and it is how many Evolutionary Biology books would define it). The meaning of “transitional” actually does NOT mean sharing characteristics in common that is more akin to “homologous”.

But the use of importing new or obscure meaning into commonly understood terms is another discussion. It is technique based on convincing people of a meaning to equivocate so that when the student or common person hears “transitional”, like many earlier scientists, it means an in between state of development and they envision that is what it is. This way , when they discover it is not, the perpetrator of the rhetoric can switch claiming they meant the other meaning. We see this mostly in political movements but also in Evolutionary Biology (though never in Physics, Chemistry, and so on).

-_- you'd have a point if people were still claiming that Tiktaalik was the ancestor of all tetrapods, but I don't think anyone was making that claim to begin with.

Glad you said “still claiming” but I disagree with the second part. I believe many took this just this way.

Also, it's not actually impossible that Tiktaalik did exist before the tetrapods that made those footprints. The oldest Tiktaalik fossil is 383 million years old, and the tracks are 390 million years old, which actually means that they are within the dating method's margin of error from each other. Additionally, it is entirely possible that Tiktaalik is a species that existed for tens of millions of years, and that the 3 decent fossils we have found are not representative of the entire range in which it existed.

Yes and it is equally “not actually impossible” that land-walking tetrapods pre-existed Tik by 40 million years (also because we lack fossils because of how rare such things are).

 

[pshun2404]

By your own criteria, Tik IS a transtional.

What you seem to believe is that everyone, including Shubin, declared Tik to be THE sole transitional, the actual LCA of all tetrapods.

IOW - you are still arguing a strawman.

Strawmen on top of misrepresentations - a regular creationist cacophony of tactics!
LOL!

Such linear thinking.

Comical, really.

Consider this -

You trace your family tree back 10 generations.

8 generations back, a lineage 'split off', with that group moving to Lithuania.

The last living people from that group died around the time of 6 generations back. Someone finds the grave site of the last living member of that group, contacts you and says 'Hey - i found the grave of your great-great-great-great-great (whatever it would be) uncle!'

You reply "Nonsense. He is not in my direct line of descent - plus, I have great-great-great-great-great (whatever it would be+1) uncle that pre-dates his kin moving to Lithuania!

Aside from the predictable non-subtansive rant, you said

What you seem to believe is that everyone, including Shubin, declared Tik to be THE sole transitional, the actual LCA of all tetrapods.

Never happened...I never said such a thing (sadly also predictable)....

 

[tas8831]

Just a reminder...

So this is how a Christian admits they were in the wrong - by insulting the person that 'outed' them.

Wonderful.

RE: this rant:

"...limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton."

Are you really going to argue that this is necessary???

After I just proved that VERY large terrestrial quadrupeds often lack such a connection?????

Is admitting error really that painful and difficult for you?



So why on earth did you write this, just one sentence prior????


"limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton."


???????????

Creationists very frequently contradict themselves and undercut their own naive arguments, but contradicting yourself in the very next sentence is a new one!



And in all of that (mostly dissembling and cherry-picking), no explanation or evidence that there was no appendicular-axial connection, no evidence/explanation that this would be necessary for walking (which you admit even Shubin never claimed, so your whole argument is a strawman), no examples of evolutionists posts claiming that Tik ran around on land, no indication of why you looking at pictures while having no relevant background in the first place trumps the writings of those with relevant background and experience who personally examined the specimens, AND most pathetic of all -

You just could not bring yourself to admit your dopey errors about elephants!


"The forelimb has no clavicles but a large flattened triangular scapula" - from the link you claimed to use all the time!

Or did the simple fact elude you - the clavicle is the bone by which vertebrate forelimbs attach to the axial skeleton.

Surely, your 3 decades of scientific self-teaching exposed you to basic vertebrate anatomy?



What was it you wrote?

Ah yes:


"Also, Elephants shoulder bones are indeed connected to its skeleton (or it would fall to the ground)"

LOL!

My gosh - please stop making this so easy (and enjoyable) for me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

First of all Sarah let me thank you. You always bring evidence with your interpretation not just opinions and attempts to personally discredit the one you are discussing with.

Oh, you're welcome. It wouldn't exactly be fitting of my goal to improve my patience to insult the people I am debating with on a regular basis, though.

So on the first issue again thanks for showing what you were referring to. I have seen these but when you said “complete” I thought you were speaking of fossils of the entire creature (my bad). I have seen these, but always considered the second photo to be a perspective of the first (a slightly more side view) but I could be incorrect there.

All the Tiktaalik fossils do look really similar to each other, so it was a bit difficult to make sure I didn't accidentally post 2 pictures of the same one.

And I will check out the links you provided except the AiG one lest I be falsely accused by others...if I view this it will be last (purely out of curiosity).

what is NetNature

Sorry Tiktaalik rosae FOSSIL ANALYSIS PROVIDES NEWS DETAILS ON THE ORIGIN OF VERTEBRATES LEGS

Oh, I've seen this article on other sources before. It's really interesting that well developed hind limbs evolved so early on.

No not absolutely an ancestor, but you must admit, many claimed it to be an ancestor (thus preceding) and it was being taught as such, but it is not and I have not seen one of them say “Sorry, I was wrong I should not have jumped to that conclusion!”

Actually, I hadn't heard of Tiktaalik before joining this site, and it has never been brought up in any of my college classes.

No self-corrections, no admissions of an error in interpretation, and so on. Dawkins for example said it was the “perfect missing link” no longer missing, and described it as “between” fish and land-walking tetrapods. Thus Dawkins was wrong, but where’s the humility?

-_- I don't personally like Dawkins, so I'm not going to bother defending him.

Why no sign of intellectual integrity there? He is a brilliant man no doubt, so why not admit he was incorrect and was interpreting it this way because it fit the hypothesis?

He's not entirely incorrect; organisms with half-and-half traits between two groups are considered to be some of the best transitional fossils, and Tiktaalik is one like that. Also, it fit the theory, the theory of evolution hasn't been a hypothesis for a long time. As for correcting himself, maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. I don't keep tabs on the guy, so I wouldn't know.

Afraid of reductions in sales? That’s what I think...he’s like a televangelist for evolutionism.

Ha, he and 3 others are jokingly called the 4 Horseman of atheism. I know Hitchens was another one, but I don't know the names of the other two.

I see in your next two comments that you accept the new employed re-definition of what transitional means (sorry but this camp has been known to do this when the evidence piles up contrary to the formerly accepted and taught belief).

As far as I am aware, the definition of transitional fossil has never changed, but feel free to show a reliable link that depicts otherwise.

So though the real definition of transitional means to transition from one stage or form into another. When this was being called into doubt by more evidence, about a half century ago, the new meaning was being used so frequently it became common place. Now new students think this is what it actually means (and it is how many Evolutionary Biology books would define it). The meaning of “transitional” actually does NOT mean sharing characteristics in common that is more akin to “homologous”.

Never seen this definition in a book, but again, feel free to link.

But the use of importing new or obscure meaning into commonly understood terms is another discussion. It is technique based on convincing people of a meaning to equivocate so that when the student or common person hears “transitional”, like many earlier scientists, it means an in between state of development and they envision that is what it is. This way , when they discover it is not, the perpetrator of the rhetoric can switch claiming they meant the other meaning. We see this mostly in political movements but also in Evolutionary Biology (though never in Physics, Chemistry, and so on).

I personally don't think that pre-existing words should ever have secondary scientific meanings applied to them over making entirely new words, due to the confusion this can cause. I'd much rather have people need a new word defined than associate it with the incorrect definition.

-_- you'd have a point if people were still claiming that Tiktaalik was the ancestor of all tetrapods, but I don't think anyone was making that claim to begin with.

Glad you said “still claiming” but I disagree with the second part. I believe many took this just this way.

That sounds like a personal problem for them. I've said it before and I'll say it again: without DNA, there is no means of making a lineage link from any fossil to any modern organism in such a way as to say it is absolutely ancestral to the modern organism.

Yes and it is equally “not actually impossible” that land-walking tetrapods pre-existed Tik by 40 million years (also because we lack fossils because of how rare such things are).

I don't disagree.

 

[pshun2404]

The meaning of transitional

Beginning in the mid-15th century meaning “to transition” from the Latin transitio meaning “to go or cross over”, hence from one place or state to another. In the early 18th century transitionally still meant to change from one state, place, or style to another. Relative terms like transitioned or transitioning defined the end result or process of changing. Today from Merriam Webster:

Transitional:

Marked by transition: involving, providing, or consisting of a passage, movement, or change from one state, condition, subject, place, etc., to another

Or Oxfords which defines it as

relating to or characteristic of a process or period of transition; change over; an interim

In music a middle tone in a chromatic escalation of three notes starting at one note of the scale to a final note in the scale, the middle note is a transitional (starting at one note of the scale, the middle note leads to the later note. Ex. In the key of C if I transitioned from F, F#, to G, the F# is NOT part of the C scale it creates a tension needing to be resolved). In modern genetics when a point mutation is replaced (such as when a purine is replaced by another purine or some other) a transition is said to have occurred.