What Is A Transitional Fossil?

[Kahalachan]

I'm curious, cause I see this brought up a lot. What implies a transition?

Evolution is a slow gradual process. I can't even say there is any sort of transition.

How can one offspring, suddenly be the transition? It is slightly different from its parents, and different enough to the degree that we would say it's a different species from some fossil we found. But it's not that different from its parents.

If humans evolve to a new species years later, would we even classify it as such? Would we find a population of offspring, and say they could not possibly reproduce with the first Homo sapien and classify that child as another species of Homo?

To me the use of the word "Transitional fossil" is kind of meaningless since they aren't that much different from the parents and their offspring aren't much different from them.

 

[TeddyKGB]

While there is little doubt that Archaeopteryx had feathered-dinosaurian parents and offspring, we can look at features it possesses that are intermediate between larger groups.

Gould addressed this very issue with punctuated equilibria. He noted that interspecies transitions are not likely to be morphologically distinct enough to be noticeable in the fossil record, and those are in any case not what we commonly mean when we refer to 'transitionals.'

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

It would be best for YECs to NOT define what exactly a transitional fossil is. Otherwise someone will find an example that fits the description. It is better to have a more fluid and dynamic meaning for the word transitonal - that way you can be 100% sure that no fossil will ever be pegged as a transitional.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

"Transitional" as typically used by paleontologists refers to fossils that show morphological characteristics of two distinct taxa, thus acting as a "bridge" betwen those taxa in terms of morphology.

Where it gets confused is that this definition doesn't necessarily refer to direct descendents since it's pretty much impossible to know if a species is a direct descendent or not.

 

[Nooj]

Right, which makes all those creation claims of 'Archy isn't a direct ancestor of birds so it isn't a transitional fossil' useless. For once, they are right. Archaeopteryx isn't likely to be a direct ancestor of birds, but a sister taxa from the lineage that DID lead to birds. Archy is still a transitional fossil.

 

[shernren]

The creationist silence is deafening.

 

[Nooj]

Then again., maybe the silence is a good thing. I don't want to read supersport's posts.

 

[Kahalachan]

"Transitional" as typically used by paleontologists refers to fossils that show morphological characteristics of two distinct taxa, thus acting as a "bridge" betwen those taxa in terms of morphology.

Where it gets confused is that this definition doesn't necessarily refer to direct descendents since it's pretty much impossible to know if a species is a direct descendent or not.

I understand that, and it's how we can call something transitional.

But Creationists don't define a suitable transition. We have tons of middle species.

But such transitions are deemed such by our taxonomical categorization. We can see a fish with legs and look in awe, compared to our own fish. But back then it was the norm for a long time.

I guess I'm just being anal about the use of transitional fossils. It kinda feels like that animal is like some gross half breed, but of course it is its own species and had to be an success for its time.

 

[XTE]

YEC can't even touch the fossil record till they attach a meaning to this. Just viewing the question should let them know they are on shaky ground. I love this question.

 

[Kahalachan]

YEC can't even touch the fossil record till they attach a meaning to this. Just viewing the question should let them know they are on shaky ground. I love this question.

Thanks.

I wanna see them state their setpoints. When we do find fossils, they say it's not good enough. Well, OK then.

It seems kind of unfair to evolution that no matter what fossil we find, it's not transitional, when I don't even really know what that means.

They can say what is good enough up front. When we find these fossils they can say nothing.

 

[XTE]

Thanks.

I wanna see them state their setpoints. When we do find fossils, they say it's not good enough. Well, OK then.

It seems kind of unfair to evolution that no matter what fossil we find, it's not transitional, when I don't even really know what that means.

They can say what is good enough up front. When we find these fossils they can say nothing.

BTW, FFXII in a month!

 

[Kahalachan]

How'd you know I like Final Fantasy?

 

[XTE]

You are an Eidolon Hunter aren't you? I've played them all the whole way through, except for 8 of course and X-2. The series is great.

7 and 10 blew my mind at the time and I hope that XIII on PS3 isn't TOO action oriented, even though I'm looking forward to Mass Effect.

Later

 

[Psudopod]

BTW, FFXII in a month!

I hate you all! I have to wait until febuary at the earlierst. I've been drooling over it since I picked up an art book at a convention.

Beautiful costumes. I want to cosplay them all.

 

[shernren]

Creationist: Transitional fossils don't exist, so why do we have to define them?

@ TEBeliever: Did you have a problem with FFVIII? Yeah I loved 7 too, especially the bit about Aeris dying, it's an excellent study on breaking video-game stereotypes (loved Cait Sith I's parody ).

 

[Dr.GH]

I'm curious, cause I see this brought up a lot. What implies a transition?
<clip>
To me the use of the word "Transitional fossil" is kind of meaningless since they aren't that much different from the parents and their offspring aren't much different from them.

I recommend the TalkOrigins FAQ on Transitional Vertebrate Fossils which give a very good definition, historical background, and many examples.

 

[Kahalachan]

You are an Eidolon Hunter aren't you? I've played them all the whole way through, except for 8 of course and X-2. The series is great.

7 and 10 blew my mind at the time and I hope that XIII on PS3 isn't TOO action oriented, even though I'm looking forward to Mass Effect.

Later

Oh yeah!! I used that title in conjunction with liking Final Fantasy the the definition of eidolon being like a ghost or supernatural entity and even another definition as a role model. So kinda like a triple use of the word

 

[USincognito]

I'm surprised that there weren't more (any?) Creationist responses to this thread since they're the ones who are forever claiming there "are no transitional fossils" that they sould have a ready definition of what one is or what characteristics we might expect to find in a transitional since they know every fossil ever found doesn't fit the definition.

Creationists?