How transitional fossils are determined

[David]

In defense of "There are no transitional fossils; therefore evolution is false", Matt Slick says that there is absolutely no way we can objectively prove that a fossil is truly transitional. In other words, all transitional fossils were really created that way.

This leads me up to several questions.
1) How do we determine what a transitional fossil is?
2) Are all fossils transitional?
3) What is the BEST example of a transitional fossil?

[John Harshman]

Short answers:

1) We see that it shows a state intermediate between two other forms.
2) No.
3) How would you decide?

Less short answers:

1) You seem to believe that a transitional fossil must be shown to be a
descendant of one form and the ancestor of another. But that is neither
possible nor necessary. A transitional form is just an intermediate that
shows a likely evolutionary pathway. It could be an ancestor or that
ancestor's cousin or uncle. We have no way to tell. Transitional forms
can be younger than more derived stages in the transformation, as is the
case with, say, Deinonychus and Archaeopteryx.

2) Using your apparent definition (ancestor), no. Some fossil species
became extinct without leaving descendants. Some are still extant and
may produce descendants in the future, but haven't yet. Using my
definition (intermediate states), still no. Some species show no states
intermediate between two others.

3). There are no objective criteria for "best". But I like
Archaeopteryx, because I'm an ornithologist. I could have chosen
hundreds of others. I also like Probainognathus and Pakicetus. If you go
for mammals.

[UC]

There are no 'transitional' animals, though there are 'intermediate'
ones.

Manatees, dolphins, whales, seals, otters, beavers all are mammals
that show various degrees of adaptation to an aquatic environment. Who
is to say whether seals are going to become more like whales? It's a
sure bet that they won't be going back onto land; it's hard to see
their 'flippers' adapting to terrestrial life again.

So, seals could be considered 'intermediate' between animals like
otters and animals like whales or dolphins.

[UC]

What you can say is that whales' ancestors must have been something
like seals, but these animals were not 'destined' to become or
'trying' to become whales. In that sense these animals were
'intermediate', but the word 'transitional' carries with it a notion
of inevitability that is without foundation.

[Darwin123]

On May 31, 3:22 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Manatees, dolphins, whales, seals, otters, beavers all are mammals
> > that show various degrees of adaptation to an aquatic environment.

You should learn some taxonony before you continue. Modern
scientists do not believe that these aquatic mammals that you
mentioned are more closely related to each other than to all
land mammals.
Neither the Linnean system of taxonomy nor the cladastic
system of taxonomy place these animals in one closely related
group. I don't think even Darwin would have placed them in
the same closely group, other than the class Mammalia.
There has been a lot of scientific work on the aquatic mammals
since that time. The research shows that these mammals are
distantly related.
I think this will be clearest by separating these mammals
in terms of their orders.
Whales and dolphins are in the order Cetecea.
Seals, sea lions, walruses and otters are in the
order Carnivora.
Manatees and dugons are in the order Sirenia.
Beavers are in the order Rodentia.

>Who is to say whether seals are going to become more like whales?

The seals will have to acquire a chambered stomach and a
telescoped skull to be like cetecea. They will also have
to lose their hind limbs and fused pelvis bone in to be like
cetecea. Their middle ear bones would have to become partly
unstuck from the skull.
I can't say whether seals will or will not become more
like whales. However, I can make a list of some of the changes
necessary to turn a seal into a whale. There is a rather awesome
list. The two animals do not resemble each other internally.

> It's a
> > sure bet that they won't be going back onto land; it's hard to see
> > their 'flippers' adapting to terrestrial life again.

Of course not. That doesn't mean that the seal has to become
like a whale any more than the whale has to become like a fish.

>
> > So, seals could be considered 'intermediate' between animals like
> > otters and animals like whales or dolphins.

Seals may be descended from otter-like animals. However,
they do not appear to be intermediate to whales.

>
> What you can say is that whales' ancestors must have been something
> like seals, but these animals were not 'destined' to become or
> 'trying' to become whales.

Pakicetus, the most recent common whale ancestor,
was something like a hippopotamus. Pakicetus in no way resembled
a seal.

> In that sense these animals were
> 'intermediate', but the word 'transitional' carries with it a >notion of inevitability that is without foundation.

Please try to research the current theories better before
you present them. The seal is neither intermediate nor
transitional to the whale.
At best, the seal body is "convergent" on the whale body.
The seal has evolved into an external form that superficially
resembles the external form of a whale.
Some scientists would say that this description carries
the resemblance too far. However, I think this description
probably has a little truth in it.
Pinnipeds are not intermediate cetecea. Neither are beavers
intermediate to otters. Please learn a little zoology.
Paleontology is fun. So is genetics. Natural history has made
great strides since Darwin.

[UC]

On May 31, 6:22 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 3:22 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Manatees, dolphins, whales, seals, otters, beavers all are mammals
> > > that show various degrees of adaptation to an aquatic environment.
>
>     You should learn some taxonony before you continue. Modern
> scientists do not believe that these aquatic mammals that you
> mentioned are more closely related to each other than to all
> land mammals.

What? I never said they were!

>       Neither the Linnean system of taxonomy nor the cladastic
> system of taxonomy place these animals in one closely related
> group.

So? The point is that they show varying degrees of adaptation to
aquatic environment, that's all!

> I don't think even Darwin would have placed them in
> the same closely group, other than the class Mammalia.
> There has been a lot of scientific work on the aquatic mammals
> since that time. The research shows that these mammals are
> distantly related.
>     I think this will be clearest by separating these mammals
> in terms of their orders.
>       Whales and dolphins are in the order Cetecea.
>       Seals, sea lions, walruses and otters are in the
> order Carnivora.
>       Manatees and dugons are in the order Sirenia.
>       Beavers are in the order Rodentia.
>
> >Who is to say whether seals are going to become more like whales?
>
>        The seals will have to acquire a chambered stomach and a
> telescoped skull to be like cetecea. They will also have
> to lose their hind limbs and fused pelvis bone in to be like
> cetecea. Their middle ear bones would have to become partly
> unstuck from the skull.

Perhaps, but we won't know.

>        I can't say whether seals will or will not become more
> like whales. However, I can make a list of some of the changes
> necessary to turn a seal into a whale. There is a rather awesome
> list. The two animals do not resemble each other internally.> It's a
> > > sure bet that they won't be going back onto land; it's hard to see
> > > their 'flippers' adapting to terrestrial life again.
>
>     Of course not. That doesn't mean that the seal has to become
> like a whale any more than the whale has to become like a fish.
>
> > > So, seals could be considered 'intermediate' between animals like
> > > otters and animals like whales or dolphins.
>
>       Seals may be descended from otter-like animals. However,
> they do not appear to be intermediate to whales.

I mean by 'intermediate' that they are more adapted to locomotion in
water than are otters, and less so than whales.

>
> > What you can say is that whales' ancestors must have been something
> > like seals, but these animals were not 'destined' to become or
> > 'trying' to become whales.
>
>     Pakicetus, the most recent common whale ancestor,
> was something like a hippopotamus. Pakicetus in no way resembled
> a seal.> In that sense these animals were
> > 'intermediate', but the word 'transitional' carries with it a >notion of inevitability that is without foundation.
>
>      Please try to research the current theories better before
> you present them. The seal is neither intermediate nor
> transitional to the whale.

Correct, and I never said anything like that. I said ancestors to
whales MAY have been something like seals, that's all.

[Darwin123]

The title of this thread is "How transitional fossils
are determined." Gradations in functionality are irrelevant
to the transition if there are no gradations in anatomy.
The internal anatomy of a seal is much closer to
the internal anatomy of a dog or cat than to the internal
anatomy of a whale. The internal anatomy of an otter is much
closer to the internal anatomy of a seal, dog or cat than to
the internal anatomy of a whale.
Modern day whales have nostrils way to the back of their
jaws. The entire skull is stretched out in such a way as to leave
the nostrils (i.e., the blowhole). The nostrils of seals are
altogether in the front of their jaws, which is the same
arrangement as in dogs, cats or otters. The whale has lost its
ability to smell, to some extent due to the telescoping of
the skull. However, the seal still can smell very well.
Telescoping skull is not really necessary to move in
water. Whether a seal ever evolves to have a blowhole way
back may have more to do with how much it uses its sense of
smell, rather than how well it moves in water. Thus, the
nose of the seal doesn't point to any ancestral connection
between seals and whales.
The word "transitional" isn't much used by scientists. When
Creationists use it, they appear to mean something to do with
anatomy. Something is transitional in that the anatomy is
consistent with the evolution from one species to another.
Talking about transitional "locomotion" is likely to get both
scientists and Creationists mad at you.

>
>
>
> > > What you can say is that whales' ancestors must have been something
> > > like seals, but these animals were not 'destined' to become or
> > > 'trying' to become whales.

What do you mean by "like" a seal? "Like" does not mean
"transitional".
Extant seals are anatomically and genetically unlike
whales. Their ancestors were most probably unlike whales in
anatomy.

>
> >     Pakicetus, the most recent common whale ancestor,
> > was something like a hippopotamus. Pakicetus in no way
>> resembled a seal.
> In that sense these animals were
> > > 'intermediate', but the word 'transitional' carries with it a >notion of inevitability that is without foundation.

Pakicetus is sometimes referred to as a transitional animal.
It is transitional between an ancestral ungulate and the cetecea.
Maybe a better word is intermediate. Pakicetus is intermediate
between an ancestral ungulate and the cetecea.
There was nothing inevitable about Pakicetus becoming a
whale. However, it had both ungulate-like and whale-like
anatomical features. The features are consistent with a sequence
of ancestors between Pakicetus and the whales.
Whether Pakicetus could move well in water is secondary to the
point. An animal can change its domicile in an hour. It may not
survive the move, but it can try. For an animal to change its
anatomy is a bit harder.

>
> >      Please try to research the current theories better before
> > you present them. The seal is neither intermediate nor
> > transitional to the whale.
>
> Correct, and I never said anything like that. I said ancestors to
> whales MAY have been something like seals, that's all.

However, that would not make it transitional in any
scientific or religious sense. One can train a seal to
balance a ball. That would not make it a human being, or even
a basket ball player. Behaving like another animal doesn't
by itself make it an ancestor of that animal.
Beavers are rodents. They are closer related to rats and
squirrels than to seals or otters. Otters are carnivores.
Now, otters may be "intermediate" to seals which are also
carnivores. However, otters did not give rise to beavers.
Just look at their teeth.
I am just helping you avoid digging yourself in a hole.
Your defense of "evolutionists" is laudable. If you choose
to remain ignorant, then may you could help science the best
by becoming a Creationist!
Science, even as a pastime, requires some work. You shouldn't
try defending scientists by shooting from the hip. You could
hit your foot that way!

[jillery]

What is the distinction you are trying to make here? Why do you
consider "intermediate" a better label than "transitional"?

[Arkalen]

(2012/06/01 2:40), David wrote:
> In defense of "There are no transitional fossils; therefore evolution is false", Matt Slick says that there is absolutely no way we can objectively prove that a fossil is truly transitional. In other words, all transitional fossils were really created that way.

That's misunderstanding how transitional fossils work as evidence.

The reasoning doesn't go : evolution says species X should have a
descendant that's the ancestor of species Y; transitional fossil Z is
exactly that descendant, therefore evolution is true.

If that were the case then Matt Slick's objection might have some merit,
because we can't tell direct ancestry from fossils, and everything could
have been specially created anyway.

But that's not what the reasoning is. The actual reasoning is : if
evolution is true, then all current species are gradual modifications of
earlier species. Given there is gradual modification going on, if
evolution were true we would expect to find fossils (and living forms
for that matter) that are intermediate between two groups we think are
related, i.e. have a mix of traits that belong to one group, traits that
belong to another group, and traits that look somewhere in between.
That is what we call a "transitional fossil".

If special creation were true we would not expect to find such fossils.
We would either expect to find fossils exactly like current living
things (if we think there's no extinction and continuous creation), or
we'd expect to find fossils with random distributions of traits, that
don't necessarily fall into modern classifications, and if there were
intermediate fossils we'd expect them to fall between any two groups
(i.e. we might find half-whale, half-shark fossils, or half-bat
half-sphinx moth, etc).

As it happens, we do find intermediate fossils, and we only find those
we'd expect to find if evolution is true.

It isn't proof, because science doesn't deal in proof. Science deals in
evidence; in general, if you have Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2, and
Evidence E is something that would be very likely if Hypothesis 1 were
true but highly unlikely if Hypothesis 2 were true, then if you do find
E that is very strong evidence for H1 over H2, i.e. your confidence that
H1 is true rather than H2 has increased a lot.

That we've found the intermediate fossils we did is strong evidence for
evolution over all creation hypotheses, except for the one that says
"life was created to look like it evolved".

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

Actually, it represents hindsight, if anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

and

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

indicate that "transitional" isn't a property
of a fossil on its own, but a description
of its relationship to other fossils.
Fossil B is evidence of what there was alive
that was related to Fossil A and Fossil C.

I don't know if there's another word with a
meaning of "I think we can see what this will
lead to", when considering a species that
is imperfectly fitted to its lifestyle.
For instance, "the island rule" is that
on an isolated landmass, "big" animals from
the mainland will evolve to be smaller, and
"small" animals will evolve to be bigger.
The following link says "mammals" but then
brings in lizards and dinosaurs.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Evolution-on-Islands-35885.shtml

[UC]

Quite. 'Transitional' implies a goal or end, or movement toward a goal
or end, and that the current state is only a means to some other state.

[drose...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, June 1, 2012 9:56:38 AM UTC-4, UC wrote:
> > >So, seals could be considered 'intermediate' between animals like
> > >otters and animals like whales or dolphins.
> >
> > What is the distinction you are trying to make here?  Why do you
> > consider "intermediate" a better label than "transitional"?
>
> Quite. 'Transitional' implies a goal or end, or movement toward a goal
> or end, and that the current state is only a means to some other state.

That is only half the distinction. You didn't state the other half.
1) What does "intermediate" mean to you?
2) What sort of similarities are not "intermediate" to you?
The topic regards proof of evolution. You seem to think that
"intermediate creatures" are evidence of evolution. In this regard,
I don't see how a seal is "intermediate" between otters and whales.
You claimed that seals have better locomotion in water than
otters, but worse locomotion in water than whales. Given that this
is true, how would that support the theory of evolution?
Note that the internal anatomy of seals is much different from
that of toothed whales, but not so different from cats. Just compare
the teeth of toothed whales, seals, otters, cats and beavers. There is
nothing "intermediate" about this series of teeth.
Sorry for my earlier, curt response. However, I really would like
to know what you mean by "intermediate".

[UC]

On Jun 1, 3:57 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

To some extent 'transitional' implies things that natural selection
excludes, such as teleological ends.

It tends to obscure the fact that all organisms are subject to
selection at all times, and that none is 'permanent' as such.

[UC]

On Jun 1, 4:59 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

All organisms are constantly subject to selection forces of various
kinds. This means in some cases, where the environment is quite
stable, very little change can be expected over long periods of time.
Rapidly changing environments can mean quite a lot of adaptation is
going to happen, or extinction. Whether the descendants of seal-like
creatures become whale-like creatures over a long period of time is a
matter of chance.

[UC]

On May 31, 1:40 pm, David <david.neff1...@gmail.com> wrote:

All fossils are 'transitional'. We are fixated on the appearance of
some features more than others. Archeopteryx is singled out more than
other fossils because of its presumed ability to fly, even though
structurally it is hardly distinguishable from non-avian animals.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:22:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>...the word 'transitional' carries with it a notion

>of inevitability that is without foundation.

I disagree; "transitional" means only that the creatures had
both ancestors and descendants which were of different
species from themselves. *All* species with descendant
species are transitional.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Friday, June 1, 2012 7:49:02 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:22:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >...the word 'transitional' carries with it a notion
> >of inevitability that is without foundation.
>
> I disagree; "transitional" means only that the creatures had
> both ancestors and descendants which were of different
> species from themselves. *All* species with descendant
> species are transitional.

That implies that they weren't transitional
at the time, but only later.

[UC]

On Jun 1, 2:49 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:22:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >...the word 'transitional' carries with it a notion
> >of inevitability that is without foundation.
>
> I disagree; "transitional" means only that the creatures had
> both ancestors and descendants which were of different
> species from themselves. *All* species with descendant
> species are transitional.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>                           - McNameless

But you are wrong, of course. Look in the dictionary.

These creatures are not 'passing' or 'moving' to another state. They
are merely examples of different ages of a lineage that could have
been otherwise than they were. Natural selection acts on natural
variants of a given population. If that selection pressure continues
in a certain way, certain traits will be emphasized more than others,
until the descendants no longer bear any resemblance to the ancestors.
There is no 'movement'.

Main Entry:1transition
Pronunciation:tran(t)*sish*n, traan-, -n*zi-
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:Latin transition-, transitio, from transitus (past
participle of transire to go across, pass) + -ion-, -io -ion * more at
TRANSIENT

1 a : a passage or movement from one state, condition, or place to
another : CHANGE *in what shadowy spot T does the transition from the
dead to the quick take place Treasury of Science* *the transition from
childhood to adulthood* *the abrupt transition of her features from
assured pride to ludicrous astonishment and alarm Arnold Bennett*
*that evening at the time of transition in the sky Ethel Wilson* *here
guided missiles can pass through a complete sea-land transition
J.C.Waugh* *an age of transition and flux* b : a movement,
development, or evolution from one stage, form, or style to another
usually of a later time or period *the first phase of the movement was
more in the nature of a transition than a rebellion Bernard Smith*
*the transition of American civilization from agricultural to urban
N.B.Fagin* *a transition from native bronze to iron artifacts took
place T under the influence of cultural borrowings R.W.Murray* *the
transition of early English architecture* *a transition T from the
inorganic to the organic, from the inanimate to the living W.R.Inge*
2 a : a passing from one subject to another especially without
abruptness *having told all her griefs T was soon able to make a
voluntary transition to the oddities of her cousin Jane Austen*;
specifically : a passage of discourse in which a shift of subject is
gradually effected *has a bleakly ungraceful habit of making his
transitions in the form of a question as a topic sentence
B.H.Bronson* b (1) : a musical modulation; especially : a
transient modulation(2) : a sudden change of key(3) : a musical
passage leading from one section of a piece to another : BRIDGE c : a
change or moving from one dramatic scene to another usually by a fade,
sound effects, music, or narration *uses an onstage narrator who
streamlines the transition between scenes Time*
3 : an abrupt change in the energy state or energy level of an atomic
electron, a nucleus, or a molecule accompanied in general by the loss
or gain of a single quantum of energy compare QUANTUM THEORY

[UC]

On Jun 1, 3:10 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 1, 2012 7:49:02 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:22:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

>
> > >...the word 'transitional' carries with it a notion
> > >of inevitability that is without foundation.
>
> > I disagree; "transitional" means only that the creatures had
> > both ancestors and descendants which were of different
> > species from themselves. *All* species with descendant
> > species are transitional.
>
> That implies that they weren't transitional
> at the time, but only later.

Is your grandfather 'transitional' to you? I don't think so!

[UC]

On Jun 1, 3:10 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Friday, June 1, 2012 7:49:02 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:22:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

>
> > >...the word 'transitional' carries with it a notion
> > >of inevitability that is without foundation.
>
> > I disagree; "transitional" means only that the creatures had
> > both ancestors and descendants which were of different
> > species from themselves. *All* species with descendant
> > species are transitional.
>
> That implies that they weren't transitional
> at the time, but only later.

Only viewed from the perspective of history can they even be called
intermediate, but never 'transitional'.

[drose...@yahoo.com]

Wrong. You have it backwards.
Archeopteryx is presumed to fly due to its structural details. There
was no human being present at the time to observe it flying.
Archeopteryx shares structural details with both theropods and
birds. The fossil included feathers on its forelimbs, just like
extant birds. The fossil also had both an external tail and teeth,
like extinct theropods.
If some human time traveler had seen archeopteryx fly, then he
still couldn't claim the relationship between archeopteryx and modern
birds. Birds are able to fly because of the feathers on their fore-limbs.
However, there are plenty of other ways and animal could fly. The wings
could have been supported in other ways.
It is the structure of the body that suggest and "intermediate bird".
The main structure that suggest a bird was its feathers, not the ability
to fly. The thin bone structure also suggested a bird. However, its method
of locomotion by itself would not be evidence of the relationship to birds.
Suppose someone saw this animal fly, but couldn't see its body very well.
Suppose some paleontologist saw it fly, but couldn't see the feathers. That
paleontologist could not conclude, or even hypothesize, that it was related
to birds. Bats, most insects and pterodactyls flew without close
relationship to birds.
If the animal had flown using cartiliage hanging from its pinky, it would
have been related to the pterodactyl which isn't a dinosaur. If the fingers
of its forelimb supported a cross membrane, then it could be a bat. There is
no conclusion that can be made using the function alone.
There has been speculation by paleontologists that archeopteryx couldn't
fly. This did not lead any of them to doubt that archeopteryx was related to
birds. The reason is that the structure of the animal is still "intermediate",
whatever that means. Intermediate behavior means less than intermediate
structure.
It is the anatomy, physiology and genetics that determines how animals
are related to each other. Behavior is important only to the extent that
it can be related to anatomy, physiology and genetics. If there is a
particular part of the brain that is similar in different animals, which
is related to the behavior, then maybe the animals are related. However,
the behavior itself can be influenced by a lot of other things. Furthermore,
fossils rarely record behavior. So the behavior of the animal, even when
it can be determined, is tertiary in determining relationships.
Forgive me. I keep on arguing with this idiot who insists a
whale is a fish. This raises my sensitivity to similar issues. Such as
whether a seal is a whale !-)

[drose...@yahoo.com]

So what in the perspective of history makes a seal intermediate
between a whale and a beaver ?-)

[UC]

Ahem...

http://everything2.com/title/Archaeopteryx

Except for the feathers, the remains of Archaeopteryx are similar to
those of Compsognathus. Several of the known specimens were originally
misclassified as this species. Archaeopteryx's skeleton also looks
very much like that of Deinonychus and the even larger Velociraptor.

[UC]

I didn't say that. Seals are intermediate (between whales and beavers)
in their adaptation to aquatic life. Whales live entirely in the
water. Seal live most of the time in water, beavers a lot less.
Beavers are "swimming terrestrial animals" with only slight
adaptations for aquatic existence (webbed back feet). Seals are highly
adapted for aquatic life with slim bodies and large flippers instead
of true feet, with both forelimbs and hind limbs. Whales have only
vestigial hind limbs and cannot come onto dry land at all.

Seal:
http://www.solarnavigator.net/animal_kingdom/animal_images/Sealions.jpg

Beaver:
http://www.wallpaperslibrary.com/Wallpapers/Animals/beaver-wallpaper.jpg

Whale:
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/005/cache/humpback-whale_580_600x450.jpg

[UC]

Intermediate simply means in-between. Grey is intermediate between
black and white. Grey is not black 'trying' to become white or vice
versa. Seals are not trying to become whale-like, nor are beavers
trying to become seal-like.

Beavers are clearly terrestrial animals with only slight adaptations
for aquatic life. They have no adaptations for deep diving (which
seals and whales do).

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

In dressing style perhaps. Biologically,
he and I were not of different species,
so the relationship isn't a transition.

[jillery]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 07:42:43 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 1, 3:57 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:58:31 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On May 31, 1:40 pm, David <david.neff1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> In defense of "There are no transitional fossils; therefore evolution is false", Matt Slick says that there is absolutely no way we can objectively prove that a fossil is truly transitional. In other words, all transitional fossils were really  created that way.
>>
>> >> This leads me up to several questions.
>> >> 1) How do we determine what a transitional fossil is?
>> >> 2) Are all fossils transitional?
>> >> 3) What is the BEST example of a transitional fossil?
>>
>> >There are no 'transitional' animals, though there are 'intermediate'
>> >ones.
>>
>> >Manatees, dolphins, whales, seals, otters, beavers all are mammals
>> >that show various degrees of adaptation to an aquatic environment. Who
>> >is to say whether seals are going to become more like whales? It's a
>> >sure bet that they won't be going back onto land; it's hard to see
>> >their 'flippers' adapting to terrestrial life again.
>>
>> >So, seals could be considered 'intermediate' between animals like
>> >otters and animals like whales or dolphins.
>>
>> What is the distinction you are trying to make here?  Why do you
>> consider "intermediate" a better label than "transitional"?

From your previous reply:
***********************

>Quite. 'Transitional' implies a goal or end, or movement toward a goal
>or end, and that the current state is only a means to some other state.

***********************

>To some extent 'transitional' implies things that natural selection
>excludes, such as teleological ends.
>
>It tends to obscure the fact that all organisms are subject to
>selection at all times, and that none is 'permanent' as such.

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_form

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that
exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived
descendant group."

Transitional fossils aren't assumed to be direct ancestors of more
recent groups, but that they share a common ancestor. The common
traits are considered to be characteristic of a common lineage, but
not necessarily a direct one.

The scientific definition is different from common English, analogous
to the scientific and common English definition of "theory".

From Wiktionary:

intermediate: (adjective)
1. Being between two extremes, or in the middle of a range

transitional: (adjective)
1.of, or relating to a transition
2.temporary; pending the implementation of something new

transition: (noun)
1.The process of change from one form, state, style or place to
another.

My problem with substituting "intermediate" is that it implies a
roughly comparable distance between the ends. It would be confusing
to say for example that pakicetus is a more distant intermediate to
whales than is ambulocetus.

[jillery]

Why not? By analogy, my grandfather is more transitional to me than
he is intermediate.

[UC]

Possibly, but 'transitional' is worse.

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

you can only determine that a species was transitional post hoc.
Potentially any species could be transitional.

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 10:40:22 -0700 (PDT), David
<david.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In defense of "There are no transitional fossils; therefore evolution
> is false", Matt Slick says that there is absolutely no way we can
> objectively prove that a fossil is truly transitional. In other words,
> all transitional fossils were really created that way.

Therefore Earth could be a few minutes old.

> This leads me up to several questions.
> 1) How do we determine what a transitional fossil is?

If it left ancestors, it was transitional.

> 2) Are all fossils transitional?

No.

[UC]

On Jun 2, 10:27 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, June 1, 2012 8:10:14 PM UTC+1, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 1, 2012 7:49:02 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:22:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> > > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

>
> > > >...the word 'transitional' carries with it a notion
> > > >of inevitability that is without foundation.
>
> > > I disagree; "transitional" means only that the creatures had
> > > both ancestors and descendants which were of different
> > > species from themselves. *All* species with descendant
> > > species are transitional.
>
> > That implies that they weren't transitional
> > at the time, but only later.
>
> you can only determine that a species was transitional post hoc.
> Potentially any species could be transitional.

The word 'transitional' has connotations that present difficulties. I
don't like it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:10:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Robert Carnegie: Fnord:
cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

Well, sure; "transitional" can only be determined by
hindsight, unless extinction is accepted as a valid
succession in this context, in which case *all* species,
extant or extinct, would be "transitional". Not to me,
though; that would make the term essentially useless.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:11:40 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>On Jun 1, 2:49 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:22:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

>> >...the word 'transitional' carries with it a notion
>> >of inevitability that is without foundation.

>> I disagree; "transitional" means only that the creatures had
>> both ancestors and descendants which were of different
>> species from themselves. *All* species with descendant
>> species are transitional.

>But you are wrong, of course. Look in the dictionary.

No, I'm not. Dictionaries, which yield accepted general
usage of single words but don't cover technical concepts
very well, are a poor choice for understanding terms such as
"transitional species". Far better to actually use the full
term as a search phrase; the first hit (of over 80,000)
yields this Wiki entry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

....the content of which makes it clear that I'm correct.

<snip irrelevant definition>

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:14:23 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

....and yet scientists *do* so refer to them, and for reasons
they consider valid.

Are you beginning yet another crusade to dictate scientific
and technical usage to those actually qualified to specify
such usage in a scientific venue? If so, please let me know
so I can ignore you again.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:19:47 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

Are you of a different species from your grandfather? If
not, your question is irrelevant to the subject, which is
about transitional *species*.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 08:35:29 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com>:

>If it left ancestors, it was transitional.

Ummm...ancestors? Died young, did it? ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

Then it's probably a good thing that your acceptance of
terms used correctly isn't an issue.

[UC]

On Jun 2, 2:20 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:19:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

It's about how the word 'transitional' can be applied to species. It
implies that they're just biding time till they can reach their final
form and 'true calling'.

[UC]

On Jun 2, 2:23 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 2, 10:27 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, June 1, 2012 8:10:14 PM UTC+1, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
>
> >> > On Friday, June 1, 2012 7:49:02 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> > > On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:22:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> >> > > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >> > > >...the word 'transitional' carries with it a notion
> >> > > >of inevitability that is without foundation.
>
> >> > > I disagree; "transitional" means only that the creatures had
> >> > > both ancestors and descendants which were of different
> >> > > species from themselves. *All* species with descendant
> >> > > species are transitional.
>
> >> > That implies that they weren't transitional
> >> > at the time, but only later.
>
> >> you can only determine that a species was transitional post hoc.
> >> Potentially any species could be transitional.
>
> >The word 'transitional' has connotations that present difficulties. I
> >don't like it.
>
> Then it's probably a good thing that your acceptance of
> terms used correctly isn't an issue.
> --
>

The word implies things that are not part of evolutionary theory.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 3:13:25 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> From:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_form
>
> "A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that
> exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived
> descendant group."
>
> Transitional fossils aren't assumed to be direct ancestors of more
> recent groups, but that they share a common ancestor. The common
> traits are considered to be characteristic of a common lineage, but
> not necessarily a direct one.

Is it a problem that the label of "transitional"
asserts such a relationship between fossil
organisms? How do you distinguish a transitional
relationship from convergent evolution of less
related or unrelated lineages? Have mistakes
been made, and would it be better to present
non-absolute conclusions in a different way?

[UC]

On Jun 2, 2:53 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 2, 2012 3:13:25 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> > From:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_form
>
> > "A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that
> > exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived
> > descendant group."
>
> > Transitional fossils aren't assumed to be direct ancestors of more
> > recent groups, but that they share a common ancestor.  The common
> > traits are considered to be characteristic of a common lineage, but
> > not necessarily a direct one.
>
> Is it a problem that the label of "transitional"
> asserts such a relationship between fossil
> organisms?

That is part of the problem with the term.

> How do you distinguish a transitional
> relationship from convergent evolution of less
> related or unrelated lineages?

Good question.

> Have mistakes
> been made, and would it be better to present
> non-absolute conclusions in a different way?

Yes.

If you look at the gradations of 'adapted to aquatic life' of beaver,
seal, whale, the seal can be seen as 'intermediate', but that does not
imply a 'transition' or genetic relationship between these three kinds
of mammals. 'Transition' implies relationship; 'intermediate' does
not, at least not as strongly.

[UC]

On Jun 2, 2:53 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:

We have no idea at all whether Archeopteryx (often cited as a
'transitional' species) is ancestral to any known bird line.

[drose...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 2:22:10 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 08:35:29 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Desertphile
> <Deser...@spammegmail.com>:
>
> >If it left ancestors, it was transitional.
>
> Ummm...ancestors? Died young, did it? ;-)

Or it used a time travel to procreate an ancestor.

[jillery]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:15:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:11:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
><uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
>
>>On Jun 1, 2:49 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:22:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
>>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
>
>>> >...the word 'transitional' carries with it a notion
>>> >of inevitability that is without foundation.
>
>>> I disagree; "transitional" means only that the creatures had
>>> both ancestors and descendants which were of different
>>> species from themselves. *All* species with descendant
>>> species are transitional.
>
>>But you are wrong, of course. Look in the dictionary.
>
>No, I'm not. Dictionaries, which yield accepted general
>usage of single words but don't cover technical concepts
>very well, are a poor choice for understanding terms such as
>"transitional species". Far better to actually use the full
>term as a search phrase; the first hit (of over 80,000)
>yields this Wiki entry...
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
>
>....the content of which makes it clear that I'm correct.
>
><snip irrelevant definition>

Yeppers on all points.

[jillery]

Your assertion is technically correct. That it's relevant to the
issue of "transitional" is equally incorrect. "Ancestral" is an
entirely separate question from "transitional".

[Karel]

So does the word evolution itself.

Regards,

Karel

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 7:15:10 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:11:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >On Jun 1, 2:49 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:22:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> >> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >> >...the word 'transitional' carries with it a notion
> >> >of inevitability that is without foundation.
>
> >> I disagree; "transitional" means only that the creatures had
> >> both ancestors and descendants which were of different
> >> species from themselves. *All* species with descendant
> >> species are transitional.
>
> >But you are wrong, of course. Look in the dictionary.
>
> No, I'm not. Dictionaries, which yield accepted general
> usage of single words but don't cover technical concepts
> very well, are a poor choice for understanding terms such as
> "transitional species". Far better to actually use the full
> term as a search phrase; the first hit (of over 80,000)
> yields this Wiki entry...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
>
> ....the content of which makes it clear that I'm correct.

A point of order - Wikipedia isn't good for
supporting an argument; its article may have
been merely written by someone who shares
your opinion. Or by you.

Another encyclopedia probably has an overall
editorial policy, that you can allow for
when you read it. You know what you're getting
at <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/> -
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917. Whether
you /wanted/ that is another matter.
It's useful for some arguments, treated
carefully, but not necessarily above even
editing saints' lives.

[UC]

Transitional to what then? A transition is from point A to point B.
Here we have neither.

[UC]

I believe that may be true, but I'd have to research it.

[jillery]

I acknowledge that's your opinion. Lucky for the world you don't get
to decide these things.

[UC]

Well scientists and other technical people are often weak in language
skills. That's why there are editors.

[UC]

I quote:

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that
exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived
descendant group."

You note the word 'derived'? It's not clear to me what is meant, but
here is the Webster definition:

Main Entry:derived
Function:adjective

1 : formed or developed out of something else : DERIVATIVE : reflected
or secondary in character : not original or primary *the belief that
individuals are alone real, that classes and organizations are
secondary and derived John Dewey*
2 : brought from elsewhere : not native *derived fossils*

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 11:38:17 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>On Jun 2, 2:20 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:19:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 1, 3:10 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> On Friday, June 1, 2012 7:49:02 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:22:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
>> >> > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >> > >...the word 'transitional' carries with it a notion
>> >> > >of inevitability that is without foundation.
>>
>> >> > I disagree; "transitional" means only that the creatures had
>> >> > both ancestors and descendants which were of different
>> >> > species from themselves. *All* species with descendant
>> >> > species are transitional.
>>
>> >> That implies that they weren't transitional
>> >> at the time, but only later.
>>
>> >Is your grandfather 'transitional' to you? I don't think so!
>>
>> Are you of a different species from your grandfather? If
>> not, your question is irrelevant to the subject, which is
>> about transitional *species*.

>It's about how the word 'transitional' can be applied to species. It
>implies that they're just biding time till they can reach their final
>form and 'true calling'.

No, it doesn't, and no biologist would take it as such.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 11:40:54 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

....and yet those who actually work in the field as
professionals disagree, so what's a poor WordNazi to do?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:44:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by drose...@yahoo.com:

The "All You Zombies" technique? Cool!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 03:46:34 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Robert Carnegie: Fnord:
cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

I don't disagree, but it's probably the best UC will be able
to access, it covers the subject pretty well (including the
reason why the dictionary definitions of the individual
words aren't especially relevant), and there are *lots* of
references to actual papers in the footnotes.

>Another encyclopedia probably has an overall
>editorial policy, that you can allow for
>when you read it. You know what you're getting
>at <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/> -
>The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917. Whether
>you /wanted/ that is another matter.
>It's useful for some arguments, treated
>carefully, but not necessarily above even
>editing saints' lives.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:18:34 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:14:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
><uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
>
>>On Jun 1, 3:10 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>>orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 1, 2012 7:49:02 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> > On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:22:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
>>> > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>> > >...the word 'transitional' carries with it a notion
>>> > >of inevitability that is without foundation.
>>>
>>> > I disagree; "transitional" means only that the creatures had
>>> > both ancestors and descendants which were of different
>>> > species from themselves. *All* species with descendant
>>> > species are transitional.
>>>
>>> That implies that they weren't transitional
>>> at the time, but only later.
>>
>>Only viewed from the perspective of history can they even be called
>>intermediate, but never 'transitional'.
>
>....and yet scientists *do* so refer to them, and for reasons
>they consider valid.
>
>Are you beginning yet another crusade to dictate scientific
>and technical usage to those actually qualified to specify
>such usage in a scientific venue?

I'd really appreciate a reply to this question, since it
will determine whether I'm wasting time. Well, *more* time.

Thanks.

[Karel]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

Regards,

Karel

[UC]

On Jun 3, 2:43 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:18:34 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:14:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> ><uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

I think the word 'transitional' is a poor one in this context.

[UC]

To evolve means to unfold.

[UC]

On Jun 3, 2:43 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:18:34 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:14:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> ><uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

Scientists are notoriously poor at using language. Many are only
barely literate, as English is for them a second language. Even native
speakers are often clueless about what words mean.

[UC]

Was Latin a 'transitional' language between Indo-European and French?
NO! Latin was not a 'transition' of any kind. It was not 'French
waiting to happen'.

[jillery]

Never put off to tomorrow what you can put off to the day after
tomorrow, eh?

[jillery]

First, I'll assume this means you understand your conflation of
'transitional' and 'ancestral'. Second, you continue to conflate the
layman's definition and the scientific one. This topic will continue
to chase its tail as long as you continue to do so.

[jillery]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:16:21 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>> >Possibly, but 'transitional' is worse.
>>
>> I acknowledge that's your opinion.  Lucky for the world you don't get
>> to decide these things.
>
>I quote:
>
>"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that
>exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived
>descendant group."

Sounds reasonable to me.

>You note the word 'derived'?

I do. And...???

>It's not clear to me what is meant, but
>here is the Webster definition:
>
>Main Entry:derived
>Function:adjective
>
>1 : formed or developed out of something else : DERIVATIVE : reflected
>or secondary in character : not original or primary *the belief that
>individuals are alone real, that classes and organizations are
>secondary and derived John Dewey*
>2 : brought from elsewhere : not native *derived fossils*

So your objection to 'transitional' is because of its association with
'derived' descendant groups? ISTM you're moving goalposts again. In
either case, how does said association weaken the scientific
definition of 'transitional'?

[jillery]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:43:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

On that point, UC's replies are as consistent as the rising of the
Sun. IOW by inference you can expect them to be a waste of time.

[Karel]

Or, even more literally, to unroll. Both are singularly
inappropriate meanings for what biological evolution is
regarded to be.

Regards,

Karel

[jillery]

So you keep saying.

[jillery]

Yes, there's you as an example.

[jillery]

Evolution as origami?

[jillery]

Arguing with yourself?

[drose...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 8:47:09 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> >To evolve means to unfold.
>
>
> Evolution as origami?

Evolution is not origami. Animal ontology is origami.

[UC]

On Jun 4, 8:47 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:09:23 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Huh? Was Latin transitional or not? Answer the question!

[jillery]

Does origami recapitulate phylogeny?

[jillery]

You already did. Did you forget so soon?

[UC]

Scientists have to be careful when using ordinary language. They are
not always aware that people who are not specialists also read
scientific literature. I don't think 'transitional' is the best term
to describe fossils; I do think 'intermediate' is better. The word
'intermediate' simply means 'in-between', and does not imply ancestry
or relationship. The word 'intermediary' can imply a connexion,
relationship, or link, but 'intermediate' does not. It simply implies
a state 'in-between' two others, such as grey does to black and to
white. There are many shades of grey, so you should not infer that
'intermediate' implies 'right in the middle'.

We do not know whether tiktaalik or Archeopteryx left descendants that
form any of the lineages we can point to today. All we can deduce is
that these creatures show some anatomical features that earlier
creatures did not have, and that later creatures have in more
developed form.

Personally, I think tiktaalik is a sort of amphibian. In fact, all
amphibians are sort of 'transitional' or intermediate forms, as they
possess traits 'in-between' fish and terrestrial animals.

[UC]

Imagine finding fossil frogs in various stages of development. Suppose
adults were found alongside tadpoles. One might mistake them for
different creatures!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Evolution

[UC]

Is it possible that tiktaalik underwent metamorphosis? Is there any
literature on this?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:21:45 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>I think the word 'transitional' is a poor one in this context.

You might note that you didn't answer the question...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:05:09 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>Scientists are notoriously poor at using language. Many are only
>barely literate, as English is for them a second language. Even native
>speakers are often clueless about what words mean.

So that's a "Yes, I am"?

For someone who claims to be an authority on language you
certainly have difficulty providing a clear answer to a
simple question...

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:47:09 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

*Reverse* origami. ;-)

[UC]

On Jun 4, 3:06 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:05:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

Yes I am trying to tell you how to improve your use of language, if
that is your question.

[jillery]

Apparently so.

>Scientists have to be careful when using ordinary language. They are
>not always aware that people who are not specialists also read
>scientific literature. I don't think 'transitional' is the best term
>to describe fossils; I do think 'intermediate' is better. The word
>'intermediate' simply means 'in-between', and does not imply ancestry
>or relationship. The word 'intermediary' can imply a connexion,
>relationship, or link, but 'intermediate' does not. It simply implies
>a state 'in-between' two others, such as grey does to black and to
>white. There are many shades of grey, so you should not infer that
>'intermediate' implies 'right in the middle'.
>
>We do not know whether tiktaalik or Archeopteryx left descendants that
>form any of the lineages we can point to today. All we can deduce is
>that these creatures show some anatomical features that earlier
>creatures did not have, and that later creatures have in more
>developed form.

And that is the definition of a transitional form.

[jillery]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:08:42 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Even better!

[UC]

On Jun 5, 2:43 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:20:45 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

But that's not what 'transitional' means. 'Transitional' means part of
a linked series. Consider a black-and-white photograph, which has a
range of tones from deep black to pure white. Is the grey of a leaf a
'transition' to any other tone in the photo? No! It can be called an
'intermediate' tone though, as it lies between the darkest and
lightest tones in the photo.

Through the early 1980s, wood tennis racquets were standard. For a
while, composite racquets were sold, which had part wood, part other
materials (usually graphite and fiberglass). Then, wood was dropped
altogether and now all racquets are graphite and fiberglass. These
composite racquets could be considered 'transitional' because they
contained materials that were used in the past and were going to be
used in the future. But they were not ancestral to the racquets of the
future; they are not animals.

[Ste...@steven-pc.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me]

That the term "transitional" does not imply a direct line of descent, seems to be not well explained by most popular explanations of the ToE.

Certainly I went all the way through all the science classes in school without ever having had that taught to me.

It's just one more example of how the scientific definition of a term can differ from the popular definition, given by English dictionaries:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transitional

And it leads to confusion, just like the term "theory" can lead to confusion because scientists have one meaning for the term and laypersons have a different meaning for it.

The scientific definition of "transitional" does seem to be closer to the layperson's definition of "intermediate."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intermediate




-- Steven L.

[UC]

On Jun 5, 10:48 am, Ste...@STEVEN-PC.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--
so-tickle-me wrote:

Thank you, that's exactly my claim!

[jillery]

Missed again.

>> >Scientists have to be careful when using ordinary language. They are
>> >not always aware that people who are not specialists also read
>> >scientific literature. I don't think 'transitional' is the best term
>> >to describe fossils; I do think 'intermediate' is better. The word
>> >'intermediate' simply means 'in-between', and does not imply ancestry
>> >or relationship. The word 'intermediary' can imply a connexion,
>> >relationship, or link, but 'intermediate' does not.  It simply implies
>> >a state 'in-between' two others, such as grey does to black and to
>> >white. There are many shades of grey, so you should not infer that
>> >'intermediate' implies 'right in the middle'.
>>
>> >We do not know whether tiktaalik or Archeopteryx left descendants that
>> >form any of the lineages we can point to today. All we can deduce is
>> >that these creatures show some anatomical features that earlier
>> >creatures did not have, and that later creatures have in more
>> >developed form.
>>
>> And that is the definition of a transitional form.
>>
>>
>
>But that's not what 'transitional' means. 'Transitional' means part of
>a linked series.

Once again, that's what you mean. That's not what science means. Stop
conflating them.

<snip irrelevant analogies>

[UC]

Well 'science' is wrong! You guys have to use words properly!

[jillery]

Don't you get tired moving your goalposts around?

[UC]

Why do you think your usage of language is above criticism? It isn't!

[UC]

??? What do you mean?

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

Alternatively, accept that each fossil usually
is taken as representing not necessarily
one species, but a presumed set of maybe many
simultaneously coexistent species with
a close family relation. Most species
that have existed don't appear as their own
fossils at all - or at least none found so far.

So, fossil B is transitional between A and C
if scientists judge that species B is probably
descended from a close relative of species A
but not necessarily from A itself, and species
C is descended from close relatives of A and
from close relatives of B.

...I think.

And, yes, this is rather more complicated
than even the high-school version.

[UC]

On Jun 5, 12:51 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 3:48:25 PM UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:

That sounds much more reasonable, but even so it is not consistent
with the general usage of 'transitional'.

[UC]

On Jun 5, 12:51 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 3:48:25 PM UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:

What are some of the best-represented fossil sequences? Snails shells?

[UC]

Index fossils:

http://www.dallaspaleo.org/details/age_dating.pdf

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:22:54 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>Yes I am trying to tell you how to improve your use of language, if
>that is your question.

It's not (as you should be able to ascertain for yourself,
since it's just above in this post), and I reject your
implied claim that you're qualified to instruct me on
language usage. Or for that matter, on anything. Get over
yourself.

And for one who seems to consider himself an expert on
language usage, that final phrase seems strange. Is there
something about the question...

"Are you beginning yet another crusade to dictate scientific
and technical usage to those actually qualified to specify
such usage in a scientific venue?"

....which makes it so difficult for you to understand?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 03:03:26 -0400, the following appeared

The idea just seemed to unfold before my eyes...

[jillery]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:32:50 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> <snip irrelevant analogies>
>
>Well 'science' is wrong! You guys have to use words properly!

Every trade and profession has its own vocabulary with special
meanings. Why pick on science? And there are lots of words which
science defines differently. Why obsess over 'transitional'? How
'bout 'theory', 'evolution', or even 'science'? Nothing wrong with
showing a little wit and creativity in your trolling.