Transitional Fossils
Posted on: December 17, 2008 - 6:12pm
Offline
Transitional Fossils
Ok so I was watching this video:
In the comments someone writes the usual spiel about all fossils being transitional but it occured to me that if the particular animal that came to be the fossil never procreated it would therefore not be a transitional fossil. Am I getting this right or is there another reason it is still considered transitional. I suppose with something so old we could never know and it doesn't really matter all that much but at least I have an excuse to share this video. 
EDIT: Slightly modified by mod, including embed.
- Login to post comments
Here's the thing: All fossils represent a transitional species.
Unless that species stopped evolving (only possible with a catastrophic end) then that species evolved into another (or two others, or three others...)
Frankly, folks trying to support creationism do everything they can to obfuscate and confuse. In this case, the idea "if it didn't procreate" is an obfuscation. The Tiktaalik fossils weren't some sudden mutation where some fish mother was surprised to have birthed some tetrapods. They're form came to be slowly over many generations as is so with all new species. It's the natural selection of traits among a population that changes a population into a new species. The small differences generation to generation don't mean new species each generation.
I hope this helps
Edit
Oh, I got all serious there
I love the video.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I got all serious after I did a web search for tiiktaalik and among the first couple of hits were creationist sites saying things like "transitional? not quite" and "well now there are two gaps".
Those people will just shift the target forever.
The video was cool though. I miss philly.
Eden had a 25% murder rate and incest was rampant.
Thanks for the replies. I guess I should say that this the tiktaalik wasn't presented to me as an argument against evolution, I just saw the video, had a little idea and thought I would try to "stump the experts" I am of course an evolution believing atheist in case anyone was questioning that.
Well, strictly speaking, an individual that does not reproduce has no continuing line. That much is true. However, that really does not go anywhere from the point of evolutionary biology. What we are really looking at in the fossil record is not that specific individual but rather we are looking at the place that it occupied in the world which it lived in.
Let's look at it this way: Say that the specific individual used in the video did not reproduce but it had an identical twin brother which did. Sadly, the brother did not die in such interesting circumstances that we will ever find it's remains. Here is the thing, we don't really care which of the two ended up on display in some museum. Either one would have told us the same information about the world in which it lived and the role that they both played together in it.
Or look at it another way. Homo Sapiens are transitional between Homo Erectus and whatever will be walking around on this world in two million years. At least if we survive to evolve into whatever comes next. As it happens, we all know some couples who do not have children and are not likely to. Well, just because they are not going to have kids does not mean that they are not Homo Sapiens. If there are evolutionary biologists around two million years from now, they will still be able to learn about our world and our place in it from the fossils left behind by those who did not manage to reproduce.
=