What makes a transitional organism transitional?

[The Barbarian]

The usual definition is an individual with apomorphic characters of two groups.    That is, it has characters that would be defining characters in two different groups.   

A fossil that shows an intermediate state between an ancestral trait and that of its later descendants is said to bear a transitional feature. The fossil record includes many examples of transitional features, providing an abundance of evidence for evolutionary change over time.

For example, Pakicetus (below left) is a close relative of ancient whales. We know that pakicetids were closely related to whales and dolphins based on a number of unique specializations of the ear. But pakicetids lived on land and had nostrils at the front of the skull, as modern cows and sheep do. The ancestors of whales probably looked something like Pakicetus. How did evolution go from something like Pakicetus to modern whales (below right), with nostrils (aka, the blowhole) at the top of the head? If a pakicetid-like ancestor gave rise to modern whales, we would expect the lineage to have passed through an intermediate form – one with nostrils in the middle of the skull. 

And indeed we do find evidence of this transition in the fossils of Aetiocetus (above middle), which had nostrils in the middle of its skull.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/lines-of-evidence/transitional-features/

Other examples would be dinosaurs with feathers, reptiles with the dentary jaw joint, Hominids with the simian shelf of apes, an so on.   It is not "a cat turning into a dog", or the like.   It's just an organism with transitional characteristics.

 

[SwordMaster]

Pure nonsense...you are reading fairy tale books again.

So...you choose to believe that a wolf-like creature went back into the sea and became the ancestors of dophins and whales...wow, it appears that you have swallowed the bait hook, line, and sinker. This is pure evolutionary just-so stories based upon adding assumptions to the facts of what we know for sure.

If there ever was true transitional fossils recording the gradual change from one animal into another, then there would be no more debate on the subject. Sadly, for what you are purporting, there is none...which was the whole reason punctuated equilibrium (PE) was developed. 

God made all animals in the beginning, there is no such thing as evolution. There is adaptation, but that is not the main point of evolution doctrine. You are believing the nonsense without using your brain to think about what these people are actually saying.

For example, you cannot live without a thyroid gland...so how many billions of years did it take, piecemeal by piecemeal change, to give the animal that would some day become a man, a thyroid gland? We can say the same about any and every part of the human body. If evolution was a fact, YOU would NOT be here to talk about it!

You cannot live without a heart, or your lungs, or your mouth, or your brain, etc, etc, etc. When we stop and use our brains to think about what these "scientists" (I use the term loosely) tell us about "evolution," when we apply what we know today about biological systems and creatures, there would be nothing on the earth alive with the possible single exception of plants (IF that).

 

[The Barbarian]

On 8/10/2022 at 12:32 AM, SwordMaster said:

So...you choose to believe that a wolf-like creature went back into the sea and became the ancestors of dophins and whales

No.  It was actually an ungulate.   That is, for example why whales have an ungulate digestive system.

As you see, and as your fellow YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise admits, the fossil evidence is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.   He goes on to explain why the evidence for whale evolution is a particularly difficult problem for creationists:

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon [or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the
family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one-third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular
teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Dr. Wise goes on to suggest that there might someday be an adequate creationist explanation for this evidence, but he's honest enough to admit that there is no such thing now.

On 8/10/2022 at 12:32 AM, SwordMaster said:

If there ever was true transitional fossils recording the gradual change from one animal into another, then there would be no more debate on the subject.

See above.   Even honest creationists admit that they exist.

On 8/10/2022 at 12:32 AM, SwordMaster said:

For example, you cannot live without a thyroid gland...so how many billions of years did it take, piecemeal by piecemeal change, to give the animal that would some day become a man, a thyroid gland?

It's an interesting investigation; the evolution of the thyroid gland in chordates has been well-researched and there's a lot of data how it developed from much simpler tissues in early chordates:

Would you like to learn more about the details?    You've been given a lot of odd stories about this stuff.   Let's talk about the details and how we know about it.   What do you know about the biochemical functions of the Thyroid?   We'll go on from there.

 

 

[SwordMaster]

Quote

No.  It was actually an ungulate.   That is, for example why whales have an ungulate digestive system.

Oh...so it has changed since I last studied whale evolution. However, the nonsense does not cease...an "ungulate" did not crawl back into the ocean and give rise to whales and other mammals. The whale and dolphin, etc., were created by God as sea dwelling mammals. The fact that TOEists cannot get over that clear fact is stupendous.

An ungulate digestive system is...what? A system that feeds upon vegetation...so...what exactly did you hope to prove by giving such a statement?

This is yet another classic example of evolutionist word game-playing. The fact that a whale and cow have similar digestive systems does not mean diddly squat...it does not demonstrate evolution unless you are already reading evolution into the facts (which is what ALL evolutionists do), which means all you have is tautological nonsense. I know TOEists like yourself fail to understand that, but that is also because you allow your TOEist bias to run your brain.

As far as Wise goes, he admitted no such thing, not directly, that is. When I read this from his paper...

Quote

Because creationist palaeontology is not in the state necessary to properly address the traditional transitional forms issue, the traditional transitional forms issue is not of the highest priority in creationist palaeontology.

then I know that despite his academics, he evidently doesn't understand the whole story, and reading up on him demonstrates that as such. Many creationists now use the terms "transitional" and "speciation" and the like who are not factually based in their thinking, just like there are those "theological creationists" who don't understand that God tells the truth, while men tell lies and are deceived.

There are no transitional fossils that have EVER been conclusively demonstrated to be transitional from one organism into another, but if you wish to try to give some examples, by all means do so...and I will thoroughly embarrass you by demonstrating that they are not.

 

Quote

Even honest creationists admit that they exist.

All creationists are honest, it is the TOEists who are not. And those who do claim transitional fossils exist, are not fully mature in the field enough to know what they are talking about.

LOL!!! As far as the thyroid gland goes, showing us pictures of the different forms of the thyroid in different animals does NOT demonstrate any kind of "evolution" of the thyroid. More TOEist nonsense where YOU assume evolution into the story of lined up drawings, with NO actual demonstrable evidence of any kind. In other words, just more evolutionist "just-so" story telling, with no evidential support whatsoever. Not in what you gave, and not in the articles that you claim you researched and found "well researched" papers on.

Try again...

 

 

[The Barbarian]

On 8/11/2022 at 3:12 PM, SwordMaster said:

Oh...so it has changed since I last studied whale evolution.

Um, in the 60s, when I was an undergraduate, they knew it was evolved from ungulates. 

On 8/11/2022 at 3:12 PM, SwordMaster said:

However, the nonsense does not cease...an "ungulate" did not crawl back into the ocean and give rise to whales and other mammals.

Perhaps you don't know what an ungulate is.   What do you think it is?   Yes, I'm hinting that you might want to look it up.

As YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise writes, there is a very good series of transitional fossils from land ungulates to whales.   Anatomy, genetics, fossil data and other evidence shows that whales are descended from land animals.   Occasionally whales still develop rudimentary legs; the genes are still there, only suppressed.

On 8/11/2022 at 3:12 PM, SwordMaster said:

An ungulate digestive system is...what?

More complex than the typical mammalian digestive system.   It never went away in whales.   They still have it, even though it's no longer necessary; they don't eat vegetation.

On 8/11/2022 at 3:12 PM, SwordMaster said:

There are no transitional fossils that have EVER been conclusively demonstrated to be transitional from one organism into another,

You're demonstrating a basic creationist misunderstanding; individuals don't evolve; populations do.  Remember what evolution is; a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

Dr. Wise merely points out the large numbers of transitional forms and series of transitional forms that are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."    He accepts the fact, but continues to believe that there might someday be a creationist theory to explain these problems for creationism.

 

[SwordMaster]

Quote

Um, in the 60s, when I was an undergraduate, they knew it was evolved from ungulates. 

Wrong again...they postulated that it evolved from ungulates with absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that could stand up against thorough scrutiny.

 

Quote

 

Perhaps you don't know what an ungulate is.   What do you think it is?   Yes, I'm hinting that you might want to look it up.

As YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise writes, there is a very good series of transitional fossils from land ungulates to whales.   Anatomy, genetics, fossil data and other evidence shows that whales are descended from land animals.   Occasionally whales still develop rudimentary legs; the genes are still there, only suppressed.

 

I know what an ungulate is...and no ungulate (or any other land mammal, hoofed or otherwise) waded out into the ocean and began evolving into sea mammals...but you go ahead and keep believing that nonsense if you want to. Its your eternity...

Here is a classic example of diagrams drawn depicting this nonsense:

http://thewhalesevolution.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/9/4/14949788/3368457_orig.png?1

 

So...what do we have here? Different species of animal fossils found in different strata deposited during Noah's flood, of animals that all lived at the same time (which I might add, are NEVER found exclusively to only one strata of deposition, but have been found in different strata and TOEist geologists ignore those examples and explain them away through various means), lined up together in an assumed older to younger format.

We can do the exact same thing today and make it look like "evolution," and we can use, for example:

 

https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/skeleton-of-musk-deer-litz-collection.jpg

 

https://interspectral.com/wp-content/uploads/dog-chihuahua-08-1200x679.jpg

https://asset.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/QYCFIMC4K2VZ59B/M/h1380-68245.jpg

https://pixy.org/download/5871526/

https://st.depositphotos.com/1900179/2069/v/950/depositphotos_20692667-stock-illustration-cat-skeleton.jpg

 

There are small anatomical differences in the skeletons, and if we line them up just right there is an appearance of "evolutionary change" leading from the smaller animal at the end of the line up from the larger at the beginning. This is the same exact thing evolutionists do with the supposed whale evolution, which is pure nonsense that no one in their sane mind would believe. 

It has been documented in the past where the skulls and skeletons found in certain diagrams were NOT to scale, but were purposely depicted beginning from smaller animals to larger, when that depiction was not evidenced factually...just another card in the house of cards that TOE is built upon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SwordMaster]

Quote

You're demonstrating a basic creationist misunderstanding; individuals don't evolve; populations do.  Remember what evolution is; a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

You are demonstrating the basic evolutionist deception: populations adapt, they do not evolve. Squirrels will never give way to another organism, only other squirrels. The same goes for elephants, lions, tigers, dogs, cats, etc........

Change in allele frequencies in a population over time does NOT cause one organism to evolve into a completely different organism. Again...ungulates did NOT give way to whales, that is fantasy schizophrenia...people need to come back to reality. Such change has never been documented (what you call macroevolution), neither on paper or found in the fossil record when all of the facts of the accounts have been accurately codified.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

On 8/15/2022 at 10:47 PM, SwordMaster said:

You are demonstrating the basic evolutionist deception: populations adapt, they do not evolve.

You've forgotten again what evolution is.    It's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.    And as you learned, that is what happens when populations adapt to the environment.    Would you like to see some more evidence for that?

On 8/15/2022 at 10:47 PM, SwordMaster said:

Change in allele frequencies in a population over time does NOT cause one organism to evolve into a completely different organism.

It never causes an organism to evolve into another organism.   This is the basic creationist misconception.    Populations evolve.   Organisms do not.   If you learn nothing else from this discussion you should at least learn that.

On 8/15/2022 at 10:47 PM, SwordMaster said:

Again...ungulates did NOT give way to whales,

The evidence shows that you did.  Even your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise, acknowledges that the transitional fossil series  of ungulates and whales presents one of the most difficult problems for creationists, and is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."   He's honest enough to admit the evidence, even if he would rather go with his interpretation of scripture.

On 8/15/2022 at 10:47 PM, SwordMaster said:

Such change has never been documented (what you call macroevolution),

Even your fellow creationists admit the fact of new species, genera, and sometimes families.   AIG and ICR both have conceded that fact.    You're pretty much alone on that branch.

On 8/15/2022 at 10:47 PM, SwordMaster said:

in the fossil record when all of the facts of the accounts have been accurately codified.

Dr. Wise actually knows the evidence, and he has pointed out that you are wrong.

 

[Tristen]

When Darwin lamented the lack of “transitional fossils” in the fossil record, he was referring to the idea that, if his theory were true, we should typically find (in the fossil record) a series of “finely graduated” fossils essentially demonstrating a progression of one creature morphing into another. Instead, what we actually find is what your example shows – totally distinct creatures where one has a feature that could be theoretically squeezed somewhere in between the others. Given that such observations are the basis of his theory, it is clear that you are using a different definition of “transitional fossil” to that used by Darwin.

I’m sure you have heard of secularist Palaeontologists such as Dr Collin Patterson and Prof Stephen J Gould echoing Darwin’s comments about the “extreme rarity” of “transitional fossils” in the fossil record. They come to this conclusion using the same definition as Darwin (unless you suppose they were also unaware of the capacity to theoretically squeeze some fossils between others). It is this “rarity” of such examples (by Darwin’s definition) that initially led to the proposal of (now largely rejected) Punctuated Equilibrium – i.e. the idea that evolution occurs in large jumps, rather than small, gradual changes.

I’d therefore characterise your argument as a type of Equivocation. The creationist claim you are presumably refuting (regarding the lack of “transitional fossils”) is based on a different definition of “transitional fossil” to the one you are using.

 

As an aside, I’d also suggest that there is significant confirmation bias at play if you look at the gray whale image in your post, and are easily convinced that this somehow a natural progression in a series from the previous two images.

 

[The Barbarian]

18 hours ago, Tristen said:

When Darwin lamented the lack of “transitional fossils” in the fossil record, he was referring to the idea that, if his theory were true, we should typically find (in the fossil record) a series of “finely graduated” fossils essentially demonstrating a progression of one creature morphing into another. Instead, what we actually find is what your example shows – totally distinct creatures where one has a feature that could be theoretically squeezed somewhere in between the others. Given that such observations are the basis of his theory, it is clear that you are using a different definition of “transitional fossil” to that used by Darwin.

Even knowledgeable  YE creationists know you've got it wrong.  

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between
rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews andthe primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the
phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to
accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

As Wise admits, there are many finely graduated fossils which are "very good evidences" for a population of creatures morphing into a different population of creatures.    And the fact that we don't see these transitional forms where they shouldn't be, demonstrates that such finely graded transitions aren't just innumerable and wildly improbable coincidences.     They are what the evidence shows them to be; evolutionary change.

18 hours ago, Tristen said:

I’m sure you have heard of secularist Palaeontologists such as Dr Collin Patterson and Prof Stephen J Gould echoing Darwin’s comments about the “extreme rarity” of “transitional fossils” in the fossil record.

 Well, let's ask Dr. Gould about that...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

https://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Hmm... anyone who has read even a few of Gould's books would know what you were told about him is false.   I know from where that quote-mined snippet was extracted, and you would not agree with the paragraph in which it makes sense in context.   Notice that Gould says species-to-species transitions are "generally lacking"; he cites horses, ammonites and forams of examples where such transtitions exist.    If evolution were not true, there would be none at all.

Since we only find fossils of an extremely tiny percentage of organisms that ever lived, the only reason we have any perfect transitional series is that some organisms were extremely numerous, were where they fossilized readily, and we were fortunate to find them.

18 hours ago, Tristen said:

As an aside, I’d also suggest that there is significant confirmation bias at play if you look at the gray whale image in your post, and are easily convinced that this somehow a natural progression in a series from the previous two images.

It comes down to evidence.   The shape of the whale is quite different, but you see, evolution shows up in homologies, not analogous structures.   Grey whale skulls have the same structure as the skull of Ambulocetus, (a very primitive whale with legs) only modified to other functions.   

Ancestry isn't the only way to classify organisms.   The Hebrews did it by function.   Which is why the Bible considers bats to be birds; they are functionally very close.   Analogous, but not homologous.

So what was Gould saying?  

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record"

Evolution’s Erratic Pace - "Natural History," May, 1977

Gould's argument, as subsequent research has confirmed, is that most evolution is allopatric.   It generally happens to small, isolated populations that (partially because of small size) evolve quickly to fit the new environement, and then remain relatively constant for a long time.    This is the "tips and nodes" of fossil records.   We are unlikely to see the transitions, but we do see the stasis.   Unless as Gould points, out, there happens to be a huge abundance of fossilized specimens.  

BTW, Darwin predicted that much.   He noted that a well-fitted population, in a constant environment, would be kept by natural selection from evolving very much.  Hence stasis of well-fitted populations.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by The Barbarian