Posted on 08/24/2006 10:49:15 PM PDT by Virginia-American
The missing transitionals, the 'holes' as it were, seem to be multiplying as quickly as new transitionals are found. Thankfully each time a new hole is made, it and all the rest are reduced in size. Eventually they will form a closely spaced series of small perforations in the fabric of history. We should then be able to 'tear off a new one' to wipe up the mess left by the anti-evolutionists.
I think we tear them a new one every day, figuratively speaking.
Have you ever gotten a straight to the question "OK, if Archeopteryx [or whatever] isn't a transitional, then just what would you expect a transitional to look like?"
I also appreciate JennyP's [courtesty ping] presentation of the human ancestral and related skulls: why, if there are no transitionals, can't the creationists, of all people, agree which ones are "human" and which ones are "ape"? To me, that's evidence of transitionality right there.
The closest I can recall to a straight answer was someone years back who said, "It would have, say, one dino claw and one bird wing." A silly strawman, IOW. That particular poster, whoever it was, specifically disallowed anything "fully formed and functional" as being transitional. Couldn't set him straight on it, either. No doubt I just didn't try hard enough, or lacked the proper communication skills.
By comparison, the infamous and now-banned medved would fling the "no transitionals" charge and denounce any proferred transitionals as "chimeras." He steadfastly refused to say what it would take for a fossil to be a transitional and not a chimera, or why he felt that claiming a lack of transitionals was in any way meaningful.
so three dino claws on a bird wing wouldn't count.
That particular poster, whoever it was, specifically disallowed anything "fully formed and functional" as being transitional.
I always think of flying squirrels and suchlike gliders, and also of pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, walruses, etc) and penguins. Getting around on land with flippers is not my idea of "fully functional", but then, I didn't design them.
IMO, the pinnipeds and penguins just need to mutate/change behavior enough that they no longer need the land to reproduce, and eh voila! an obviously-different "kind".
By comparison, the infamous and now-banned medved would fling the "no transitionals" charge and denounce any proferred transitionals as "chimeras."
When in fact a real chimera, or sphinx, or pegasoid, etc, has never been found, and according to ToE, never will be.
I can see someone thinking a platypus is a bird/mammal chimera, until they learn about the bill and how it's so very different from a bird's, and how the eggs are reptilian (not avian) in form. But once you get up to speed on the platy, it's pretty obviously a mammal with a few reptilian features; not really a transitional, but, as always, combining features along lines of descent, not combining features of different classs and orders in an arbitrary way.
A bit late on this since I was out on vacation. Thanks for posting, I am fond of the triceratops and its relatives. Although I do bridle at the article describing them as "bone-headed." I'm sure they were quite intelligent and sensitive compared to many of their dinosaur peers.
Hmmm... They always reminded me of bison or wildebeest; living in herds, grazing the plains.
I once read someone's speculation, years ago, that the hadrosaurs were the most likely to develop intelligence; I forget his reasoning, but they had "hands", sort of.
Note: this topic was posted 8/25/2006. Thanks Virginia-American.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.