Evolutionary "Transition Forms?" Definitions are Key!

[neo-x]

Phillip, there are plenty of transitional fossils, studies etc, please have a look at the articles on this link, in detail.

http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm

I have said it before and I would again, reasons.org is not a very good source when it comes to evolutionary biology. Some of their articles in the past have been quite misleading.

[neo-x]

I would encourage you to read this link as well. Its a nice resource.

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

And on that note, evolution happens in the DNA, that is the key, fossils are not that.

[PaulSacramento]

The Cambrian "explosion" is easily explained bu the fact that there was "extraordinary environmental occurrences" during that period.
What happened in terms of evolution during that period makes sense based on what is believed to happen during that period.

[ryanbouma]

Nice story, but that's just an extreme example of speciation. Like a black squirrel vs a brown, or what ever. That's far from a transitional form. We would expect to see much larger populations of intermediates along the way. Your example doesn't negate the time paradox either. It only goes to show that one species population can continue to evolve in a different location than another population. I hardly doubt that's denied by our OP.

It's actually a rudimentary example, dumbed down if you will.... It's something that can be observed here and now which relates to hundreds of years rather than hundreds of thousands of years.

We've observed this? I didn't know that. Observing the evolution of flying squirrels is impressive. Please confirm this for me, thanks.

The story continues where the flying squirrel can have another characteristic change while a different divergence has another.... Now suppose this flying squirrel begins to see a different predatory threat where hawks begin plucking them from the sky, this additional stressor begins to favor a flat tail that is able to maneuver what was previously just a simple glide, less bone density where it can achieve lift, larger hands with wider finger bases to steer and create lift, or a hairless flap of skin to reduce drag.
You can easily see fingers fall back within the flap where the flap of skin begins to resemble a bat wing where it begins flapping motions..... This goes on and on and on independently within each divergence where eventually they look so drastically different that you could barely tell they both came from the same common ancestor.

Now do we have transitional forms for this example? Or is this just a description of what evolutionary scientists say happened between a flying squirrel and a bat?

Just claiming we should have vast amounts of information doesn't make it so,

And by the same logic, just claiming these animals evolved doesn't make it so. Observing would be something else. I don't make any claims. It's my understanding that we should expect transitional forms in the fossil record because animals constantly evolve, however we don't seem to have much evidence. Your right, the lack of evidence doesn't mean you're wrong, it just raises a red flag for me.

you obviously don't know the environment necessary in order to produce a fossil and how little evidence we actually have from species when populations were immense.

I've got a bit of an idea. I'm no expert, I'm a geotechnical engineer, so I have a basic understanding of geology. I do understand that fossilization is rare and requires special circumstances. However, consider this. If the chances of winning the lottery are 1:million, and someone wins once every week. Then in a year there are 52 lottery winners in all of the country (I live in Canada). If 1:26 people have a physical defect on their skeleton that can be seen by an xray, then we can expect to see about 2 lottery winners every year will have a physical skeletal defect. Now, some years there may be none. Some years there may be 5. But in general we should expect to see some.

Of course I'm just using totally made up numbers here that don't relate well to the chances of transitional forms being fossilized. But it goes to show that we should expect to see transitional forms.

[ryanbouma]

Why, because propagation rates and stressors all play a role on the rate by which one evolves relative to another?

But when it's something like where birds come from, we have a known timeline. For instance, you squirrel to bat example. Suppose we found a fossil for a bat that was 50 years old. A fossil for a squirrel that's 200 years old. Then we see a hybrid flying squirrel bat looking thing run/fly across your front yard. This wouldn't strictly mean a population of those transitional squirrel/bats didn't survive and persist, but it also wouldn't mean it IS the transitional form between squirrels and bats. It just looks like a transistional form. If it was a 100 year old fossil, then it would fit into the timeline a whole lot better and suggest strongly that it is in fact the transitional form.

From the PC perspective, we look at those out of time fossils and think, well why couldn't that be a discrete creation from God? In fact, if both theistic evolution and PC are both viable explanations of God's creation, which model do these out of time fossils fit best? I'd suggest the PC model.

[ryanbouma]

Phillip, there are plenty of transitional fossils, studies etc, please have a look at the articles on this link, in detail.

http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm

I have said it before and I would again, reasons.org is not a very good source when it comes to evolutionary biology. Some of their articles in the past have been quite misleading.

I'll have a look. The topic interests me a lot. Thanks.

As much as I enjoy and agree with the reasons.org model, I do wonder about their general credibility surrounding evolution. Do you feel they simply go against what most evolutionary science suggests? Or that they actually present incorrect information? If the former, I don't think they'd disagree. They know full well their disagreement with evolutionary science is against the grain.

[PaulSacramento]

What we tend to get is the simple fact that science is about observing nature and then INTERPRETING what is being observed.
That is where we get differences of opinions about actual facts.
See, their are facts, evidence, proof and scientific facts, evidence and proof.
Evidence does NOT always equal proof, regardless of being scientific or not.
For something to be a scientific fact it has to be observable, demonstrable AND repeatable.
Note the importance of those things.
Here is a fine example of some terms and how science uses them:

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Evolution has a lot going for it because based on how nature has been observed and IS being observed, life evolves.