Talk:Transitional fossil/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Stub

Why is this still a stub?

Please stop trying to saddle this article with creationist POV. Take two FAQs from talkorigins.org and call me in the morning. Haikupoet 01:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Second call: "Please stop trying to saddle... etc." It is really tiresome when persons that are so stuffed up with their preconceived notions start adding comments that are completely unnecessary if the only took the time to read the text properly. The theory of Punq.eq. has nothing to do with transitional fossils between major groups of organisms. It pertains to minor transitions between closely related species as can be traced in a single geological outcrop. The theory explains the observed sudden jumps. This is a fact, and is the best and most neutral description of the subject. A subject that deserves to be treated in its own article and not this one, with which it is often confused. Fedor 19:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How can you tell punctuated equilibrium from limited sampling fossilization provides us? --BerserkerBen 00:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Basic misunderstanding

The current opening statement reveals the basic misunderstanding, on which all this is based:

"A transitional fossil is a fossil specimen that combines features of two taxonomical divisions. According to evolutionary theory, a transitional form represents an evolutionary stage between taxa."

It will take a biologist to recast this antiquated poppycock. --Wetman 13:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I can't believe I overlooked this for so long. I hope this helps... Fedor 07:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tears came to my eyes reading your opening line! Ah yes! So sensible really... --Wetman 08:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of Transitional Fossils

I think that this list would be of better service if each item listed included photographs of the fossils and stated the location where the fossils were found and also where they are currently housed.

Thank you.

Well, roll up your sleeves then! Why do others have to do the dirty work for you? This is an encyclopedia to which everyone contributes! Fedor 14:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Cut Darwinism Refuted ad

Cut the following:

The alternative viewpoint is that ( http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted6.php ) species originated suddenly and fully formed; some of these later becoming extinct. From the fifteen or so fossil remains of Archaeopteryx, the evidence points to it being a toothed bird, exhibiting the hollow bone structure, respiration and feathers that makes it equivalant to a modern bird with teeth. The fossil record can be used to support this view with many examples such as sharks (unchanged for 330 million years), pythons (unchanged for 50 million years) and Coelocanths (unchanged for 70 million years). Coelocanths were originally thought to be the transitional forms for land animals with a primitive lung until live ones were caught in Indonesia. This was, after all, a fish that lives about 180m below the sea with a swim bladder that was mistaken for the primitive lung in its fossilised remains.

It appears to be creationist book adv. Surely doesn't belong in intro. Vsmith 12:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So, I see this article must be one-sided, bias, purely an evolutionist view. If this is the case then is should be deleted, entirely. This being do to the intentional surpression of another view, without substantal cause, other than your personal beliefs. You clearly demonstrated this here, and it has not gone unnoticed. I did not originally put it in the article, however, the only reason you removed it was because it conflicted with you presonal beliefs. I am neither for or against evolution. You are clearly an advocate for evolution. This article has broken the good-article criteria for wikipedia many times over. 24.150.46.62 20:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll never understand why anti-evolutionists (somewhat like global warming sceptics) are so routinely angry and self-aggrandising. Is it something in the genes, perhaps? User:Ngyen the Equalizer

It's not an "biased" evolutionary view, it is a neutral scientific view. Scientists would be willing to accept alternatives IF a valid alternative scientific theory came along. The problem is, intelligent design is a religious idea that states "Poof! An unknown creator (Judeo-Christian trinity most likely) created mankind from dirt or designed him." This is essentially the same thing as creationism. So please, go read the other wiki articles on evolution, intelligent design, and creationism before you start bashing science.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Intranetusa (talk • contribs)

I am very sorry to state that some readers are in error here, I agree with intranetusa; popular evolution (gradual change, spontaneous appearance of organics, over-million-year-earth and big bang included) are firstly not a "sealed package" and are not scientific. Spontaneous coming into existence of the universe is just as religious as an ever-existing-Creator casting it into existence. With all respect, but most "neutral scientists" are in fact heavily biased towards an evolutionary world view.

Historic science (such as geology) are in no way based upon the scientific method which is used in true neutral science which requires claims to be reproducible and predictable. If either of these is not possible you could label it just as fair as being a void claim or an educated guess, but in no way these practices could be claimed as neutral science.

In fact, if "neutral scientists" would be truly neutral they would suspect evolution just as much, or maybe more, as they would suspect creation of being a religion. In many fields have creationists pointed out that things can be explained by biblical consistency with observed neutral facts (fossil layers etc.) or by refuting religious based assumptions made by biased scientists (e.g. light speed and time are constants, which Einstein pointed to be false).

I hope you allow yourself to see that certain claims aren't as infallible as they are often presented, these include are of the universe and earth, development of living beings and creation of earth layers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner84 (talk • contribs)

Talk pages are to be used for improving the mainspace page, not debating ideas. Thanks. WLU 14:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Darwinist religeon

It is disappointing to see the darwinist fundamentalism on this site. The idea of evoloution is not new because many people find it comforting to think that this world is all there is (no day of judgement) and any viewpoint involving a creator is wrong. I spent three years of my life to obtain a PhD, which does involve some expertise in recognising the need to look at different views as part of the scientific method. I feel that rejecting the alternative viewpoint on the premise that it does not conform to the Darwinist fundamental view is not science.

The refence to [1] therefore has a rightful place in this section, unless this site is adopting the former tactics of the european church on the "flat earth" debate.

The "alternative viewpoint" that you subscribe to is not rejected because "it does not conform to the Darwinist fundamental view", but because it is not scientific! The reference that you insist on including is based on a heavily distorted representation of the scientific knowledge on the area. Moreover, wikipedia's npov (neutral-point-of-view) policies are based on the scientific consensus. It goes without saying that the scientific consensus wholeheartedly endorses evolutionary theory. So please keep your religious fundamentalist views on this topic to your self. There is nothing "fundamentalistic" about describing scientific discovery as this article does. Fedor 15:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

To the first person, keep you personal views out of the article. The question, "Is there a creator or is there not?", is not being considered in this article. Only the fossil record is being considered. However that being said, I agree that the correct scientific procedure must be explained in a comprehensive form for the public sake.

To the user Fedor, you have rejected the alternative view not because it is unscientific but only because that view conflicts with your personal view. Further, you have broken the policies of wikipedia, in promoting a purely evolutionist POV, without regard to any other view, labeling them unscientific. This article has no neutral view because of your doing and those of your evolutionists view. This has not gone unnoticed. Further, Evolution is not a "fact," it is a theory. Therefore, any other view presented to explain the fossil record other than the theory of evolution is valid. To removing such a view only because it goes against your unproven theories is bias. 24.150.46.62 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The lay meaning of the word "theory" is irrelevant here because it is a scientific matter. This is not an untested pre-scientific hypothesis as you imply, but a theory backed by evidence and endorsed by peer review, as Fedor mentioned. If we let any unsupported theories into an encylopaedic entry then we may as well say that leprechauns went around burying fossils in order to distract scientists from finding their pots of gold and claim that this is a scientific conclusion. However, i do endorse a criticism section or something like it at the end of the article, even if only to quit hearing about this again. 211.31.163.246 12:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fedor, it might be helpful if you described specifically with examples why the article in question is unscientific.

Missing Link

I redirected the missing link article to here, because the contents were overlapping to a high degree. In fact, I couldn't even move the original text from the missing link article to here, because it was basically saying the same... Fedor 12:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The page starts with "For the similarly named recording label, see Missing Link Records". It does not make sense if one actually did not come from the Missing Link redirect. - Dodo bird 00:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

New transitional form

This link (#1) reports on a new transitional form. It might be included in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article in question concerns the Devonian crossopterygian fish Tiktaalik.--Wetman 14:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, and there is a link to it under "list of transitional fossils". Bubba73 (talk), 01:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the "missing link" in hominid evolution?

The term "missing link" seems to come up most often in regards to humankind's evolution out of ape stock. Creationists love to say that we haven't found a certain "missing link," and we never will. Moreover it seems to be a very common meme in popular culture. People seem to think that our concept of hominid evolution is missing this one critical species, out there somewhere (or maybe not?) and that species is "the missing link" that scientists yearn to find. I would like to know from someone in the know, someone who is a student of hominid evolution, whether professionally, academically or just as a serious hobby--is there a "missing link?" Is there some specific piece of the puzzle that we need to find to make it all make sense? I'm not asking if there are undiscovered hominid species--I'm only asking about one particular species, currently unknown, but vitally important to our understanding of our origins. I'm fully aware that that if there is such a species we need to find, and we can't find it, that doesn't disprove evolution in the least, though there are others who will say it does. I just want to know if this "missing link" that's such a fixture in the popular conception of human evolution is even a question that scientists are considering. I guess my question isn't "is it out there?" but "is it even a question?"

Also, I think the term "missing link" is so specifically tied in with HUMAN evolution, that there should not be a redirect to "Transitional Fossil." "Missing link" should have its own article, which would concern the species in question, whether it be a real missing species that scientists to find, or just another myth spawned out of who knows what murky depths of popular misunderstanding. My every instinct tells me it's the latter. When I hear people talk about the "missing link," my gut instinct is that there's no such thing. My gut instinct is backed by some serious reaidng on homind evolution years ago, and though it's a bit blurry to me, I don't recall any mention of any coveted "missing link."

Sorry for being so wordy. --C.M., 70.59.142.151 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a really good question and I was pondering the same thing myself recently. I'm not an expert, but the logical answer is that evolution is a lengthy, gradual process, and so the notion of there being one missing link between ape and man is ridiculous. When Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, 'missing link' was a useful term because no transitional fossils between ape and man had been found. But now, creatures like Australopithecus, Homo Erectus and Homo sapiens idaltu can all be called links in the chain. Of course the silly thing is, the more 'missing links' you find, the more there are, since a transitional fossil between, say Australopithecus and Homo Erectus needs to be found... Anyway, I will leave real experts to give their opinion, but I think you're right that 'missing link' needs to be a separate article about the misleading nature of the term, rather than redirecting to this page. The Singing Badger 17:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That 'missing link' nowadays solely would be used for human evolution is straight-out poppycock. Your -no offense- 'rambling' on the term 'missing link' simply shows how unscientific and antiquated it is, and the confusion that arrives from it. It stems from a time (19th century?) when people were still awaiting discovery of the 'missing link' that would prove humans evolved from animals (apes). Nowadays, we know that the picture is much more complex, so this is why 'transitional fossil form' is a much better term. This was also the reason I redirected missing link to this article. Of course if an article would be solely dedicated to the misleading nature on the term 'missing link' I wouldn't mind, but the danger is that people will confuse this with an article on fossil transitionals and start adding text about that. Better to write a paragraph in this article instead. Fedor 08:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My "rambling" was simply an attempt to make my question clear, and although the term is indeed antiquated and unscientific, my rambling does not logically demonstrate that. The "poppycock" you refer to is the importance of some supposed "missing link," in the minds of many laypeople. I was attempting to validate or discredit this perception. I agree with you that there sholdn't be a separate article, the final aparagraph at the end is the best approach.C.M.,24.21.139.41 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a book where it showed that there should have been a common ancestor to the australopithecus and the Homo habilis which they called the missing link. -Iopq 10:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Australopithecus was the direct ancestor of Homo Habilis.C.M.24.21.139.41 15:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange paragraph

The following was added to the 'misconceptions' section on 20 April by an anonymous user. I can't make head or tail of it. Maybe there's a important point in there somewhere that somebody smarter than me can draw out of it... The Singing Badger 23:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Although the plausable conception of transitional fossils is argueable, there holds no confirmed evidence that a species today that does not resemble what would be thought of it in the fossil record is an entirely different species. For example, if a bear were to possess some similar qualities to a creature from the fossil record, the old "bear" could and would simply be an entirely different species on its own. There is no evidence that proves that missing transitional fossils are not merely foreign species. Thus, there are no transitional fossils yet found, and those that are claimed to be transitional fossils are simply those of completely different species with similar qualities.

I believe this is an anti-evolution position which stems from a misunderstanding of what a "transitional fossil" should be. As I've heard it before, the argument is that transitional fossils are separate species as opposed to a half-way transition from one species to another. Perhaps it warrants inclusion in #Misconceptions, but it's somewhat similar to what's there already. Looks like this passage also argues it's impossible to say definitively that a fossil is phylogenetically related to another. bcasterline t 23:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly a bias article, and the writers intend to keep it that way. The point is very clear to what this person wrote. The point was, one must apply the theory of evolution to the fossil record before examining it, to find "transitional fossils, and intermediate organisms," rather than just examining the record, then formulating a plausable conclusion. The fact you tried to discreated it so quickly and dismissing it as anti-evolutionist proves this. Your postion is unscientific, bias, and you advocates the theory of evolution giving undue weight to this point of view. Meaning, you are projecting you personal beliefs into this discussion and into this article. The arguement presented is scientifically valid, neutral and logical. The only reason one or all of you people have not allow it in the artcle is because it presents the fossil record free from the theory of evolution. Meaning, you desire that everything in the article be presented through the view, that evolution is a fact, to which it is not. There is no misunderstanding of what transitional or intermediate fossils, or organisms actaully are. The arguement was as you incorrectly dismissed, is: In order to detect these, transitional or intermediate fossil, or organisms, one must always look at the fossil record from the view of evolution. And for the record, I am in a neutral position, neither for or against the theory of evolution. Therefore, you have no grounds to disput my position, or the position of this arguement. 24.150.46.62 16:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is biased, but not unduly biased as it swings on the side of evidence instead of the side of an artificial forced belief system. Examining the fossil record is exactly what was done and part of it is rock stratification and radioisotope dating that timestamp the fossils, removing the possibility of a single catastrophy producing them all. The next bits in the above comment are unsupported barbs leading me to question weather this class of people understand the gravity of the scientific word "theory". It is not used lightly and not innapropriatly in this case. Any arguement relying on an unevidenced "poof there it is" origin starting with an assumption of creation and filtering out any contradictory evidence is not neutral or logical and certainly isnt scientifially vallid, indeed the process used to arive at that conclusion is quite possibly the antithesis of science. Finally aside from creationism there is no other neutral viewpoint aside from evolution except ignorance, not in an insulting sense, but in a preponderance of evidence sense. 66.158.169.70 19:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Too much technical language

This article, especially the intro, needs reworking to make it more accessible for the layman. Clear explanations of terms like 'conservative traits' and 'derived' need to be incorporated into the introduction. The Singing Badger 14:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Essay:"Application Of Correct Scientific Procedure"

Can the following personal essay be rendered in an acceptably encyclopedic manner, as a report on what has been said on this subject? --Wetman 20:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Although, the plausable conception of transitional fossils, is argueable only from the view of evolution as if it were fact. There holds no confirmed evidence that an organism today, that does not resemble an organism in the fossil record, yet have comparable attributes, as being linked by transitional and intermediate forms. For example, Archaeopteryx possesses similar qualities to avian and reptilian organisms from the fossil record and living today. However, Archaeopteryx is simply be an entirely different organism on its own. There is no confirmed evidence, that this or any other organisms, are transitional fossils, or intermediate organisms. These are merely foreign organisms. Since, there are no transitional fossils yet found, and those that are claimed to be transitional fossils, are simply those of completely different organisms with similar qualities. This is comparable to a penguin's wings, and a whales fippers. Both uses these to swim, however, a penguin is a bird, and a whale is a mammal. One does not conclude that, penguins and whales are ancient relatives based on these similiar features. Even though wings and flippers, have relatively the same mechanical purposes in both air and water. It is of significant note, that to apply any theory in advance of examining evidence; Is first incorrect scienfic procedure, and second, produces corrupted data. This is leading the evidence, or making the facts fit the theory. However, this is exactly the procedure used in order to find transitional and intermediate forms within the fossil record.

"The proper procedure to examining evidence, is to examine it without previously set conclusions, and without applying previously set theories. This is done to prevent the corruption of data being gathered. This data is used to derive a conclution. The data and the conclution will in turn, work for or agaist the previously set theory or theories. Deviation from standard scientific procedure, produces only conjecture derived unscientifically and is thus not evidence.

This was placed in the article to explain how evidence is gathered in every field of science except evolutionary biology. It also explains how evidience is gathered by evolutionary biologists and why the theory of evolution is still a theory. The scientific procedures are standard practice. With the exception of evolutionary biology. It has references derived directly from the article, establish by the previous writers. It points directly to proper scientific procedure. It also establishes the bases by which transitional, and, intermediate fossils are defined. This is the only fit means to present the fossil record. It is completely scientfic. However, it does reveal the bias nature of this article, and of it writers, and presents the fossil record in plain sight not through the view of evolution. I am neither for or against evolution. I have presented the pure interests of science, but not of evolution. This is not a personal essay. It is a careful report. I ask you good sir. How would you render it in an acceptably encyclopedic manner, as a report on what has been said on this subject? 24.150.46.62 21:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed personal essay again. It qualifies as original research (not sourced) and POV pushing. The anon has been warned of WP:3RR. Vsmith 16:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

GA discussion added by anon

This article has failed the good article criteria, In respects to the following:

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed); (b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias; (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.46.62 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 17 September 2006

sould this be removed

Can the following personal essay be rendered in an acceptably encyclopedic manner, as a report on what has been said on this subject?

it is commonly stated by anti-evolutionists that there are no known transitional fossils. This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is entirely plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.

though transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so.

Context

29-November-2006: I have added a top paragraph to provide context for the technical terms:

"The terms transitional fossil and transitional form are terms for the classification of life forms in the study of paleontology and evolutionary theory. The life forms are classified by their traits, as either basal or derived traits, such as defined in the study of cladistics. The term missing link is a popular term used for transitional forms."

The wording could be adjusted to help cope with the nebulous nature of the terms being explained. Note that a "missing link" could be a common ancestor-node or an intermediate-node as the "father" in a grandfather/father/son species chain. Also, nomenclature for nodes in a hierarchy is likely to confuse some readers, regardless of context. -Wikid77 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that rewording is totally off and really unclear, especially for laymen. The terms are not used for classification, but for indicating that a certain fossil life form is part of an evolutionary transition. How about the following:

"A transitional fossil or transitional form is the fossilized remains of a life form that illustrates an evolutionary transition. It can be identified by having certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with its more derived descendants, such as defined in the study of cladistics. "Missing link" is a popular term used for transitional forms."

-- Fedor 12:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(Slightly tongue-in-cheek) Isn't "missing link" really a popular term for absent transitional forms? That is, an intermediate form that, while hypothesised, has not yet been found. Fossils can, I suppose, be "former missing links", where they appear to fall nicely between two well-known forms; but as they've demonstrably been found, labelling them as "missing" seems to be, well, missing the point.

Regarding your (Fedor) rewording on "transitional fossil", I would agree with that. As I understand things, it certainly isn't a classification term; it's much more illustrative and informal than a strict cladistic designation. Not least because it's by no means clear that any one fossil species is really an ancestor of anything; it may simply be on a parallel path alongside the transition that actually happened (but which we have incomplete evidence for). Cheers, --Plumbago 12:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no transitional fossils because macroevolution didn't happen

There are no transitional fossils because macroevolution didn't happen. Even a staunch evolutionist admitted the following:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

I also cite:

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England. E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.191.56 (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Ken, why are you still LYING about Mark Ridley? You have been corrected on this before! Also, you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that this sort of deception won't make billions of transitional fossils disappear from the rocks, or from museum shelves. Nor will it erase all the other evidence for evolution. --Robert Stevens 10:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Ken's quote vastly out of context or a fabrication? Also, while I assume you are using hyperbole, I don't think there are quite "billions" of transitional fossils, but still a decent amount. Also, the claim that there are no transitional fossils is false, considering the list of transitional fossils on Wikipedia.

I'm not sure where to look for this, but I was wondering where I can find information on transitional organisms that exist today. (anon.)

You're a transitionak organism yourself. Come back in ten million years and see. Transitional fossils are recognized retrospectively. That means "after the fact". (Home-schooling, I suppose, yes?)--Wetman 05:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)--Wetman 05:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was why do we not see organisms that are part between reptiles and mammals for example? I know that there are organisms that have attributes of various taxonomical categories (e.g. platypus), but it seems like there aren't many.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edawgrules (talk • contribs) 21:46, 31 May 2007

Firstly, please sign your posts so that others don't have to go around tidying up after you. Secondly, transitional doesn't mean having bits of different creatures stuck together. ... dave souza, talk 14:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ken's quote of Ridley is indeed "vastly out of context". It was part of a broadside against creationists, in which Ridley was seeking to draw attention to all the other evidence that supports evolution: "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." It seems that Ridley exaggerated somewhat in claiming that "no real evolutionist" cites the fossil record (obviously, many do), but he was arguing that there was so much more evidence than this. Indeed, the fossil record was rudimentary back in Darwin's time, but he didn't need it then (the other evidence was sufficient), and this is still the case. It is deliberate deception (i.e. lying) to so misrepresent the views of a man who unequivocally stated (in the same article): "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media".

And, yes, there are billions of transitional fossils. Not all in museums, obviously, but I included the phrase "in the rocks" to include those in large rock formations where an estimate of the fossil numbers in the formation can be made. In particular, therapsids (reptile/mammal transitional forms) are well-represented in formations that contain billions of fossils. I wrote a section on the extent of the fossil record on the Evidence of common descent page: maybe something similar also belongs here? --Robert Stevens 13:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You could always put a {{main|Evidence of common descent}} template in the appropriate spot, followed by a brief summary of that page. Means we aren't repeating extensive info across multiple pages - just refer to the wiki main page on the topic. WLU 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now put in the link. I tried the tag, but it broke up the paragraph, so I went for a conventional Evidence of common descent link instead. --Robert Stevens 16:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Poor tone ... article rewrite is necessary

The article has the feel of, "Most people think there are missing links and this presents a problem for the theory of evolution, well, we, the minority with superior views see that popular opinion is incorrect and evolution is a foregone conclusion."

Wikipedia's job is not to impose the beliefs of a minority onto the rest of the internet.

If Darwin was able to admit that the lack of transitional species were an obstacle to the accepting of his theory he is FAR more honest than the neo-darwinians of today who smugly assert, "Evolution was proved centuries ago and now it is simply a matter of overcoming misconceptions."--The burning bush 19:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV), with particular reference to NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity"... .. dave souza, talk 19:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientifically, individuals who hold the idea that missing links are a barrier to evolution as a theory are the minority.[2] Darwin would not have considered transitional fossils a barrier were he to have access to the fossils available today. The majority scientific opinion is that evolution is a foregone conclusion; fossils, transitional fossils, the lack or plentitude thereof are part of the evidence of the theory, which is well accepted by the majority of scientists. Wikipedia is not imposing the minority view on the rest of the internet, it is reporting the majority view. Darwin's perspective on things is irrelevant as he is long dead while the theory is tested by living scientists. While I'll admit that there could be improvements on tone, presenting the idea that evolution is somehow challenged because of an incomplete fossil record is incorrect. WLU 19:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is unscientific to say anything is a "foregone conclusion". If the scientists say evolution is a foregone conclusion, they are making unscientific statements. Would you say science can accept a foregone conclusion? Isn't that exactly the thing the scientific method is supposed to weed out?--The burning bush 22:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, better to say a reasonable assumption, provided it's testable and continuously tested. Unlike the supernatural, which isn't and can't be. . .. dave souza, talk 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can history be tested? Until we can put the past in a beaker, history will always be open to interpretation. Every interpretation is a supernatural act, as Kierkegaard noted. --The burning bush 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And to be clear, I did say that within the majority scientific opinion it was a foregone conclusion. And to date science has turned up nothing using the scientific method to suggest that evolution is anything except reality. If you've got anything that says otherwise, feel free to present it for analysis. And if you have any suggestions on how to improve the tone of the page, post 'em for review. WLU 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the lack of transitional fossils? The tone of the article is that "missing link" is a popular phrase, but it's misleading because 'we've found them all'. According to the wikipedia article on neanderthals, there have not been more than a handful of such fossils found -and it sounds to me like they were fabricated!

I'm not trying to say evolution is a false theory, I'm open to it being very true. But there is room for interpretation here. The tone of the article is, "Say this to defend evolution", which is way, way out of line. --The burning bush 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22. ... dave souza, talk 23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the place to report on the current state of things, which is that evolution is a valid theory. To use wikipedia to attack evolution is original research, we can only report on what is already published. If you've got reliable sources to do so, pull them out and put up the info. The article also states that there is plethora of transitional fossils for a variety of animals. That we do not have transitional fossils for all animals is not really relevant since there is enough to add weight to the principle. The article does not say 'say this to defend evolution', it says this is the state of knowledge of transitional fossils - they exist and they support the theory of evolution quite ably. Suggest or make changes if you've got them. WLU 23:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no "lack of transitional fossils". Paleontologists will never have as many as they'd like to have, and there will probably always be various parts of the evolutionary "tree of life" that are poorly-represented in the fossil record (providing material for many creationist out-of-context quotemines), but the notion of an overall lack of transitional fossils is a creationist falsehood that should not make it into this article (except to debunk it). There are, after all, considerably more "transitional fossils" than there are Bibles in the world. --Robert Stevens 08:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am NOT attacking the theory of evolution. I'm attacking the tone of this article which mentions intelligent design views only to refute them. Unless the article is 'how to refute intelligent design with regard to missing link claims' then this tone has no place in this article. The theory of evolution is just as much a POV as intelligent design is a POV. Claiming evolution is NPOV is very pretentious.--The burning bush 21:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like most of the comments here are about how monolithic the evolution POV tone is in this article. That, to me, sounds like the contributors here are crying for a rewrite or at least a change in tone.--The burning bush 21:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

... and your solution/changes/suggestions are? WLU 21:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. This article is great just the way it is. Reading this forum (and the confidence with which the neo-darwinians are willing to pass the microphone) has done a lot to inform me of the type of stability the evolutionary view has on its own. The common view seems to be going the same way.

I had some suggestions for how to change the article, but I think the ID movement is getting a lot out of this article at the moment. Honestly, I feel like it was a mistake on my part to mention anything in the first place. If I could make a final request, it would be that you would all be so kind as to forget I had said anything. I wish my fellow wikipedians well. --The burning bush 02:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Stupid Myth That Refuses to Die

The missing link is supposedly an extinct creature halfway between apes and humans on the evolutionary chart. It's not missing, or if it is, modern scientists aren't looking for it. Darwin NEVER said that humans evolved from apes - he said that they both evolved from a common ancestor - an extinct apelike creature. I don't know if this has been covered, but if it has, oops. Anyways, just trying to point out a common myth popular with creationists.

THANK YOU so much. I personally do not feel that this article makes clear the Humans DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES! It is a well known scientific fact that Human's did not evolve from apes, but both Humans and modern apes evolved from a SINGLE half-human, half-ape ancestor. It is THIS that is the missing link. --ChaosSorcerer91

Note that the talk page is for improving the main page, not to act as a forum. WLU 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of that WLU. You don't need to quote ME rules, thank you very much! My point is that this should be made more clear in the article! You should really pay more attention and think about stuff more. --ChaosSorcerer91

You would do well to take your own advice. ornis (t) 14:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

1) What is your suggestion for the page? So far you have complained but not offered a solution. 2) The ancestor would not be half-human, half-ape, it would be a proto-species that was neither half-human, nor half-ape but a precursor to both. The characteristics that make a human human and an ape apeish would have evolved after the two population groups split from a common gene pool. 3) The article is about transitional fossils in general, not specifically about humans, though there is some room to expand on the relationship between protohumans and humans. And it could use a main to Lucy. WLU 16:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I was simply bringing to notice that that fact was not made entirely clear on this page and that it should be illustrated more, that's all. And by the way, I know it would not be half-human half-ape, I was just saying that because it's simplest way to explain and therefore easy for inferior minds such as yourself to comprehend. I didn't want to confuse anyone. --ChaosSorcerer91

Don't edit other users comments. ornis (t) 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't, but I apologise for getting angry. Anyway, getting back on topic, my original point was that I do not think that the fact mentioned on the first post of this thread is not significantly stated in the article. It should be, because as I see it at the moment the article does not mention at all what the "missing link" actually IS, with respect to aformentioned. A person who believes that humans evolved from apes and not the truth (that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor)would have no problem reading this article and agreeing with everything in it. --ChaosSorcerer91 09:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent>what I am not seeing here that would be educational is 1. approximately how many transitional fossils were found of each type. Now are there thousands of for instance Tiktaalik fossils, or one or five. How many are there really that have been discovered. And for each fossil some people might think that the whole skeleton was discovered when it was just a jawbone. And can it be emphasized that the pictures are just artists guesses at what the creatures would look like. And where are the transitional fossils for insects, plants, bats and many other creatures. Why are there just articles on the one that are there? Imbrella 20:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not about educational, it's about information. I would say that is unnecessary - that there are transition fossils are sufficient. More accurately, that there are citations about transitional fossils are sufficient. This page is not about proving that transitional fossils support evolution, this page is about discussing transitional fossils in general. It doesn't matter if there is a whole fossil or just a jawbone - if scientists think that a jaw is sufficient to prove a transition species, that's adequate for wikipedia. Just because we can't conceive of how a single tooth can lead to the elucidation of an entire being doesn't mean specialists can't, and it's not a place to judge their decision to do so, it's just the place to report it. This is not the place for a sly disparagement or criticism of the basis of evolution. We don't write that they're 'just artist's guesses', but we can cite others saying so in reliable sources. Incidentally, talk origins has information about transitional fossils. Here is the whole list for transitional fossils. You know what's funny? Before I'd read your objection to insects, plants, etc. I noticed this link and this one too. Wanna save us time? Read the whole set of common objections before posting. It'll save our keyboards. WLU 22:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No it should be stated that there are from what I can see here few transtionatl fossils and they are interpreted from a few parts. Why are you afraid of people knowing that? The whole truth not just part of the truth should be told. It is deception and cloaking. I think the public should be know that those are artists drawings and that we do not have full skeletons and that much is inferred from a tooth. Why would you want to hide that info? And there should be a statistically significant amoutn of trans fossils. All other sciences require stat sig samples except Darwinism. No other science would base its claims on insufficient sampling. Imbrella 23:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source criticizing transitional fossils, CITE IT. As is, you are still wasting my time. Do you need the link? It is WP:RS. WLU 23:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Imbrella: "statistically significant" only has any meaning in the context of a statistical test. There is no statistical test for "amount of transitional fossils", so "statistically significant amount of transitional fossils" is utterly meaningless. Please stop plucking well-defined terms from mid-air and stringing them together without understanding them. It is thoroughly dishonest and makes a laughingstock of yourself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There should be a quantitative test for the validity of transitional fossils but of course there is not because it would show that there are not enough coming out of the fossil record. Really, you are against quantitative analysis? So are astrologers. And psychics.

From wiki:

Quantitative research is the systematic scientific investigation of properties and phenomena and their relationships. Quantitative research is widely used in both the natural sciences and social sciences, from physics and biology to sociology and journalism. It is also used as a way to research different aspects of education.

The objective of quantitative research is to develop and employ mathematical models, theories and hypotheses pertaining to natural phenomena. The process of measurement is central to quantitative research because it provides the fundamental connection between empirical observation and mathematical expression of quantitative relationships.

and

pseudoscience from wiki:

Failure to make use of operational definitions. (i.e. a scientific description of the operational means in which a range of numeric measurements can be obtained).[24]

Where are the operantional definitions of transitional fossils that numeric measurements can be applied to? They do not exist. Sorry this is philosophy not science. And Popper said the same and he only recanted his 'natural selection' statement. A little truth would not hurt around here. Imbrella 16:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Imbrella, this may qualify as your dumbest post yet. In terms of "operational definitions of transitional fossils", it can be as simple as things like bone-length (or maximum width), cranial capacity, etc. Operational definitions aren't that hard to find. Paleontologists then use multivariate analysis to do things like assign fossils to species, etc, on the basis of these measurements. It would help if you had the slightest clue as to what you were talking about before you opened your mouth. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would point out that this type of statistical analysis will classify a fossil as belonging to one species or another (or possibly as indeterminate), it will not tell you if there is a "statistically significant amount of transitional fossils" because no such thing exists in any conceivable meaningful way -- it is like asking if millimetres are blue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is your stupidest post so far. You seem to have very little knowledge here. Fist of all you say the creationist claim that there are few transitional fossils is not true. Then you tell there is no way to classify an organism as transitional. Your words.

You claim there are transitionals then say there is no way to make an operational definition of one. Dumb. We can operataional classify reptile vs mammal by how many jaw bones. And ear bones. And types of teeth. I have seen this done in a graph. They give points for various characteristics and determine whether it is reptile or mammal. You never saw that?? They devise a weighted scale. You really should look into this before you open up your mouth again and look imbecilic. Imbrella 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No Imbrella, I did not "claim there are transitionals then say there is no way to make an operational definition of one". Fossils, being physical objects, have dimensions. These dimensions can be measured. Based on statistical analysis of (the ratios of) these dimensions, fossils can be assigned to species. These species in turn may be considered "transitional" when they exhibit both some traits seen in ancestral (but not derived) relatives and derived (but not ancestral) relatives. The fossils from these species are thus "transitional fossils". As a note on an earlier point, a single measure is never "statistically significant" in isolation. Statistical tests test whether the difference between (summary measures of) one sample and another (or in some cases a constant) is statistically significant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In particular, mammals are distinguished from reptiles by a number of skeletal traits. Reptiles have a much larger number of individual bones in their skulls than do mammals. In reptiles, the teeth are all of the same shape, and although they vary slightly in size, they all have the same simple cone-shaped form. Mammals, however, possess a number of different types of teeth in their jaws, from the flat, multi-cusped molar teeth to the sharp cone-shaped canines. In reptiles, the lower jaw is made up of a number of different bones, and the jaw joint is formed between the quadrate bone in the skull and the angular bone in the jaw. In mammals, by contrast, the lower jaw is made up of a single bone, the dentary, which articulates with the squamosal bone in the skull to form the jaw joint. Reptiles also have a single bone in the middle ear, the stapes. In mammals, there are three bones in the middle ear, the malleus, incus and stapes (also known as the hammer, anvil and stirrup). At the top of the skull, reptiles have a small hole through which the pineal body, or "third eye", extends--this is absent in mammals. Finally, the reptilian skull is attached to the spine by a single point of contact, the occipital condyle. In mammals, the occipital condyle is double-faced.

There would have to some percentage of fossils that must be transitional in comparison to all the others. You cannot have it both ways. First you say that Darwinism is proven by the presence of transitional fossils but then say we cannot quantitize that. If you cannot quantize you do not have science. This is double talk. You must make a stand and say we need say 1% of fossils to be transitional. See this is why Darwinism is not falsifiabe. You cannot predict. Imbrella 23:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Imbrella, by this statement you demonstrate that you have no understanding of what a "transitional fossil" is. Most fossils are transitional fossils. The only fossils that aren't are the last ones from a grouping (family, superfamily, etc) that goes extinct before developing new traits. There is no "statistically significant" percentage, for the simple reason that there is no statistical test to perform on this percentage. Likewise you have no understanding of Evolution (only ignorant Creationists call it "Darwinism" -- Darwin's original theory has long since been replaced by successively expanded and modified versions of the Theory of Evolution), or the workings of science and statistics. You seem to have nothing to contribute here but ignorant and unfounded questions that have no bearing on the improvement of this article. Either contribute something that is knowledgeable and relevant, or go away. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I insert in the article that there is no evidence of transitional fossils for insects and very, very few transitional fossils of any kind. You will not allow me to do that would you even though TO says that. Imbrella 00:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you can't, without reliable sources. And the transitional fossils argument is false. Blatantly, mind-bogglingly false, but this is avoided through creationist shell-games. What is your citation for the lack of transitional fossils and that insects deserve to be pointed out as lacking transitional fossils? WLU 00:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)`

TO is not a reliable source? What we were arguing is that you said we should limit the info in the article and not tell anyone that the drawings are artists guesses and that the skeletons are inferred from partial jawbones etc. The cites are there. You just do not want people to know the whole truth. Imbrella 00:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What truth would that be? That evolution is false, and instead the world was created in seven days by the Lord our God? Source your statement regard drawings and then a discussion can begin about changes to the page. WLU 00:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said evolution is false? Well I guess to start is to find out where those drawings came from. Don't we have to cite sources for imagages? Certainly they are not photographs. Imbrella 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many billions of transitional fossils overall, including millions or billions of complete skeletons (though some transitions are better represented than others). This is a usage of the word "few" that I am unfamiliar with. --Robert Stevens 08:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Imbrella: TO does not say that "there is no evidence of transitional fossils for insects". So whether or not it is a WP:RS (in fact it is) is irrelevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that. From my reading there are extremely few complete mammal fossils let alone transitionals. Billions? Please give me a cite. We would not to deceive people. Imbrella 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out Evidence of common descent. But what on Earth have you been reading, Imbrella? "Extremely few complete mammal fossils"? Where did you get THAT idea? --Robert Stevens 18:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked it out. No mention of how many fossils were found. And it was a website. I do not think websites should be used as sources. Why not creationist websites then? What is the criteria? Imbrella 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"To put these discoveries in perspective," Dr. Novacek said of the new site, "consider that the total accumulation of Cretaceous mammal skulls collected over 70 years all over the Gobi amounts to probably something less than 100 skulls. It is extraordinary to consider a 10-day haul in one square mile of nearly 150 skulls."

Thats not millions or billions like one editor said. And this was a good dig. Imbrella 22:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an enormous difference between the number of mammal skulls found in a single geological period, on a single desert, and all the transitional fossils found ever. Websites are valid as resources, hence the {{cite web}} template. You give the appearance of wikilawyering and have still failed to contribute a single mainspace edit, which gives the appearance of trolling. Further, not a single suggestion you have made has made it on any page. It really looks like you are trying to subtly push a creationist agenda, or failing that, waste our time. If you wish to avoid continuing to give this impression, chose some non-evolution related articles to edit, work on other areas of wikipedia for at least a couple weeks, become familiar with policy, then return to these pages. Unless you are actually a troll, I'm pretty sure you will get a better reception and this entire process will be more efficient. WLU 00:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

...Counting mammal fossils only, during the "Age of Dinosaurs"? And only those actually found by wandering explorers in the Gobi Desert, which is pretty much an uninhabited wilderness? Good grief. for a counterexample, what about the millions of mammal fossils found in the La Brea tar pits (which were mentioned on Evidence of common descent)? --Robert Stevens 10:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)