It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What is a transitional species?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:35 PM
To all creationists. answer the following

1. What is a transitional species?

2. How would one expect a transitional species to arise?

3. Why do you not accept the following as transitional species?

a. Pikaia


c. Archaeopteryx


posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:07 PM
A transitional species is a group that rises then ultimately either dies out
or destroys itself. Prime example is the dodo bird it was hunted to extinction. I don't see cavemen or missing link types because for me they don't exist. That's my belief you have a different one and that's totally ok with me. It's like this is a major alien/ufo site but I don't believe in aliens maybe you do and that's fine.

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:12 PM
reply to post by Beach Bum

Not to disrespect either party on the view but according to my knowledge, no evidence of transitional fossils have ever been found so...

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:19 PM
A chicken is a transitional creature that is changing from a creature that used to fly to a ground feeder that relies on running to escape predation. The physical changes are smaller wing musculature that is insufficient to maintain the weight of the fowl for sustained distances. The probable reason for the change, other than domestication, is that the chicken was a slow clumsy aviator and an easy victim for aerial predators. Just my opinion.

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:23 PM
reply to post by N3krostatic

Yea actually there has been, just do a little research.

Google the evolution of horses, cetaceans, or mammalian auditory ossicles.

[edit on 8/11/2009 by jkrog08]

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:40 PM
reply to post by jkrog08
I believe this would be more evolution than transition. I have problems telling the two apart sometimes. Yes I do believe in natural evolution just not the Darwin version.

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:45 PM
reply to post by Beach Bum

Well evolution is still a working theory, there is still much we do not know on it. I am by NO MEANS an expert in evolution or biology, however from what I have learned and researched I feel that it is very much true however.

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse

1. What is a transitional species?

Off the top of my head, a transitional species is a species which is morphologically basal to two or more separate species/phylogenetic groups.

As for what qualifies as a transitional form, we all are unique individual transitional forms diverging away from the parent species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. If you were to sequester the entire human population into smaller isolated groups prohibited from interbreeding among groups for long enough - the human species would eventually diverge into multiple daughter species. We can already see this on the small scale with unique adaptations between racial groups. For example, whites of European descent have mutations which favor the digestion of milk - whereas populations of Indians living in high altitude climates along the Himalayan mountains have mutations which allow for greater oxygen sequestration in the lungs. A similar, but different, mutation was found in MesoAmerican tribes traditionally found living in the Andes Mountains.

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:29 PM
Wouldnt a Trans Species be more like a Cattapillar changing into a Butterfly?

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:54 AM
reply to post by Lasheic

I see Lasheic has explained it already, but I think it's worth repeating in bold type: all species are transitional.

Unless, that is, all a species' members are wiped out at once in some catastrophe.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:13 AM
reply to post by Astyanax

I find it infinitely humorous to note that, in the strictest sense, I am a creationist and thus apply to the OP's request. I believe there is a god who acted as the first mover, and while we can explain the creation by naturalistic methods which remove magic and miracles from the equation - there's nothing (yet) to say that these naturalistic systems aren't HOW such a being creates. There is no conflict. Though, I do think that if my beliefs are correct, such a god being is not omnipotent or omnicient as most religions proclaim.

Thus, a system such a being set in motion may have operate under pre-determined rules of interaction - but the outcome is emergent and inherently unknowable. We, ourselves, create simplistic versions of such systems via the use of Evolutionary Algorithms. We develop the algorithm's code character by character, we know exactly how it works, yet we cannot predict with certainly exactly what novel designs that algorithm will generate.

What's sad is that I, as a creationist, often find myself correcting atheists and agnostics who claim to understand evolution but don't really have the slightest clue what it actually states. What they think it is, is wrong, and it ends up being every bit as fictitious as the "6,000 year old Earth" lunacy. And I'm not talking about nitpicking finer details... I mean... we all make mistakes and carry misconceptions. But if you're going to convince a creationist that Evolution really does happen and we can prove it... I would hope that one could at least keep away from "survival of the fittest", "De-Evolution", or mistaking humans for a higher life form than others.

(Because we're not. We're just very highly specialized for cognitive tasks and fine motor coordination. Yet even the lowly turkey has us whooped at flight adaptations. It all depends on your criteria for gauging the importance of adaptations, which is subjective and personal. Your subjective analysis of their importance might change up a bit if you find yourself in an airliner nosediving into a rocky shoreline)

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:34 PM
reply to post by Beach Bum

As one who has work in several fields of science, I never thought there would be a missing link either. The clue can be what is found to date, and over two hundred years ago, many a missing link has come and gone, it took time but scientific investigation in time won out. What is caalled "punctated equalibrium", Up untill the advances in genetics we sometimes saw radical change from one to three generations

This was contray to classic Darwinism, but by no means discredits his basic deductions. P/E can also be seen with a species mutation. Strict psudo-Darwinism could not have allowed Darwin to come's to his/her own conclusion. He did'ent have the data (hiss) we would build on centuries later.

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:40 PM
Jkrog- Oh you're so good.

Cetaceans are my favorite example.

The land species between the common ancestor and modern whales looked kinda like a wolf.

It lived on land, it was a predator, sweet stuff.

But it evolved to develop fins instead of legs, to be marine, and some to have baleen instead of teeth.

In between those two was Ambulocetus, the transitional species. Kinda like a wolf, kinda like a crocodile (in terms of habits), and kinda like a whale.

It was transitional. It didn't hang around long, but kept evolving into modern whales.


I loooooove learning about chordate to vertebrate transition.

And Archaeopteryx.

This thread is like candy right here. Best zoological evolution thread ever. You cannot look at a modern Hoatzin and go "Oh, well, some birds grow claws from their wings... just... just cuz...."

[edit on 8/23/2009 by ravenshadow13]

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 09:27 PM
reply to post by arbiture

I'm not sure punctuated equilibrium gets much shrift from evolutionary biologists nowadays. It was always a bit of a con, an unnecessary attempt to account for gaps in the fossil record, and it seems to have died with its progenitor, Stephen Jay Gould.

top topics


log in