Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution and the extinction of dinos
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2727 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 27 of 93 (607619)
03-05-2011 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
03-05-2011 9:09 AM


Re: Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
Hi, Buz.
Did I miss something here?
What have the ice ages got to do with dinosaurs?
Dinosaur extinction: 65 million years ago.
Pleistocene ice ages: within the last 3 million years.
You do realize that 65 and 3 are two very different numbers, right?
I've lost track of how many times you've been corrected on this.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 9:09 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 3:30 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2727 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 45 of 93 (608040)
03-08-2011 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peter
03-08-2011 9:20 AM


Re: The fossil record
Hi, Peter.
Peter writes:
What evidence (of anything related to evolution) do transitionals represent if they are NOT related in a pre-post sense?
They are related, but not necessarily as direct descendants.
Let's play with a hypothetical scenario.
Let's say we have a handful of fossils from millions and millions of years ago.
And, let's say that these fossils represent three species of animals that belong in the same genus.
And, let's say that we can tell, from their characteristics, that they are related to mammals.
However, they are so similar to one another, that it isn't clear which (if any) of the three species is an actual ancestor of mammals.
Also, we don't have any fossils that can link mammals to any particular one of these three species.
And, we don't have any other fossils of organisms that might be a better fit for the ancestor of mammals.
What steps can we take to determine which (if any) of these three species is the actual, lineal ancestor of mammals?
I don't think there is much we can do about it, other than to keep looking for other fossils that might shed light on the issue. So, in the absence of good evidence either way, we conclude for each of these three species that they either are the actual, direct ancestors of mammals, or they are sufficiently closely related to the actual, direct ancestors of mammals to be used as approximate surrogates for the ancestors in demonstrating the evolution of the mammal lineage.
For the sake of propriety, paleontologists have made it a habit to assume that any transitional fossil is just a surrogate, rather than the actual ancestor, because this is a less extreme claim.
So, to answer your question directly, yes, "transitional form" does bear a connotation of direct relationships. However, sometimes scientists are forced to approximate these direct relationships using surrogate species that are closely related to the direct ancestors, and these are also "transitional forms."
Edited by Bluejay, : Shortened by removing a major redundancy

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peter, posted 03-08-2011 9:20 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Peter, posted 03-09-2011 8:46 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024