0
Did Darwin predict that the middle intermediate stages of evolutionary development would be found in transitional fossils?
Wiki User
∙ 8y agoWant this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How do plants fit in the evolutionary tree and why aren't there more transitional fossils?
Evolution is NOT real!
What is value of a transitional fossil?
A transitional fossil has evidence of an organism that had lived with different traits from different species. For example, the skeleton of Basilosaurus isis found in an Egyptian desert in 2005 has a whalelike body but also the limbs of land animals. Basilosaurus isis might be a transitional fossil from an ancient, giant land animal to a more recent whale.Transitional fossils display features of two types of animals and are examples of the transition from one type of animal into another. They are also known intermediate fossils, and serve to "bridge the gap" in evolutionary history between two types of related animals. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive traits in comparison with their more derived relatives.According to modern evolutionary synthesis, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism near the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge.One example of a transitional fossil is one of Tiktaalik, a prehistoric fish. It contains features of fish such as fins, scales, and gills, but it has a flat head, lungs, weight bearing wrist bones, and a mobile neck like a tetrapod. Since it is found in just the right rock later, Tiktaalik represents one evolutionary stage in the transition from fish to tetrapods.
How does the biogeography of fossils support evolutionary?
Modern plants and animals resemble fossils found in the same area.
Which fossils are the most important to evolutionary theory?
Technically, fossils are not required to demonstrate the accuracy of the central hypotheses of evolutionary theory. The accuracy of common descent and natural selection can be demonstrated effectively only referring to observations in zoology, molecular and developmental biology, genetics and comparative genomics. However, the fossil record does allow palaeontologists to have a more detailed look at the form and behaviour of past lifeforms, something that comparative genomics by itself may not, and to confirm specific hypotheses about the nature and timing of specific events in the evolutionary history of diverging lineages. In this last category, transitional fossils are perhaps the most significant markers in the fossil record.
What do you call a person who studies fossils and predicts where they came from?
A palaeontologist or an evolutionary palaeobiologist.
How do plants fit in the evolutionary tree and why aren't there more transitional fossils?
Evolution is NOT real!
Have any transitional forms been found?
Numerous transitional forms have so far been found. In the clade of apes alone, the number of intermediate fossils is large enough to allow for a near-complete understanding of the evolutionary history of Man and the other apes.
What is the relationship between fossils and extinction events?
Fossils that show intermediate characteristics are generally called transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are fossils that have characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after it. As such, transitional fossils are strongly suggestive of evolution. There are many examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Examples include large-scale transitions such as from reptiles to birds (like the controversial archaeopteryx) and from reptiles to mammals, as well as more detailed transitions, such as those among the many hominids or the development of horses. The fact that, despite the rarity of fossilization, we have a wealth of transitional fossil data and that the fossil data generally conforms to the phylogenetic tree is strongly supportive of the idea of evolution. Mention transitional fossils to a creationist and you will most likely get a dirty look. Transitional fossils are frequently misunderstood, and like macroevolution, creationists tend to redefine the term to suit their purposes. As explained above, transitional fossils are fossils that have characteristics that are intermediate between other organisms. If the transitional fossil can be dated to a time between the organisms it is an intermediate to, it is strongly suggestive of an evolutionary relationship between the organisms. Creationists will critique transitional fossils in a variety of ways. They might claim that a transitional fossil is not proof of an evolutionary relationship since you can't prove that it is, in fact, an ancestor of any later organism. They are right. We can't prove that. As has been explained, transitional fossils are suggestive of an evolutionary relationship - they are not proof of it. Once again we run into problems with creationists looking for proof when science deals rather with supporting evidence. Without actually going back in time and watching the birth/hatching/etc. of each successive organism in an evolutionary chain, we can not "prove" that an evolutionary relationship exists. Even if you accept evolution, you can't be sure some organism is actually an ancestor of existing species - it might be a side-branch on the evolutionary tree that died out. However, transitional fossils are just one more piece of evidence that is suggestive and supportive of evolution. Even if a transitional fossil is a side-branch, it still shows that creatures with intermediate characteristics existed, and this indicates the strong possibility that a similar organism could exist that is an ancestor of an existing species. When you consider that such transitionals fall into the phylogenetic tree well within the area you would expect them to, it is a nicely verified prediction of the general theory of evolution and further support for the theory. Creationists will also sometimes state that a transitional fossil is not, in fact, a transitional. For example, with archaeopteryx, some have claimed that it is not a transitional between reptiles and birds and instead assert that it is a true bird. Unfortunately, this is another example of a creationist lie or distortion. If you look at the evidence it is clear that archaeopteryx has characteristics in common with reptiles that modern birds do not posses. Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. We can't say for sure it is actually an ancestor of modern birds, but as explained, that is not a significant issue. In general, creationist arguments that transitionals are not real transitionals are based on their ignorance of what a transitional fossil is or simply on outright distortions of fact. It is not that there isn't room for debate on the nature or categorization of various fossils, because there is always room for debate. However, creationist debates are almost never informed debate and as such do not accomplish much. Finally, creationists will sometimes belabor the fact that there are gaps in the fossil record. Even if we have a transitional fossil between two groups of organisms that is suggestive of an evolutionary relationship, creationists will demand intermediaries between the intermediaries. And, if those are found, creationists will want intermediaries between the new organisms. It's a no-win situation. Since creationists try to put forth the strawman that you need "absolute proof" of an evolutionary relationship to accept it, they insist that if we do not have a record of every single organism in the chain we can't say some organism is an ancestor of another. This is a useless and spurious criticism. I have already shown how we cannot say for certain that any particular fossilized organism was definitively in the evolutionary history of any other organism. But that doesn't matter. The fossil record is still extraodinarily suggestive of evolution in general, and specific fossils are suggestive of evolutionary relationships between specific organisms. We can make very well informed, provisional conclusions (this is science) as to the evolutionary history of many organisms. And these conclusions are supported by the evidence; in many cases by both fossil and nonfossil evidence
What are transitional forms?
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
What is value of a transitional fossil?
A transitional fossil has evidence of an organism that had lived with different traits from different species. For example, the skeleton of Basilosaurus isis found in an Egyptian desert in 2005 has a whalelike body but also the limbs of land animals. Basilosaurus isis might be a transitional fossil from an ancient, giant land animal to a more recent whale.Transitional fossils display features of two types of animals and are examples of the transition from one type of animal into another. They are also known intermediate fossils, and serve to "bridge the gap" in evolutionary history between two types of related animals. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive traits in comparison with their more derived relatives.According to modern evolutionary synthesis, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism near the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge.One example of a transitional fossil is one of Tiktaalik, a prehistoric fish. It contains features of fish such as fins, scales, and gills, but it has a flat head, lungs, weight bearing wrist bones, and a mobile neck like a tetrapod. Since it is found in just the right rock later, Tiktaalik represents one evolutionary stage in the transition from fish to tetrapods.
Is a type of evidence used by scientists to determine evolutionary relationships?
The evidence do scientist use to determine evolutionary relationships by scientist have combined the evidence from DNA, protein structure, fossils, early development, and body structure to determine the evolutionary relationship amoung species.
How does the biogeography of fossils support evolutionary?
Modern plants and animals resemble fossils found in the same area.
What are four different ways scientists get info about the evolutionary history of an species?
By comparing body structures of living organisms...By studying fossils...And comparing the early development of different organisms.
What two types of structures do transitional fossils show?
devried traits and ancestral traits
Which fossils are the most important to evolutionary theory?
Technically, fossils are not required to demonstrate the accuracy of the central hypotheses of evolutionary theory. The accuracy of common descent and natural selection can be demonstrated effectively only referring to observations in zoology, molecular and developmental biology, genetics and comparative genomics. However, the fossil record does allow palaeontologists to have a more detailed look at the form and behaviour of past lifeforms, something that comparative genomics by itself may not, and to confirm specific hypotheses about the nature and timing of specific events in the evolutionary history of diverging lineages. In this last category, transitional fossils are perhaps the most significant markers in the fossil record.
Evolutionary history of a species based on comparison of structures and fossils?
Phylogeny
What do you call a person who studies fossils and predicts where they came from?
A palaeontologist or an evolutionary palaeobiologist.
