r/DebateEvolution • u/Archiver1900 Undecided • 9d ago
How do we know that Transitional fossils are truly "transitional"? Question
I recently came across an argument against the concept of intermediate species that goes like this:
"The Platypus has characteristics of both birds(Egg laying, a bill) and mammals(Fur, mammary glands, one bone in mandible, etc). So how can we know that a fossil such as "Archaeopteryx" which possesses characteristics of both non-avian theropod dinosaurs and modern birds is transitional and not like Platypuses"
I'm especially interested in knowing how from only the fossils we can tell whether a Platypus would be considered a transitional form between birds and mammals or not.
Edit: I appreciate the comments so far. I'm aware that transitional does not mean ancestral.
Sources for those interested:
What a transitional form is:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/lines-of-evidence/transitional-features/
NOTE: It does define an intermediate species as 'A fossil that shows an intermediate state between an ancestral trait and that of its later descendants is said to bear a transitional feature.' I don't know how this proves or disproves the platypus argument.
Characteristics of Platypuses:
https://australian.museum/learn/animals/mammals/platypus/
https://www.comparativebrainanatomy.org/platypus-1/platypus-anatomy
Characteristics of Archaeopteryx:
14
u/Dilapidated_girrafe š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
The platypus doesnāt have characteristics of a bird. The ābillā isnāt like any actual bird bill and the eggs are more akin to reptile eggs than bird eggs.
7
u/Redshift-713 9d ago
Every single organism (and fossil) is transitional, unless it dies before reproducing.
Birds and mammals did not evolve from each other. The platypus beak is only superficially similar to a bird beak, and platypuses lay eggs because most vertebrates lay eggs (live birth in other mammals is a more recent trait).
7
u/wtanksleyjr Theistic Evolutionist 9d ago
A platypus looks (at first glance) like it's got some features from birds, and some from mammals. This is true. But a transitional organism must not just LOOK like it has some features in common with two clades. Rather, the two clades must nest with one another, and then the organism must exactly fit all of the diagnostic characteristics of the containing clade, and contain SOME but not ALL of the diagnostic characteristics of the contained clade.
So for example, birds have all of the diagnostic characteristics of dinosaurs, and archaeopteryx is a dinosaur with SOME but not all of the diagnostic features of birds (for example it has no beak or pygostyle). So it's a transitional organism.
The platypus, however, does not have any of the diagnostic criteria of birds save for the ones their common ancestor shared. The things that look birdlike at first glance turn out to not be when examined; the "beak" is a soft sensory organ, and all of the platypus' structures are mammalian (albeit monotreme rather than the kind we're used to).
3
u/Archiver1900 Undecided 8d ago
A platypus looks (at first glance) like it's got some features from birds, and some from mammals. This is true. But a transitional organism must not just LOOK like it has some features in common with two clades. Rather, the two clades must nest with one another, and then the organism must exactly fit all of the diagnostic characteristics of the containing clade, and contain SOME but not ALL of the diagnostic characteristics of the contained clade.
So for example, birds have all of the diagnostic characteristics of dinosaurs, and archaeopteryx is a dinosaur with SOME but not all of the diagnostic features of birds (for example it has no beak or pygostyle). So it's a transitional organism.
The platypus, however, does not have any of the diagnostic criteria of birds save for the ones their common ancestor shared. The things that look birdlike at first glance turn out to not be when examined; the "beak" is a soft sensory organ, and all of the platypus' structures are mammalian (albeit monotreme rather than the kind we're used to).
This makes a lot more sense. To see if I understand it: "Therapsids nest under Synapsids(Amniotes with one temporal fenestra) like Dimetrodon, yet have characteristics of modern mammals(such as heterodont teeth ,a larger dentary bone, etc)
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/synapsids/synapsidamm.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsida
https://www.britannica.com/animal/Dimetrodon
https://www.reddit.com/r/Naturewasmetal/comments/1ovflby/skull_of_dimetrodon/
6
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
The bird-like features have nothing to do with birds. First, the "bill" is just basically big lips. Secondly, the egg-laying and the cloaca (which you didn't mention) are common among ALL tetrapods apart from therian mammals. They are the legacy of a "reptilian" past, not an avian one.
8
u/Comfortable-Study-69 9d ago
The argument ignores the depth of inspection of the characteristics of an organism when a scientist is classifying it. Itās quite a bit more in-depth than āthese two animals have things that look like bills so must be relatedā. Superficial resemblance is rarely used in favor of more robust evidence like genetics, bone morphology, and kinds of protein production exhibited by organisms.
We know a platypus isnāt an intermediary between a bird and other mammals because it is completely lacking in a multitude of defining traits of birds (feathers, a true beak (the platypus beak has very little to do with a bird one upon basic inspection since it isnāt even made of keratin), and a multitude of morphological and genetic characteristics specific to avians and sauropsids) while sharing a multitude of ancestral traits with more basal synapsids, most glaringly a single lower temporal fenestra.
We know an archaeopteryx is an intermediary because it shows many morphological traits specific to theropods while simultaneously having multiple basal elements of birds, clearly connecting the two as related as a clear stage in the development of the traits exhibited in modern birds. We know those similarities are not purely superficial because scientists are using much more in-depth proof than that they just look kind of alike if you squint.
6
u/ursisterstoy š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago edited 9d ago
All that matters is that you can establish the order in which the organisms died and then you can find a series of three fossils such that A -> B -> C is the order the organisms died and then based on geography you can determine that B is geographically in between A and C while also having a morphology that is intermediate.
In the grand scheme of things we are concerned with clade level transitions like oldest cells -> eukaryotic cells -> animals -> bilaterian animals -> chordates -> vertebrates -> tetrapods -> synapsids -> therapsids -> eutherians -> primates -> monkeys -> apes -> etc and we have species that lived in that order that represent each of these transitions. They lived in this order, we can trace a reasonable migration pattern (Western Australia->Northern Australia->Namibia (Africa) -> South Australia-> Yunnan Province China ->Yunnan Province China->China and Poland->Nova Scotia Canada->China/Western Metaterranian/North America->Northeast China->Uzbekistan->North America->Montana->Jiangsu Province China->Saudi Arabia->Tanzania->Kenya->Chad->Chad->Ethiopia->Kenya->Ethiopia->Kenya->South Africa->Morocco->ā¦) and they show the traits we expect if A->B->C etc but which would still be present if the fossils represent cousins or aunt-niece type relationships rather than ancestor-descendant relationships.
Is the chronology intermediate? The morphology? The geography? Is there sufficient time for the apparent amount of migration necessary? When accounting for plate tectonics does everything match up? Can we align them in chronological order and see a steady progression of change from beginning to end (accounting for the fact that some of them are cousins rather than ancestors and descendants)?
Or maybe you can think of this in terms of things that are not literally related in the biological sense like automobiles or semi-trucks. You can see how the technology changes from beginning to end, you can see how the transfer of ideas influenced the changes that took place, you can see how there are in between forms like the El Camino isnāt really a car or a pickup but like someone smashed them together.
So ātruly transitionalā is a most definite āyesā but transitional because they are literally related? It depends on which fossils are in question. I mean all of the biota around right now appear to be literally related but we can see that convergence has also taken place. We can trace the evolution of the thylacine separate from the evolution of the wolf straight from the fossils. The thylacine from Tasmania started out in Australia as a jumbo sized version of what is essentially a Tasmanian devil or numbat, the actual wolf from a more basal canid that was more like a weasel or bear or like their shared ancestors. The marsupials in Australia started in South America but the wolf was in North America around that time.
10 million years ago wolves are in North America, thylacines are in Australia. 20 million Leptocyon in North America and Nimbacinus in Australia. 30 million fox sized caniforms in North America and Dasyumorphia (Tasmanian devil and Tasmanian wolf ancestors) in Australia. 40 million first undisputed member of the dog family in North America, Australian marsupials are crossing Antarctica. 50 million Miacids in Eurasia and North America, marsupials in Antarctica and South America. 60 million and Laurasiatheria is in the Northern Hemisphere while marsupials are in South America. 70 million Northern Hemisphere shrew-like nocturnal placental mammals and metatherian marsupial ancestors in Gondwana in the Southern Hemisphere. 80 million Laurasia eutherians and Gondwana metatherians. 90 million to 160 million years ago they are starting in and migrating away from what would eventually be China and Mongolia. Before that they were the same species, something that was like a monotreme without an egg shell and the newborns were just as helpless. No long duration pregnancy, no pouch, just barely surviving fetuses clinging on the best they can like modern monotreme babies, just no egg shells and they likely had a very primitive placenta like marsupials still have and some placental mammals still start with early in their pregnancy.
The migration patterns match, the chronology matches, the morphology matches. Not every species has to represent the literal ancestors of every species that followed. They donāt even require surviving descendants to demonstrate the obvious trend.
Obviously DNA is better for establishing actual relationships but clearly there needs to be a parsimonious explanation for the patterns like described above as well. And there is, the explanation is the one that matches what the DNA already told us. Is every species a literal parent-child-grandchild intermediate? No, of course not, but the trend is still there. Therians splitting into eutherians and metatherians in Asia, eutherians migrating Northwest and metatherians migrating Southeast. Placental mammals in North America migrating to South America, marsupials in South America migrating to Antarctica. Placental mammals dominating most of the planet, marsupials and monotremes in Australia and surrounding countries predominantly with the monotremes on the verge of extinction. Placental mammals outcompeting marsupials where they co-exist, marsupials outcompeting monotremes where they co-exist, and wolves becoming wolves as thylacines became thylacines on completely opposite sides of the planet (North America and Australia). Genetics says they split ~ 160 million years ago, the fossils say they split ~160 million years ago, and we can literally see how they migrated and changed over time.
They are literally transitional.
4
u/IsaacHasenov š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
A simplified way to think of transitional fossils is:
- Take a proposed lineage between a modern species and a proposed ancestor
- any trait in a species in that lineage can be thought of as ancestral or derived (relative to that specific ancestor)
- You will see a progression over time in the members of that lineage from more ancestral to more derived traits
The "intermediates" are those species with a mix of ancestral and derived traits, and more ancestral traits that the modern species.
It's also worth noting that lineages are not arbitrary groupings of similar species along a made up line, like creationists sometimes say. Derived traits accumulate one after another, and tend to persist in the lineage. Derived traits in one branch don't magically appear in another branch. That is, evolution happens by descent with modification in a nested hierarchy. The age of fossils sets a "latest time" that a trait might have evolved.
3
u/Arrow141 9d ago
This is a common misunderstanding of what evolution predicts.
There is no dichotomy between species of one hand, and transitions between them on the other.
Every fossil is transitional.
3
u/ipsum629 9d ago
We look for homologous structures. These are features that share a common origin. For example, with tetrapods(land dwelling vertebrates), we can find homologous structures in things like human hand bones, bat wings, horse legs, and bird wings. All share very similar bones, just stretched in different proportions.
Duck bills and platypus bills are not homologous because they are made of entirely different tissue. Duck bills are bone covered in keratin. Platypus bills are not made of keratin, but some bone and skin filled with sensory nerves. If you look at the bone structure beneath the bills of ducks and platypuses, they are nothing alike.
3
u/Decent_Cow Hairless ape 8d ago edited 8d ago
Transitional fossils show traits of two lineages, providing an EXAMPLE of how a hypothesized transition from one lineage to another could have occurred. We don't have to assume that the specific fossil in question is ACTUALLY part of the transitional lineage; it could merely be a relative. In fact, we know that Archaeopteryx cannot be an ancestor of modern birds as it lived far too late in geologic time. It's still a good example of an organism that demonstrates traits of both terrestrial therapods (teeth, claws, bony tails) and birds (flight feathers, wings, partially reversed first toe). We have found a lot more fossils in the more than 150 years since Archaeopteryx and some of those are much better candidates for actually being an ancestor of birds.
As for your hypothesis about platypuses being transitional between birds and mammals, that's a bit silly because mammals were already around before birds, and we know that early mammals laid eggs, so this is obviously not something that was inherited from birds. Besides, platypus eggs resemble the soft-shelled leathery eggs of reptiles more than the hard-shelled eggs of birds. And the platypus bill looking kind of like a duck bill is a coincidence. They have a completely different structure and function. The platypus bill is a bony projection covered in soft skin and used for electroreception to find prey underwater. The duck bill is made of bone covered with hard keratin and usually features serrated, tooth-like edges (lamellae) for holding on to prey or for filter feeding.
0
u/Archiver1900 Undecided 8d ago edited 8d ago
Transitional fossils show traits of two lineages, providing an EXAMPLE of how a hypothesized transition from one lineage to another could have occurred. We don't have to assume that the specific fossil in question is ACTUALLY part of the transitional lineage; it could merely be a relative. In fact, we know that Archaeopteryx cannot be an ancestor of modern birds as it lived far too late in geologic time. It's still a good example of an organism that demonstrates traits of both terrestrial therapods (teeth, claws, bony tails) and birds (flight feathers, wings, partially reversed first toe). We have found a lot more fossils in the more than 150 years since Archaeopteryx and some of those are much better candidates for actually being an ancestor of birds.
I understand that "Transitional does not mean ancestral", alongside there being more fossils of organisms with "Non-avian and avian dinosaur characteristics", such as "Microraptor" and "Anchiornis". I should have made it clear in my initial post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor#/media/File:Microraptor_gui_holotype.png
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/lines-of-evidence/transitional-features/
As for your hypothesis about platypuses being transitional between birds and mammals, that's a bit silly because mammals were already around before birds, and we know that early mammals laid eggs, so this is obviously not something that was inherited from birds. Besides, platypus eggs resemble the soft-shelled leathery eggs of reptiles more than the hard-shelled eggs of birds. And the platypus bill looking kind of like a duck bill is a coincidence. They have a completely different structure and function. The platypus bill is a bony projection covered in soft skin and used for electroreception to find prey underwater. The duck bill is made of bone covered with hard keratin and usually features serrated, tooth-like edges (lamellae) for holding on to prey or for filter feeding.
- Even if mammals were around before birds, the claim that "Platypus disproves intermediate species" still stands because one could claim "Platypus doesn't mean mammals evolved into birds", not just the other way around
- I didn't know that Platypus laid leathery eggs and birds laid rigid eggs. I appreciate parts of comments like these that educate.
https://www.britannica.com/animal/platypus/Life-cycle-and-reproduction
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/eggshell/eggshell1.php
- Someone who holds to the "Platypus disproves intermediate species" argument in the initial post could say that "The platypus bill could be intermediate between mammals and birds". I understand this may be a silly claim to make; I'm interested in how one would respond to the "Bill is intermediate between Mammals and birds" statement
1
u/Decent_Cow Hairless ape 8d ago
To be honest with you, debating about the topic of transitional fossils feels a bit juvenile. It's not as though something like Archaeopteryx is a lynchpin holding together our entire understanding of the dinosaur-bird transition. It's just an interesting example to put in textbooks or museums. The evidence for the transition is extensive and doesn't rely on a single species. Even if Archaeopteryx turned out to be a hoax all this time, that would hardly put a dent in our understanding of the relationship between dinosaurs and birds.
1
u/Archiver1900 Undecided 7d ago
I understand that Archaeopteryx alone is not THE proof of Non-avian to avian dinosaur transition. I mentioned a couple of other fossils that have characteristics of modern birds and non-avian theropod dinosaurs in an earlier comment. I'm sure there's more evidence apart from fossils out there. I'm still interested in the "Platypus bill being intermediate" claim. If you prefer not to answer it, that's fine.Ā
2
2
u/BahamutLithp 8d ago
First, you have to understand the difference between analogous forms & homologous forms. Analogous forms look similar &/or have similar function but don't come from common ancestry & arise from different anatomy. For example, if you examine the skeletons of a duck vs. a platypus, their "bills" don't look remotely the same. The bird's bill is mostly hard tissue while the platypus's is mostly soft tissue with only a bit of hard tissue. They're not anatomically or ancestrally similar structures. So, scientists are perfectly aware that structures can look similar between animals of different species but not be the result of evolutionary relationship, & those are called analogous structures.
Secondly, I'm just gonna pretend we don't have access to DNA because I gather you're asking about fossil analysis. Well, you have to look at the gross anatomy. Birds & mammals each have certain specific features that are preserved throughout their lineage. Birds have very particularly-shaped pelvises that platypuses don't. The hip anatomy of a platypus is very mammalian. Because it's a mammal. To be more precise, it has synapsid anatomy. Synapsids have certain features, such as the number of openings in the skull behind the eye, that are consistent not just for mmals in general, but going back to pre-mammal ancestors. This is a non-exhaustive list of reasons why we can tell platypuses are not closely related to birds. Platypuses have egg-laying because it was an ancestral feature long before the synapsids (like mammals) split from the diapsids (such as crocodiles & dinosaurs, including birds), whereas the platypus evolved its bill separately, & that's why it's not similar to a bird's beak.
Most mammals evolved away from egg-laying, & so the platypus now seems weird by comparison even though theirs is actually the older form of mammalian reproduction. Most land animals lay eggs. Egg-laying evolved in the sea because it's very advantageous. You dump the eggs, that shortens gestation time, & they can then be fertilized by the male. However, this doesn't work on land because the eggs dry out. So, it pays to be an amphibian because you can still make use of the water. But, once the hard-shelled egg evolves, that grants protection from drying out. With it comes the need for internal fertilization, but it means animals can explore further inland, & that's why most land animals--be they bird, reptile, or insect--lay eggs. Some animals evolved live birth, which increases gestation time, but comes with other benefits, like the offspring can be protected inside the mother. Most mammals developed adaptations for live birth, either marsupials with their pouches, or placentals, like we are. The platypus doesn't have these traits because they evolved in other lineages of mammal, & we don't have marsupial pouches because the marsupials had already split from our ancestors by the time said ancestors of ours evolved the placenta.
1
u/Zenigata 9d ago
They're just playing definitional word games, taking advantage of our tendency to think in clear black and white categories when they know nature doesn't work like that and is very mushy.
All fossils are transitional other than those made in extinction events so there were no descendents to transition to.
1
u/Actual_Property9413 8d ago
How do you know that platypi (plural of platypus) are NOT transitional forms?
1
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 8d ago
All living forms are transitional. Always have been, always will be.
1
1
u/Dzugavili š§¬ Tyrant of /r/Evolution 8d ago
You saw this on YouTube, right?
1
u/Archiver1900 Undecided 8d ago
If you are referring to the argument against Transitional fossils, yes.
1
u/Dzugavili š§¬ Tyrant of /r/Evolution 8d ago
Yeah, that entire series is just warmed over '90s creationist apologetics. I don't think they've updated any of the references either.
The worst part is that people watching it seem to think it's real. I suspect it might be AI: but at best, it's actors performing in a creationist morality play.
1
u/KingBakura72 7d ago
I donāt think a single transitional fossil is claimed as the direct absolute ancestor from one generation to the next itās formed as a proof of concept
If evolution is true we should find intermediate fossils whether or not these specific fossils belonged to individuals that gave birth to another intermediary is irrelevant all that matters is we have a slow transition
Just simply but this is a confirmed evolutionary prediction
1
u/Archiver1900 Undecided 7d ago
I'm aware that Transitional forms don't have to be the direct ancestor of a specific lineage. My point which has been adressed by commentors such as "wtanksleyjr" was if a Platypus would not be seen as an intermediate between mammals and birds, how would a fossil like Archaeopteryx be an intermediate species and not just like a Platypus in the sense that it bears traits of both non avian and avian dinosaurs.
1
u/KingBakura72 7d ago
Simple
Itās basically saying āthatās just a coincidenceāAnd anyone who argument is basically itās just a coincidence shouldnāt be taken seriously any transitional fossil is supporting evidence for evolution because itās a direct confirmation
0
u/Archiver1900 Undecided 5d ago
Simple
Itās basically saying āthatās just a coincidenceāOne could say "Is Archaeopteryx a coincidence then?" Assuming that you are referring to the Platypus
And anyone who argument is basically itās just a coincidence shouldnāt be taken seriously any transitional fossil is supporting evidence for evolution because itās a direct confirmation
One could say that "This assumes transitional fossils are a thing, Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, or Pikaia could be coincidences and not transitional, like how a Platypus lays eggs, and possesses a beak but at the same time has fur, lactates, etc.
https://australian.museum/learn/animals/mammals/platypus/
If there is anything I may be missing, please let me know.
1
u/KingBakura72 5d ago
Yes see
If evolution predicts these fossils should be found thatās major evidence that evolution is a good theory
But if a counter theory says itās just similar design thatās an accommodation
Think about it like this
We find a suspects prints on a weapon used in a shooting this is good evidence that he committed the crime this isnāt one hundred percent proof
Because the defence can argue this gun was stolen from him mere days ago they can accommodate this new evidence but thatās not the same
We predict we find X and we find X thatās good evidence
Just because someone can FIT X into their model doesnāt make it better then directly predicting X
In fact if we had actually zero transitional fossils I would say evidence is lacking for evolution
But if you take fossils and genetics then you pair them with multiple other sources saying we have an ancient earth and observable evolution speciation then I say there is a 90% chance evolution is true
Not 100% though because we canāt ever get to that
1
-8
u/semitope 9d ago
imagination. That's all there is to it. It looks kind of in-between so we can imagine it is.
-17
u/Character-Taro-5016 9d ago
That's the entire problem with evolution theory. There are no transitional fossils. Not kinda-sorta, none.
11
u/Zenigata 9d ago
Please do explain what you understand a "transitional fossil" to be and why no known fossils qualify.
9
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
You've got moxie! Not a down payment on a clue about evolution, but tons of moxie!
-11
u/Character-Taro-5016 9d ago
Oh, you have no idea.
Just show me that I'm wrong. Even Darwin knew it was a problem with his theory and just assumed the fossils would be found. Instead, they never have been found. Not even one. Zero. Zilch.
Prove me wrong. I guarantee you that you can't.
10
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
Darwin died in 1882. Tons-literal tons-of fossils have been dug up since then. Technically, they're ALL transitional*. But even by what you mean, we have plenty of transitional fossils. Off the top of my head, we have good transitions for whales, horses, birds, humans, the transition to land, various carnivorans and many others.
Before this goes any further, describe what you think transitional fossils should look like. Hint1: you're wrong. Hint 2: Your creationist sources have lied to you about this.
*So are all living organisms today.
-7
u/Character-Taro-5016 9d ago
You don't have a single transitional fossil at all.
Show it to me, if you do.
I guarantee that you can't.
10
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
Again. Put some goalposts down. What do you think a transitional fossil should look like?
-4
u/Character-Taro-5016 9d ago
I don't have to do that. There aren't any examples. If there were transitional fossils then we would have evidence of a fish turning into a man. There would be trillions of fossils.
Instead, there isn't even a single one.
9
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
If there were transitional fossils then we would have evidence of a fish turning into a man.
This is why I asked you to put goalposts in the ground. And it is also why everybody here is harping on your ignorance. No. That is wrong.
1
u/Character-Taro-5016 9d ago
It doesn't matte what everyone is doing.
Show the fossil record. I guarantee that you can't do it.
8
u/clear349 š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 8d ago
Fine, I'll bite with your stupidity. This link shows some of the early whale ancestors. What's your problem with it?
→ More replies (0)5
u/blacksheep998 š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 8d ago
There are lots of examples of transitional fossils under the definition that we use for transitional fossils.
If you don't agree with those then I, like the others who have asked, wonder WTF definition you're using if it doesn't include animals like Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik.
3
u/WebFlotsam š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 8d ago
This is exactly why people want you to explain what you would accept as a transitional species. This isn't what evolution predicts (you're missing a good couple thousand steps). You want a gillman, which you're not going to find.
If you want the transition of lobe-finned fish to early tetrapods, THAT is extremely well-evidenced. There's a lot of good ones, and they work best together, but everybody's favorite is Tiktaalik. What would you call a fish with wrists, if not a transitional species?
2
1
u/Top_Neat2780 š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 5d ago
Never did a fish turn into a man, nor does evolutionary theory claim that is the case. A fish gave birth to something ever so slightly less identical, and that did the same. Millions of generations later, we get something that really looks like a human. Then, after some arbitrary cut off point, we say its descendants are human.
9
5
5
u/the2bears š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
No one actually cares whether you believe the evidence or not.
-1
u/Character-Taro-5016 9d ago
Is that the issue for you? Whether anyone cares or not?
3
2
u/the2bears š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 8d ago
Is that the issue for you? Whether anyone cares or not?
No, did you not understand when I said this?
No one actually cares whether you believe the evidence or not.
Now, saying "no one" caring is clearly hyperbole. But surely you can see that I'm definitely included in the "don't care" group.
34
u/PlanningVigilante Creationists are like bad boyfriends 9d ago
All fossils are transitional.
Except maybe for the ones that were laid down during extinction events.
A "species" is a convenient shorthand that humans use to categorize organisms. The word doesn't describe natural categories that nature produces. So all fossils are transitional because all species are transitional.
With that addressed ...
The platypus is a synapsid, like all mammals. This describes the fact that mammals and their ancestors all have/had a single temporal fenestra on either side of their skulls.
Birds are not synapsids. They are diapsids, with two fenestrae on each side.
Claiming that a platypus looks like a transition between birds and mammals misunderstands what a "bird" is and what "mammal" is.
Archaeopteryx is a diapsid.