Talk:Transitional fossil/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Stub

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of Transitional Fossils  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing Link 

message: This link (#1) reports on a new transitional form.  It might be included in the article.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia article in question concerns the Devonian crossopterygian fish Tiktaalik.--Wetman 14:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, and there is a link to it under "list of transitional fossils".  Bubba73 (talk), 01:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New transitional form 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Australopithecus was the direct ancestor of Homo Habilis.C.M.24.21.139.41 15:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the "missing link" in hominid evolution?

message: 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)
thread_title: Too much technical language