RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2120Goal: $3500

Talk:List of transitional forms

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon evolution.svg

This evolution related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


From a non-scientist[edit]

Since this page is predominantly a "look, you f-ing creationist, this is how it works" I think we should take some care in how we show transitions, and how we explain them. People like me, non-scientists, use your references at RW all the time, so things kinda need to be "idiot proof" for us on these "anti cree-at" pages. When I read the lists, I assume (and it appears wrongly so) that these are all liner transitions. as in, that we are presenting a list where one moves into another. But i read the whales and found "another candidate", and read the humans and see two animals both directly leading to Homo. Can someone who is good at idiot-explanations, help write a paragraph (or perhaps a direct explanation where two paths are possible) about why they are still transitions. (If that made any sense).--Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 13:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to idiot proof this. The entire concept of a "transitional" form is completely not in line with how reality works; evolution doesn't have a goal and doesn't look ahead, so any particular isn't a transition between one thing and another, it's simply an organism that once lived. 15 million years from now, Prince Charles' ears could be considered a "transitional form" between ears and wings, but without that hindsight they're just what humans look like. So the problem you're talking about is actually far more fundamental, it's because we're trying to shoehorn reality to fit a basic conceptual model in our heads when the reality is too complex to truly appreciate. Scarlet A.pngmoral 13:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
OHH. blart. That's why i dislike dealing with creationists. I want to say "read a fucking book" and they say "books are written by so-called 'scientists' who are all 'in on it'. oh well, thanks.--Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 14:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

New article title[edit]

The thing is this is an incomplete list of transitional forms and not necessarily in order so it may need to be specified as 'selected'. (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

All forms are transitional forms[edit]

Given that evolution is a never-ending process, rather than something that leads to a designated endpoint, all species are in constant transition. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Best creationist response ever[edit]

My friend at school": Oh, look fossils that look similar, let's call them 'transitional fossils'."--TemplarJLS (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


This article is cited in "Walter Brown's "Hydroplate" Flood Model Doesn't Hold Water" by Glen Kuban.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 06:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Siberian example[edit]

Would the Siberian dog-wolf pup recently announced be a good example? Anna Livia (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The Wolfdog is a hybrid, that's not the same thing. Avida Dollarsher again 17:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to this creature. Anna Livia (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
hmmm maybe. Avida Dollarsher again 18:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
There is other coverage - which includes 'the experts' saying the creature is close to the dividing point of the two species. Anna Livia (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Any update on this?
At what point would 'little yappy creatures' and 'ginormous dogs' (mastiffs, St Bernards etc) become separate species? (For practical reasons dogs have elements of a ring species.) Anna Livia (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)