![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
Second call: "Please stop trying to saddle... etc." It is really tiresome when persons that are so stuffed up with their preconceived notions start adding comments that are completely unnecessary if the only took the time to read the text properly. The theory of Punq.eq. has nothing to do with transitional fossils between major groups of organisms. It pertains to minor transitions between closely related species as can be traced in a single geological outcrop. The theory explains the observed sudden jumps. This is a fact, and is the best and most neutral description of the subject. A subject that deserves to be treated in its own article and not this one, with which it is often confused. Fedor 19:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How can you tell punctuated equilibrium from limited sampling fossilization provides us? -- BerserkerBen 00:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The current opening statement reveals the basic misunderstanding, on which all this is based:
It will take a biologist to recast this antiquated poppycock. -- Wetman 13:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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.
Cut the following:
It appears to be creationist book adv. Surely doesn't belong in intro. Vsmith 12:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Intranetusa ( talk • contribs)
It is disappointing to see the darwinist fundamentalism on this site. The idea of evoloution is not new because many people find it comforting to think that this world is all there is (no day of judgement) and any viewpoint involving a creator is wrong. I spent three years of my life to obtain a PhD, which does involve some expertise in recognising the need to look at different views as part of the scientific method. I feel that rejecting the alternative viewpoint on the premise that it does not conform to the Darwinist fundamental view is not science.
The refence to [1] therefore has a rightful place in this section, unless this site is adopting the former tactics of the european church on the "flat earth" debate.
Fedor, it might be helpful if you described specifically with examples why the article in question is unscientific.
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)
The page starts with "For the similarly named recording label, see Missing Link Records". It does not make sense if one actually did not come from the Missing Link redirect. - Dodo bird 00:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This link (#1) reports on a new transitional form. It might be included in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
The following was added to the 'misconceptions' section on 20 April by an anonymous user. I can't make head or tail of it. Maybe there's a important point in there somewhere that somebody smarter than me can draw out of it... The Singing Badger 23:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Can the following personal essay be rendered in an acceptably encyclopedic manner, as a report on what has been said on this subject? -- Wetman 20:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Removed personal essay again. It qualifies as original research (not sourced) and POV pushing. The anon has been warned of WP:3RR. Vsmith 16:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This article has failed the good article criteria, In respects to the following:
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed); (b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias; (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.46.62 ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 17 September 2006
Can the following personal essay be rendered in an acceptably encyclopedic manner, as a report on what has been said on this subject?
29-November-2006: I have added a top paragraph to provide context for the technical terms:
The wording could be adjusted to help cope with the nebulous nature of the terms being explained. Note that a "missing link" could be a common ancestor-node or an intermediate-node as the "father" in a grandfather/father/son species chain. Also, nomenclature for nodes in a hierarchy is likely to confuse some readers, regardless of context. - Wikid77 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There are no transitional fossils because macroevolution didn't happen. Even a staunch evolutionist admitted the following:
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831
I also cite:
"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England. E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.191.56 ( talk) 00:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
Is Ken's quote vastly out of context or a fabrication? Also, while I assume you are using hyperbole, I don't think there are quite "billions" of transitional fossils, but still a decent amount. Also, the claim that there are no transitional fossils is false, considering the list of transitional fossils on Wikipedia.
I'm not sure where to look for this, but I was wondering where I can find information on transitional organisms that exist today. (anon.)
What I meant was why do we not see organisms that are part between reptiles and mammals for example? I know that there are organisms that have attributes of various taxonomical categories (e.g. platypus), but it seems like there aren't many.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edawgrules ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 31 May 2007
The article has the feel of, "Most people think there are missing links and this presents a problem for the theory of evolution, well, we, the minority with superior views see that popular opinion is incorrect and evolution is a foregone conclusion."
Wikipedia's job is not to impose the beliefs of a minority onto the rest of the internet.
If Darwin was able to admit that the lack of transitional species were an obstacle to the accepting of his theory he is FAR more honest than the neo-darwinians of today who smugly assert, "Evolution was proved centuries ago and now it is simply a matter of overcoming misconceptions."-- The burning bush 19:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The missing link is supposedly an extinct creature halfway between apes and humans on the evolutionary chart. It's not missing, or if it is, modern scientists aren't looking for it. Darwin NEVER said that humans evolved from apes - he said that they both evolved from a common ancestor - an extinct apelike creature. I don't know if this has been covered, but if it has, oops. Anyways, just trying to point out a common myth popular with creationists.
<undent>what I am not seeing here that would be educational is 1. approximately how many transitional fossils were found of each type. Now are there thousands of for instance Tiktaalik fossils, or one or five. How many are there really that have been discovered. And for each fossil some people might think that the whole skeleton was discovered when it was just a jawbone. And can it be emphasized that the pictures are just artists guesses at what the creatures would look like. And where are the transitional fossils for insects, plants, bats and many other creatures. Why are there just articles on the one that are there? Imbrella 20:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
No it should be stated that there are from what I can see here few transtionatl fossils and they are interpreted from a few parts. Why are you afraid of people knowing that? The whole truth not just part of the truth should be told. It is deception and cloaking. I think the public should be know that those are artists drawings and that we do not have full skeletons and that much is inferred from a tooth. Why would you want to hide that info? And there should be a statistically significant amoutn of trans fossils. All other sciences require stat sig samples except Darwinism. No other science would base its claims on insufficient sampling. Imbrella 23:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
There should be a quantitative test for the validity of transitional fossils but of course there is not because it would show that there are not enough coming out of the fossil record. Really, you are against quantitative analysis? So are astrologers. And psychics.
From wiki:
Quantitative research is the systematic scientific investigation of properties and phenomena and their relationships. Quantitative research is widely used in both the natural sciences and social sciences, from physics and biology to sociology and journalism. It is also used as a way to research different aspects of education.
The objective of quantitative research is to develop and employ mathematical models, theories and hypotheses pertaining to natural phenomena. The process of measurement is central to quantitative research because it provides the fundamental connection between empirical observation and mathematical expression of quantitative relationships.
and
pseudoscience from wiki:
Failure to make use of operational definitions. (i.e. a scientific description of the operational means in which a range of numeric measurements can be obtained).[24]
Where are the operantional definitions of transitional fossils that numeric measurements can be applied to? They do not exist. Sorry this is philosophy not science. And Popper said the same and he only recanted his 'natural selection' statement. A little truth would not hurt around here. Imbrella 16:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You claim there are transitionals then say there is no way to make an operational definition of one. Dumb. We can operataional classify reptile vs mammal by how many jaw bones. And ear bones. And types of teeth. I have seen this done in a graph. They give points for various characteristics and determine whether it is reptile or mammal. You never saw that?? They devise a weighted scale. You really should look into this before you open up your mouth again and look imbecilic. Imbrella 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
In particular, mammals are distinguished from reptiles by a number of skeletal traits. Reptiles have a much larger number of individual bones in their skulls than do mammals. In reptiles, the teeth are all of the same shape, and although they vary slightly in size, they all have the same simple cone-shaped form. Mammals, however, possess a number of different types of teeth in their jaws, from the flat, multi-cusped molar teeth to the sharp cone-shaped canines. In reptiles, the lower jaw is made up of a number of different bones, and the jaw joint is formed between the quadrate bone in the skull and the angular bone in the jaw. In mammals, by contrast, the lower jaw is made up of a single bone, the dentary, which articulates with the squamosal bone in the skull to form the jaw joint. Reptiles also have a single bone in the middle ear, the stapes. In mammals, there are three bones in the middle ear, the malleus, incus and stapes (also known as the hammer, anvil and stirrup). At the top of the skull, reptiles have a small hole through which the pineal body, or "third eye", extends--this is absent in mammals. Finally, the reptilian skull is attached to the spine by a single point of contact, the occipital condyle. In mammals, the occipital condyle is double-faced.
There would have to some percentage of fossils that must be transitional in comparison to all the others. You cannot have it both ways. First you say that Darwinism is proven by the presence of transitional fossils but then say we cannot quantitize that. If you cannot quantize you do not have science. This is double talk. You must make a stand and say we need say 1% of fossils to be transitional. See this is why Darwinism is not falsifiabe. You cannot predict. Imbrella 23:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I insert in the article that there is no evidence of transitional fossils for insects and very, very few transitional fossils of any kind. You will not allow me to do that would you even though TO says that. Imbrella 00:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
TO is not a reliable source? What we were arguing is that you said we should limit the info in the article and not tell anyone that the drawings are artists guesses and that the skeletons are inferred from partial jawbones etc. The cites are there. You just do not want people to know the whole truth. Imbrella 00:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that. From my reading there are extremely few complete mammal fossils let alone transitionals. Billions? Please give me a cite. We would not to deceive people. Imbrella 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I checked it out. No mention of how many fossils were found. And it was a website. I do not think websites should be used as sources. Why not creationist websites then? What is the criteria? Imbrella 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"To put these discoveries in perspective," Dr. Novacek said of the new site, "consider that the total accumulation of Cretaceous mammal skulls collected over 70 years all over the Gobi amounts to probably something less than 100 skulls. It is extraordinary to consider a 10-day haul in one square mile of nearly 150 skulls."
Thats not millions or billions like one editor said. And this was a good dig. Imbrella 22:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
Second call: "Please stop trying to saddle... etc." It is really tiresome when persons that are so stuffed up with their preconceived notions start adding comments that are completely unnecessary if the only took the time to read the text properly. The theory of Punq.eq. has nothing to do with transitional fossils between major groups of organisms. It pertains to minor transitions between closely related species as can be traced in a single geological outcrop. The theory explains the observed sudden jumps. This is a fact, and is the best and most neutral description of the subject. A subject that deserves to be treated in its own article and not this one, with which it is often confused. Fedor 19:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How can you tell punctuated equilibrium from limited sampling fossilization provides us? -- BerserkerBen 00:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The current opening statement reveals the basic misunderstanding, on which all this is based:
It will take a biologist to recast this antiquated poppycock. -- Wetman 13:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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.
Cut the following:
It appears to be creationist book adv. Surely doesn't belong in intro. Vsmith 12:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Intranetusa ( talk • contribs)
It is disappointing to see the darwinist fundamentalism on this site. The idea of evoloution is not new because many people find it comforting to think that this world is all there is (no day of judgement) and any viewpoint involving a creator is wrong. I spent three years of my life to obtain a PhD, which does involve some expertise in recognising the need to look at different views as part of the scientific method. I feel that rejecting the alternative viewpoint on the premise that it does not conform to the Darwinist fundamental view is not science.
The refence to [1] therefore has a rightful place in this section, unless this site is adopting the former tactics of the european church on the "flat earth" debate.
Fedor, it might be helpful if you described specifically with examples why the article in question is unscientific.
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)
The page starts with "For the similarly named recording label, see Missing Link Records". It does not make sense if one actually did not come from the Missing Link redirect. - Dodo bird 00:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This link (#1) reports on a new transitional form. It might be included in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
The following was added to the 'misconceptions' section on 20 April by an anonymous user. I can't make head or tail of it. Maybe there's a important point in there somewhere that somebody smarter than me can draw out of it... The Singing Badger 23:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Can the following personal essay be rendered in an acceptably encyclopedic manner, as a report on what has been said on this subject? -- Wetman 20:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Removed personal essay again. It qualifies as original research (not sourced) and POV pushing. The anon has been warned of WP:3RR. Vsmith 16:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This article has failed the good article criteria, In respects to the following:
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed); (b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias; (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.46.62 ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 17 September 2006
Can the following personal essay be rendered in an acceptably encyclopedic manner, as a report on what has been said on this subject?
29-November-2006: I have added a top paragraph to provide context for the technical terms:
The wording could be adjusted to help cope with the nebulous nature of the terms being explained. Note that a "missing link" could be a common ancestor-node or an intermediate-node as the "father" in a grandfather/father/son species chain. Also, nomenclature for nodes in a hierarchy is likely to confuse some readers, regardless of context. - Wikid77 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There are no transitional fossils because macroevolution didn't happen. Even a staunch evolutionist admitted the following:
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831
I also cite:
"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England. E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.191.56 ( talk) 00:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
Is Ken's quote vastly out of context or a fabrication? Also, while I assume you are using hyperbole, I don't think there are quite "billions" of transitional fossils, but still a decent amount. Also, the claim that there are no transitional fossils is false, considering the list of transitional fossils on Wikipedia.
I'm not sure where to look for this, but I was wondering where I can find information on transitional organisms that exist today. (anon.)
What I meant was why do we not see organisms that are part between reptiles and mammals for example? I know that there are organisms that have attributes of various taxonomical categories (e.g. platypus), but it seems like there aren't many.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edawgrules ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 31 May 2007
The article has the feel of, "Most people think there are missing links and this presents a problem for the theory of evolution, well, we, the minority with superior views see that popular opinion is incorrect and evolution is a foregone conclusion."
Wikipedia's job is not to impose the beliefs of a minority onto the rest of the internet.
If Darwin was able to admit that the lack of transitional species were an obstacle to the accepting of his theory he is FAR more honest than the neo-darwinians of today who smugly assert, "Evolution was proved centuries ago and now it is simply a matter of overcoming misconceptions."-- The burning bush 19:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The missing link is supposedly an extinct creature halfway between apes and humans on the evolutionary chart. It's not missing, or if it is, modern scientists aren't looking for it. Darwin NEVER said that humans evolved from apes - he said that they both evolved from a common ancestor - an extinct apelike creature. I don't know if this has been covered, but if it has, oops. Anyways, just trying to point out a common myth popular with creationists.
<undent>what I am not seeing here that would be educational is 1. approximately how many transitional fossils were found of each type. Now are there thousands of for instance Tiktaalik fossils, or one or five. How many are there really that have been discovered. And for each fossil some people might think that the whole skeleton was discovered when it was just a jawbone. And can it be emphasized that the pictures are just artists guesses at what the creatures would look like. And where are the transitional fossils for insects, plants, bats and many other creatures. Why are there just articles on the one that are there? Imbrella 20:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
No it should be stated that there are from what I can see here few transtionatl fossils and they are interpreted from a few parts. Why are you afraid of people knowing that? The whole truth not just part of the truth should be told. It is deception and cloaking. I think the public should be know that those are artists drawings and that we do not have full skeletons and that much is inferred from a tooth. Why would you want to hide that info? And there should be a statistically significant amoutn of trans fossils. All other sciences require stat sig samples except Darwinism. No other science would base its claims on insufficient sampling. Imbrella 23:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
There should be a quantitative test for the validity of transitional fossils but of course there is not because it would show that there are not enough coming out of the fossil record. Really, you are against quantitative analysis? So are astrologers. And psychics.
From wiki:
Quantitative research is the systematic scientific investigation of properties and phenomena and their relationships. Quantitative research is widely used in both the natural sciences and social sciences, from physics and biology to sociology and journalism. It is also used as a way to research different aspects of education.
The objective of quantitative research is to develop and employ mathematical models, theories and hypotheses pertaining to natural phenomena. The process of measurement is central to quantitative research because it provides the fundamental connection between empirical observation and mathematical expression of quantitative relationships.
and
pseudoscience from wiki:
Failure to make use of operational definitions. (i.e. a scientific description of the operational means in which a range of numeric measurements can be obtained).[24]
Where are the operantional definitions of transitional fossils that numeric measurements can be applied to? They do not exist. Sorry this is philosophy not science. And Popper said the same and he only recanted his 'natural selection' statement. A little truth would not hurt around here. Imbrella 16:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You claim there are transitionals then say there is no way to make an operational definition of one. Dumb. We can operataional classify reptile vs mammal by how many jaw bones. And ear bones. And types of teeth. I have seen this done in a graph. They give points for various characteristics and determine whether it is reptile or mammal. You never saw that?? They devise a weighted scale. You really should look into this before you open up your mouth again and look imbecilic. Imbrella 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
In particular, mammals are distinguished from reptiles by a number of skeletal traits. Reptiles have a much larger number of individual bones in their skulls than do mammals. In reptiles, the teeth are all of the same shape, and although they vary slightly in size, they all have the same simple cone-shaped form. Mammals, however, possess a number of different types of teeth in their jaws, from the flat, multi-cusped molar teeth to the sharp cone-shaped canines. In reptiles, the lower jaw is made up of a number of different bones, and the jaw joint is formed between the quadrate bone in the skull and the angular bone in the jaw. In mammals, by contrast, the lower jaw is made up of a single bone, the dentary, which articulates with the squamosal bone in the skull to form the jaw joint. Reptiles also have a single bone in the middle ear, the stapes. In mammals, there are three bones in the middle ear, the malleus, incus and stapes (also known as the hammer, anvil and stirrup). At the top of the skull, reptiles have a small hole through which the pineal body, or "third eye", extends--this is absent in mammals. Finally, the reptilian skull is attached to the spine by a single point of contact, the occipital condyle. In mammals, the occipital condyle is double-faced.
There would have to some percentage of fossils that must be transitional in comparison to all the others. You cannot have it both ways. First you say that Darwinism is proven by the presence of transitional fossils but then say we cannot quantitize that. If you cannot quantize you do not have science. This is double talk. You must make a stand and say we need say 1% of fossils to be transitional. See this is why Darwinism is not falsifiabe. You cannot predict. Imbrella 23:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I insert in the article that there is no evidence of transitional fossils for insects and very, very few transitional fossils of any kind. You will not allow me to do that would you even though TO says that. Imbrella 00:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
TO is not a reliable source? What we were arguing is that you said we should limit the info in the article and not tell anyone that the drawings are artists guesses and that the skeletons are inferred from partial jawbones etc. The cites are there. You just do not want people to know the whole truth. Imbrella 00:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that. From my reading there are extremely few complete mammal fossils let alone transitionals. Billions? Please give me a cite. We would not to deceive people. Imbrella 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I checked it out. No mention of how many fossils were found. And it was a website. I do not think websites should be used as sources. Why not creationist websites then? What is the criteria? Imbrella 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"To put these discoveries in perspective," Dr. Novacek said of the new site, "consider that the total accumulation of Cretaceous mammal skulls collected over 70 years all over the Gobi amounts to probably something less than 100 skulls. It is extraordinary to consider a 10-day haul in one square mile of nearly 150 skulls."
Thats not millions or billions like one editor said. And this was a good dig. Imbrella 22:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)