2 years, 4 months ago
what are the general problem of transitional species?
Separate topics with commas, or by pressing return. Use the delete or backspace key to edit or remove existing topics.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$1 Answer
I could definitely see the logic of an argument presented by molecular biologist Zachary Moore on his "Evolution 101" blog. He sees "transitional species" as not really existing as a valid categorization because all species are constantly evolving and therefore ALL are in constant transition.
A quote from his blog (see link to full article below): "I also want to point out again that the concept of a species being “transitional” is only relative to the species that existed before and after it. And the concept of “species” is a classification that is made by humans strictly for organizational purposes. So a “transitional species” is a contextual classification, nothing more. This is what I meant when I said that there’s really no such thing as a transitional species. But since, given evolutionary theory, all species are in the process of evolutionary change (assuming they don’t become extinct), all species are themselves giving rise to new species eventually, and thus we can say equally that all species are “transitional.”
Moore also poses the idea that no clear cut and universally agreed upon definition of "species" exists, and therefore a designation of "transitional species" is also suspect.
And then there's the more obvious argument many would have against the idea ... from a staunch Creationist's perspective, "transitional species" would not exist because he/she does not believe in the theory of Evolution. :-)
A quote from his blog (see link to full article below): "I also want to point out again that the concept of a species being “transitional” is only relative to the species that existed before and after it. And the concept of “species” is a classification that is made by humans strictly for organizational purposes. So a “transitional species” is a contextual classification, nothing more. This is what I meant when I said that there’s really no such thing as a transitional species. But since, given evolutionary theory, all species are in the process of evolutionary change (assuming they don’t become extinct), all species are themselves giving rise to new species eventually, and thus we can say equally that all species are “transitional.”
Moore also poses the idea that no clear cut and universally agreed upon definition of "species" exists, and therefore a designation of "transitional species" is also suspect.
And then there's the more obvious argument many would have against the idea ... from a staunch Creationist's perspective, "transitional species" would not exist because he/she does not believe in the theory of Evolution. :-)
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$Report Abuse
