Is it correct to say that *all* fossils are transitional fossils . . .?

Question

Since each offspring is maginally different than it's parents?
Evolution happens in slow change after all doesn't it?

If croc's environment changed to where a new trait would enhance their survival then yes, they would evolve and the current crocs would be transitional.

Actually I don't think any individual animal can really be considered in transition. I mean, it's not incomplete or anything in the enviroment it has found itself in. I mean on an evolutionary scale transition happens in very small increments--sometimes not even large enough to show a difference in the fossil (unless you have hundreds of samples of the same hereditary line to compare to one another--but I don't think that's likely to happen)

Billy:
Thanks :)
I don't think humans would progressively become hairer though cause we already have the gene for fur. It's just inactive in most people. But the people that it was active in (like one family in I think Mexico) could be more likely to survive :)

Thanks secretsauce (I think that's the right name lol)
I did get the idea from reading Dawkins :)

Answer 1

Yes and no. (Great question!)

On the one hand, the notion of a 'transitional species' is as artificial as the notion of a 'species' to begin with. It is a human construct that helps us interpret nature ... but nature itself doesn't "work" in terms of species or transitions between them. (This, BTW, is why the distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is such crap ... these are not separate processes ... macroevolution is just microevolution on a longer scale.) So in one sense, I find the notion of 'transitional fossils' a potentially misleading idea, as it encourages the false idea that a species is a "destination" of sorts ... and that is such a wrong way of thinking about nature and evolution. Evolution does not "stop" at each species, like a train pulling into a station. It is in a *constant* state of change and transition.

On the other hand, you are correct that every organism that has ever lived is a snapshot of evolution .... like a single frame of a movie ... and can thus be considered 'transitional' in some sense. Evolution is *always* occurring! Sometimes it occurs very fast, and one or many new species can branch off in a "short" amount of time (relative to geological time). And sometimes evolution is exceedingly slow, and some or many species will remain exceedingly stable for hundreds of millions of years.

But you are right ... nature is teeming with variation ... the raw materials for evolution. No offspring is *exactly* like its parents.

So every fossil, and every organism that is alive or has ever lived, is *potentially* a transition to some daughter species that hasn't occurred yet, or has occurred but went extinct so quickly that it didn't get a chance to leave any fossilized remains to tell us it was here.

Answer 2

Actually no, not entirely.
Look up theories and models of evolution--you seem to have heard only of the theory of gradualism. Try looking up the definition of punctuated equilibrium on Wiki. Basically it states the evolution occurs in rapid short intervals between long periods of sustained status quo until something upsets the balance. In PE theory, transitional fossils would be the ones occurring during times of rapid change between those periods of equilibrium.

Answer 3

Sounds pretty acurate.

If the earth got cold and there was no clothes. Those with more hair would be more likely to survive and reproduce as opposed to those without. Hair becomes a survival trait and Humans progressively become hairier.

Answer 4

In a sense I think you are right, but what about those animals that have scarcely evolved over the last several million years? Like crocodiles. It is a stretch to say they are in transition.

Answer 5

Well, first of all, I hope you don't actually believe in evolution. It's gay. And second no it can't