Wouldn't all species be 'transitional' species?

Question

I'm just saying...one person used the old "no transitional fossils have been found" line. First of all many have been found that are seemingly between two known species, and on top of that wouldn't every one of them be transitional since evolution does not stop.

Answersingenesis.com does not provide very good answers.

Answer 1

yes, and if you really want a good answer, backed by scientific evidence, you should buy yourself a modern college biology book.
we have made a huge leap scientifically with the discvery of how genes affect evolution. did you know that cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, brussels sprouts and kolrhabi all evolved from the same humble little species of mustard plant? human intervention over a thousand years has brought out these differing characteristics through selective breeding. it makes sense when you think about the difference between a poodle and a rottweiler and a wolf.
there are two theories about how life evolves. one is the catastrophism theory, it postulates that at times in our earths past, we have wittnessed, through the fossil record, great rises and dips in the number of species inhabiting earth at one time. necessity is the mother of invention, and when your competition can't keep up it is run over and lost, leaving a gap that needs to be filled.
the other theory is gradualism, which states more that lifeforms diversify based on variables such as isolation, and population size, and that this diversification is very slow, and totally impossible to see in our lifetimes. keep in mind that our earth is about four and a half billion years old, and the first forms of unicellular archaea were buried 3.5 billion years ago, giving us a fair bit of time to work with.

Answer 2

Certainly. Some of those transitional species have been very successful. Australopithicus was around for a few million years. It's not like a species is evolving with a goal - just sometimes something makes it tweak in a certain direction.

Answer 3

come on. a main, structural, foundation of evolution is transition. When transitional forms are not present, why would they all die out? We are left with the result of the transition, from the single cell to the most complex organism. But, all the shades in between are gone and proof of them is sketchy...as in rare. There should be a lot more representation of the transition.

Answer 4

I have always said this, evolution is not a static process, everything is always evolving constantly, the concept of species is just something made up by man so that we can quantify groups of related organisms.

Answer 5

Yes. Excellent point.

The notion that "species" refers to some kind of natural categories delineated by some essential nature is a big part of what makes creationists so unable to understand evolution. It underlies their susceptibility to the "microevolution/macroevolution" stuff as well as their certainty that it is impossible for "one kind" of animal to give birth to "another kind" of animal.

Oh, and yes, "answersingenesis" is a lousy source, because that organization is simply a collection of professional liars whose job is to produce propaganda.

Answer 6

Pretty much, depending on environmental pressures but mankind is now the most influential environmental pressure with his destruction of animal habitats. The natural world is in a continual state of change.

Answer 7

In a sense I suppose that's true. Evolution is an ongoing process.

Answer 8

The only thing that makes one species non-transitory is because some naturalist categorized them as such.

Answer 9

Only if you believe in evolution.

Answer 10

Of course.