[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Transitional Fossils



> In cladistic methodology, NO fossils represent "transitional" organisms.
> Every specimen of every species, theoretically, is located at a leaf node,
> not a branch node, of a cladogram, and the transitional forms are relegated
> to the realm of hypothesis. How odd, therefore, that you still believe not
> only that transitional forms existed, but that ALL fossils represent
> transitional forms. (Unless you already know, somewhere deep down, that
> cladistic methodology is fundamentally flawed.)

     I don't really understand that argument.  Species that don't evolve 
into other species go extinct.  I don't think there are any other 
possible alternatives for a species's fate.  Even if a species is 
fantastically successful and survives for a long time, it goes out 
eventually.  I think that saying all species represent leaf nodes is implying 
that new species evolve from nothing.  What do you mean by saying that 
transitional froms are strictly hypothetical?  Do you mean that the ancestors 
of a organism did not belong to a species itself?   Are you saying that not 
one single species from the fossil record could have ever given rise to another 
species?  

LN Jeff