Re: Cambrian Explosion

Chris Cogan (ccogan@sfo.com)
Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:37:01 -0700

> mortongr@flash.net wrote:
>
> >But you know? The big complaint from the anti-evolutionists is that a
> >feather can't be useful if it is half evolved. Yet when one shows and
> >example of a half-evolved feather that is very useful, you say that
because
> >it is useful it isn't half evolved. Which way do we want to play this
today?
>
> I don't want to play the old game of forcing all the known animals into a
> simple-to-complex evolutionary series, where we assume that the horizontal
> classificatory arrangement can be rotated to form the vertical
evolutionary
> sequence.
>
> Let's get clear on what we don't know. How do you back up the claim that
> a given structure is a transitional form?

Chris
Are there any forms that AREN'T transitional forms? If the environment is
putting enough "pressure" on a species, then whatever forms it ALREADY uses
to deal with that pressure becomes transitional, because it is along the
path to the new forms or at least modified forms that will take their
places. Forms only become non-transitional temporarily, or as long as there
is no strong evolutionary pressure to change them. Once a bird develops
wings that suit it to it's habits and environment, they may stabilize for a
WHILE. But, as soon as the environment demands it, the wings will start to
change. They could be bred away entirely, if pressures were strong enough
for a long enough time (suppose the bird is forced to live in an environment
that prevents flight altogether, but greatly rewards progressive dexterity
from those same wings; they WILL become some kind of hand-like appendage;
the genes will learn new tricks, given enough time).

So: What forms are NOT transitional forms, in principle? And WHY do you say
they are not transitional? What makes one form transitional and another not?
Is it not transitional if we just don't know where it's "going"? Or what?