Talk:Transitional fossil/Archive 4

The contents can be moved to other sections of the article. The reason is that this is an article dealing with a scientific topic, and it should therefore not spend time discussing arguments against that scientific topic. Many of the creationist arguments are also redundant and can be merged to other sections. Below are my specific suggestions, and I would like input by other editors before moving forward.

*'There are no transitional fossils.' This is a claim made by groups such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research.^[1][2][3][4] Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature^[3] but are also explained as a tactic employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory and has been called a "favorite lie" of creationists.^[5] Some creationists dispute the lack of transitional forms.^[6]

This paragraph can be removed entirely. In its place we expand the sections discussing examples of transitional fossils.

*'No fossils are found with partially functional features.'^[7] Vestigial organs are common in whales (legs),^[8] flightless birds (wings), snakes (pelvis and lung), and numerous structures in humans (the coccyx, plica semilunaris, and appendix).

Not sure about this paragraph. Discussing vestigal organs could be incorporated somewhere else.

*Henry M. Morris and other creationists have claimed that evolution predicts a continuous gradation in the fossil record, and have misrepresented the expected partial record as having "systematic gaps". Due to the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries and each represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms.^[3]

The contents of this section are already discussed in the Limitations of the fossil record section and is thus redundant. Perhaps some parts can be merged.

*The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge and first presented in 1972^[9] is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between extended periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution. Gould made the following observation of creationist misuse of his work to deny the existence of transitional fossils:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."

— Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb^[10]

Punctuated equilibrium can have its own section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In addition, there already is an article dealing with Objections to evolution. This article is not about that. It is about transitional fossils. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC) And mentioning creationist organizations to begin with seems to violate WP:UNDUE. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I see there is such an article, and instead of a section, it could just be a see also link to that article. Yes, so many creationists and their organizations are mentioned, it reads like a joint press release. I suggest removing the sections, making it a see also, "For non-scientific views see ...." Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The creationists deal with creation by God, not by science and evolution. If the topic is notable within the creationist viewpoint, the creationists can create and article and refer to it from creationist articles. The creationists, by definition, dismiss science, so it's pretty straight-forward to dismiss creationism from science articles. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest a rewrite of the entire section to keep with the spirit of an encyclopedia or else a deletion would be proper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platonic Guardian (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see above. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your quick acceptance of removal is suspect, given that it silences a thorough rebuttal of the most common idiocy creationists always seem to be pushing. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Suspect? Faith cannot be rebutted. Scientific arguments can. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I was replying to Platonic Guardian (note indent).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A rebuttal is about veracity. Faith, by definition, is not about truth, it is about belief systems. Science can be rebutted, but religious faith cannot be rebutted. This does not mean we cannot report accurately on faith on wikipedia. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. My bad. Still, I also readily accepted removal. I don't think that creating platforms for creationists by writing about fossils is encyclopedic. But, that's what creationists see articles about fossils as, platforms for their arguments. I would like the section removed and placed where it belongs, in creationist articles and press releases. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As I've already stated above, I hate the fact that we have to have a section on them even. But it's unavoidable given their prominence. That said, if the sections can be moved elsewhere I would support that, though a link should be left from here, possibly in the See also section.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, despite my misgivings. Creationism is here because creationists, for all their ignorance of actual science, are loud deceitful bastards. The article is fine as it is.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I had some support so I moved ahead and removed the section. The section conforms to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, however the main focus of the article is transitional fossils. There are several articles on creationism, objections to evolution and so forth. Those are the most appropriate place to discuss creationist objections to evolution. Not every article on a topic has to discuss the pseudo-scientific objections to it. Even mentioning them seems to be WP:Undue. Also, some of it was clearly redundant and did not help the reader understand the subject. I merged the following into the Limitations of the fossil record section:

Due to the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries and each represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms.^[3]

I entirely removed the section of Vestigal organs. It could be merged elsewhere:

Vestigial organs are common in whales (legs),^[8] flightless birds (wings), snakes (pelvis and lung), and numerous structures in humans (the coccyx, plica semilunaris, and appendix).

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unneeded I think. Already discussed in far greater detail in Evidence of common descent#Vestigial structures.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Good call removing the "creationist arguments" section which is not significant in science, and is only relevant in articles dealing specifically with the minority views which should of course not be given undue weight. Also agree that vestigial structures belong in another article . . dave souza, talk 19:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good call removing the "creationist arguments" section which is not significant in science - Dave souza

Okay, I've read statements to this effect numerous times throughout this Talk page. This is an intellectually dishonest stance to take. Just because someone is a "Creationist" does not mean they are unable to put forth valid scientific arguments. Plenty of researchers have made advances in the field of sciences throughout history, who also believed in a creationist worldview. Saying "Well, the creationists can't make a scientific argument in THIS case" is equally dishonest.

Just read the comments up above. Many posters on this page are putting forth this extremely bias point of view. There appears to be little hope the article is being handled in any kind of fair or honest manner. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right that being a creationist does not mean they are unable to put forth valid scientific arguments. However, their inability to put forth valid scientific arguments, and their failure to understand the science around evolution in the first place certainly leads many to become creationists. cause and effect aside, as well as their expertise and understanding of other subjects, the point is creationists are horribly ignorant in regards to what evolution is and how it works. It's not a biased viewpoint any more than the "viewpoint" that 2+2=4 is biased against those who might argue that 2+2=22. Its not really a viewpoint at all. It's correct, not just a matter of personal opinion.Farsight001 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"the point is creationists are horribly ignorant in regards to what evolution is and how it works"

That's your opinion. I hardly think you are qualified to judge what millions of people are or are not ignorant of. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Reminder that talk pages are not a forum for discussion of transitional fossils or creationism, but are instead focused on how to improve the page. Unless someone wishes to revive the debate over the removal or insertion of the creationist arguments section, then there is not much point in responding to this section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Harizotoh9, I made what I think is a very clear point about heavy-handed bias used in editing this article, as evident in the language being used in this Talk page. Please review if you didn't understand. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Make specific suggestions for improvement, make a new section, and keep it focused on the article and not the broader issues. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I was making a specific critique on an argument used for the removal of a section of the article, related to this section, but possibly related to others as well. Now please stop cluttering up this area with needless moderation. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You're responding to tangential comments and using it to comment on the topic at large, and not the article. Should the Creationist Arguments section be added back yes or no? That is the only issue to discuss in this section. If you have other issues to discuss about the article, make a new section and keep it focused on specific issues with the article--Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The section contains judgmental language and does not accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Please do not remove the NPOV until the issue is resolved. Check these NPOV demands of wikipedia on the NPOV page:

• Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.
• Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

Platonic Guardian (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a severe case of Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your example of the Holocaust is not the correct comparison you should be using. Instead see how we treat Holocaust denial. Do we act as if Holocaust denial is an equally valid view? No, we do not.

We do not give EQUAL coverage of ideas that are considered pseudoscience. Creationism is a pseudoscience. Deal with it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That is not my example. I just quoted it from the NPOV page of Wikipedia. (See NPOV). It seems that you have not read the Wikipedia rules. Platonic Guardian (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We read and understand them just fine. You, however, seem to be having a lot of trouble. Go back, read it again, very very carefully. If you still can't see the problem with your actions, then read it again - and keep reading it until it gets through to your brain.Farsight001 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) From the wrong section since you still refused to read the pages pointed out. What, pray tell, gives you the idea that creationism is on equal footing with evolution? That section is specifically headed "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". Creationism is pseudoscience, as defined in WP:FRINGE/PS and dealt in WP:UNDUE, which, I might add is further down WP:NPOV. Don't lecture me on policies when your own talk page is littered with violations of it. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of Creationism in this article at least gives the notion that it is very important to the issue of "Transitional Fossil" and so much on an equal footing that it needs a scientific rebuttal, though I suggest the language be improved to provide a neutral view on both the views on Transitional Fossil. Platonic Guardian (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I quote from WP:FRINGE: Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. and from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as "fact."-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I merged as much of the section as I could into the rest of the article and removed the rest. See the above section for details. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this and I think this is the best resolution. The Creationist argument about this really only needs if anything a very minor mention here, there are more appropriate articles for such a discussion. I'll also note that Platonic Guardian probably needs to read WP:NPOV again (I presume xe read it before adding a pov tag). Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the discussion on this talk page since 2009 has been about the "Misconceptions"/"Creationist arguments" sections. Hopefully now we can focus more on improving the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I considder this an extremely bad solution. Just the fact that this section is debated again and again indicates that this is a relevant topic, and one that should be clearly laid out and discussed. I do not care if it draws the ire of the ID/creationist crowd, Wikipedias mission is to inform, not to conform. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I laid out the specifics of my reasoning in the "Removing "Creationist arguments" section above. The main argument was that "...the main focus of the article is transitional fossils. There are several articles on creationism, objections to evolution and so forth. Those are the most appropriate place to discuss creationist objections to evolution. Not every article on a topic has to discuss the pseudo-scientific objections to it. Even mentioning them seems to be WP:Undue. Also, some of it was clearly redundant and did not help the reader understand the subject."--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And my argument is that the controversy it created shows it is needed. Let's face it, creationism is a major viewpoint in the US, and transitional fossils is smack bang in the middle of the front-lines. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not the article that should be discussing it. Also, the best way to make the point that to the public that there are many transitional fossils is to expand the Examples section. This is exactly what I have done. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Harizotoh9 that this is not the article that should be discussing it. But, it seems that the inclusion had been there because of a carry over from a discussion of "Missing Links", a page that redirects to here as "Transitional Fossil" is a term that is now generally preferred by evolutionists. But in all, the structure of the section was out of place with the article. The article looks better with that section removed.Platonic Guardian (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I just read above that someone said that creationism is not equal to evolutionary theory. But, don't the number of people in the world who believe in some kind of deistic creation theory outnumber those who believe in Darwinian evolution? If so, doesn't it make sense to include a small section explaining how creationists criticize transitional species concept? Cla68 (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum. The number of people who believed that the Earth was flat was virtually everyone until very recently, does that mean I can stand on its edge and look down if I sail far enough into the horizon? In a courtroom, do they just count how many people believe that the suspect is guilty and sentence him without examining the evidence? Just because you believe it is so, doesn't make it so. We rely on the most objective method of gathering information. And that is based on objective observations and repeatable experimentation - science - not by the number of people who believe it. The fact that most of humanity still believe in magical explanations in the face of incontrovertible physical evidence only proves that most humans are stupid. Read WP:NPOV again.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Then an article about the number of people who hold these beliefs can be written. This is an article about the fossils, not the belief system. Pseudofusulina (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an article on the Level of support for evolution. This article is about transitional fossils and the science. So that's all it should deal with. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Since transitional fossils are the focus point of much of the creationist debate, I think it is wrong not mentioning it. I do not advocate giving creationism/ID any kind of credibility, but I think the many outright lies told about transitional fossils by certain creationists groups belong in this article. If not, where does it belong? As for improving the article with examples, there's a list of transitional fossils where one can find neat examples. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Objections to evolution would be where to go. Also by simply presenting the positive evidence, you do a great job of responding to creationist arguments. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Harizotoh9, is it our mission here to respond to creationist arguments? Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in a way. Not exactly "respond", but like in all fringe theories, creationism must be carefully given due weight, especially whenever it is mentioned alongside mainstream science. Like Petter says, it can not be given credibility, because it has none. It should never be made to appear as if it was factual because it isn't. I don't know if you're just playing devil's advocate or if you're willingly ignoring all the links and arguments that preceded this. This was made clear early on and in other discussions you were involved in with similar topics. Neutrality means also judging the reliability of the sources of your sources.

And yeah, Harizotoh9, I thought you were at least moving the section and retaining a brief summary here?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish to improve the article so that it eventually gets to GA and then FA status. I have a few questions/suggestions below.

I removed the series of hominid images on the right from the article. They weren't that useful for this article, and they take up a lot of space. Could these images be of use to another article?

1850
1900
1950
2002
These diagrams plot the set of Hominine species known to science as of a given year. Each species is plotted as a box showing the range of cranial capacities for specimens of that species, and the range of dates at which specimens appear in the fossil record. The sequence of diagrams shows how an apparent "missing link" or gap between species in the fossil record may become filled as more fossil discoveries are made.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ithought you removed pictures, but you are right removing these. Pictures would be nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.115.61 (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I ran the dashes script, but the only things it wanted to change were hyphens in the title field of {{cite web}}. As this is the subect of discussion at User talk:GregU/dashes.js#Work titles, I didn't go ahead with the change for now.
• "Evolutionary taxonomy and cladistics": "basal" is a strange adjective to apply to textbooks. Are we talking of older textbooks, elementary textbooks, ...?
• "Evolutionary taxonomy and cladistics": the last sentence of this section is puzzling. I cannot relate it to the definition of crown group given in the crown group article. The crown group of two species contains their common ancestor and all its descendents, so it must contain anything transitional between these species. What am I missing?

More later. --Stfg (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence excludes a crown group by default. It's not talking about the transition between the two species within a crown group (in your example), but the transition between those two species and their common ancestor and its descendants (the crown group) and everyone else (including other crown groups). Also note that "crown group" is not a restrictive definition. It depends entirely on what you are comparing it to. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take some time to get my mind round that. May have to ask for more ;) --Stfg (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have rewritten the whole section (which wasn't too clear to begin with), the offending sentence is gone. Sorry about striking your bulletpoint, haven't been through this process before. Petter Bøckman (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I'm not upset. The re-write has helped, at least in that it clarifies what was troubling me. Part of the problem is the reference to living descendents. An extinct clade can have branches -- can't it? -- and therefore transitional organisms, even though the clade has no living members. Or am I missing something? This was also part of my problem with referring to crown groups, which, after all, must have extant members (at least under the definition in the crown group article, and also in Valentine's Origin of Phyla).

Another difficulty was the use of the expression "more derived", which is just a bit too open to interpretation. But you've removed that; good.

Yet another difficulty may be just one of terminology. Hoping not to be guilty of semantic argument, the term "transitional" does rather imply a transition :)) i.e. a progression from something to something else. If not from an ancestor to a descendent, then what? I'm led to fear that what may appear to be a transitional fossil because of shared traits, could in fact be nothing more than something that arose in a bit of parallel evolution, not involving any transition at all. Have we actually got a clear explanation of why Ambulocetus is not an example of this?

As an aside, the Fish article says they are paraphyletic. I've never heard them called a clade before. Hence the tag. --Stfg (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are spot on! The real problem here is that (as you noted) the term "transitional" is a concept tied to the traditional classification, where one group gives rise to the next one. In cladistics nothing can really be transitional except in an ecological sense (an animal in the process of adapting from one niche to another). Your Ambulocetus question is a good example. It is transitional because it is connected to where whales bud off from artiodactylans. Had it been just a case of parallel evolution, it would not have been close to the ancestry of whales, and thus not transitional to something. It would be transitional in an ecological senses (between terrestrial and aquatic mode of living), but that's not hos the expression is used. Thus, if we put this article in an cladistic frame of reference, it really breaks down to nothing much.

The "living" descendents should really be "previously known" descendents. A transitional fossil is really always between two known groups, whether the daughter group is extinct or not.

"Fish" is not meant to be a clade, it is very much a grade. Otherwise, tetrapods couldn't have evolved from it. Dinosaurs too, when used in connection with Archaeopteryx must be understood as a grade. Otherwise, birds are just another group of dinosaurs and Aunty Archy isn't transitional between anything (except between terrestrial and volant modes of living). If we treat fish traditionally, it's all vertebrates except tetrapods. If we treat it cladistically it's all vertebrates. That is except if you claim that tetrapods aren't really fish, in which case there's no such thing as a fish. Your head spinning yet? Mine surely is. If you want a unit that is referenceable to (more or less) current literature, you could use bony fishes (another grade), but you won't really win anything in terms of clarity.

The problem you are facing is that the scientific community is in the middle of an upheaval when it comes to systematics. Scientists find transitional fossils important because they feel the shift between the traditional classes are more important than shifts within these units. While cladistics dictate how we work, it hasn't really penetrated into how we speak or feel, at least not yet. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking the trouble to write all that. I really appreciate it. My head isn't really spinning, actually. We both know that both evolutionary taxonomy and cladistics are abstractions and simplifications of a much more complex reality. The only thing I would take issue with is the "if you claim that tetrapods aren't really fish, in which case there's no such thing as a fish". Surely, all one need say is that there's no such clade as fish. Is there really a problem with everyday words expressing paraphyletic concepts? Anyway, I've struck the comment now. Best, --Stfg (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We're riding three horses here, trying to make the text palatable to cladisticians (is there such a term?), traditional taxonomists and the non-expert reader. You're doing a great job there! The same clade/grade problem is found in the Thrinaxodon section. If Cynodonts are a clade, it's impossible to describe them except in the vaguest terms (because your description also will have to cater for whales, rodents and us). On the other hand, it is possible to say "Thronaxodon is a cynodont close to the ancestry of mammals" without upsetting hard-core phylogenetic nomenclaturists.

Yes, I think it's okay for now. With more peer review, expert peer review (how do we get that) and more people in general giving input we can improve it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the "living sescendants" section slighly and added the cladistic names conversion for naming basal groups. My English is a bit cluncky though, you should have a look at it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice. Are you happy with the slight change I've suggested? --Stfg (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Comparison with intermediate forms": I note this section lacks citations and feels OR-ish or essay-like (all those instances of "can be"). The first paragraph has an appended HTML comment saying "is this distinction made in the professional literature?", and the last has one appended saying "giving an example here will clarify this apparent misunderstanding of cladistics". Citations at those points would be good. I have not (yet, anyway) copy edited the last paragraph, as the wording would need to be different depending on whether it is science, opinion or misconception, and I don't know that. The earlier parts could do with a second c/e pass too, once this question is resolved. --Stfg (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You can blame that one on me. I tried to make understandable an older version which were really unclear. Feel free to tighten it up (English is not my first language). Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Can you help with citations first, please, as I don't know the standing of these concepts in the scientific community, and it affects how I would edit it. No big rush, as I plan to do one pass of c/e asking questions and a second pass, if needed, reflecting the answers. --Stfg (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, as I said I only cleaned it up (somewhat). No source was given in the original text. I'll see if I can find something. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I can't seem to find anything, This may in fact be WP:OR. In my view it is possible to delete the entire section without the article suffering in clarity and scope. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it looks very OR-ish, and the article would stand up fine without it. I favour deletion. --Stfg (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for copy-editing, and for the improvements you've made so far! After the copy-editing is complete, I am going to send this to peer-review. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Archaeopteryx" -- "some more recent studies" would probably require at least two citations (<g>), but it's nice to be specific about the year. The source used says "If this new phylogenetic hypothesis can be confirmed by further investigation ...". I've changed "finding" to "suggesting" to reflect the provisionl nature of that. --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Ambulocetus": the relevance of the pakicetids to this section is unclear, especially as Ambulocetus isn't one. The two paragraphs appear to address unrelated topics, and the jump back to the pakicetids in paragraph 2 is confusing. After reading the whole section, one feels that the transitional nature of Ambulocetus is completely explained by the variable salinity of its drinking water. --Stfg (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

First, thank you again for your hard work.

It's a pleasure to do this work. Of all the articles I've ever picked up from the GOCE requests page, this and Tasmanian devil are the most interesting by a country mile. --Stfg (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I added pakicetids because it needs to be clear why a species is considered "transitional". A reader probably knows what a bird and a dinosaur is, but they may not know what the land ancestors of cetaceans looks like. It's the same reason that I included the paragraph about modern flatfish in the Amphistium section. The sentence about pakicetid hearing in the paragraph about Ambulocetus is most likely an error. I'm incorporating text from several sources, and in this case I must have placed that sentence in the wrong paragraph. I have since moved it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

All clear, thanks. --Stfg (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Missing links": 1851 is the 3rd edition of Elements of Geology. The 1st edition (1838) is available online and doesn't contain the phrase, but I haven't been able to check the 2nd edition. I've mentioned the 3rd edn., but if we're not sure of this, please do remove it.

That's all for today. Back in about 12 hours. --Stfg (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

When should I send this over to peer-review? That is the next step. And thank you again for the improvements you've made to this article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome again :)) It should be possible to initiate peer review some time in the middle of tomorrow. The format of some of the citations needs fixing, which I will do tomorrow morning. I still don't understand the business about the crown group, but perhaps that need not delay the peer review, as it isn't really a copy editing question. What do you want to do about the "Comparison with intermediate forms" section?

By the way, why did you insert those two <br> after the "Cladistics" section? I can't find a problem at any text-size setting, but if there is one, the {{clear}} template may be a better way to solve it, I suspect, since it will do the right job at all text-size settings, whereas <br> can create unwanted whitespace. --Stfg (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a strong dislike for images that displace subheadings. I kind of wish wikipedia forbade images displacing subheadings by default. I had played around with a few things to get around that, and I had forgotten to remove the <br>. The clear thing works just fine, thank you. It's only temporary anyways, as that section will be expanded anyways. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've finished now, but note that I haven't edited the "Comparison with intermediate forms" section, for the reason given above and also because the explanation is a bit strange: the first sentence of the "Transitional" bullet is about similarity to the derived relative, and the second is about morphological similarity to the common ancestor. How is the second saying the first "in other words"?

If you ever wanted to take this to FAC, you'd need to work on consistency of referencing style, including: harvard or not, cite templates or not, retrieved-on date format, ISBN hyphenation or not. But as far as I know these issues don't come up at GAN. --Stfg (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Thrinaxodon": Petter added this section today, so I've copy edited it as well. One difficulty: this article describes cynodonts in the past "The cynodonts were ...", whereas the cynodont article identifies them as a clade that includes mammals. I'll tag it. --Stfg (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this quote from the Therapsid article clarifies:

Mammals, the only living therapsids, evolved in the Early Jurassic period. They radiated from a group of Mammaliaformes that is related to the symmetrodonts. The Mammaliaformes themselves evolved from probainognathians, a lineage of the eucynodont suborder.

I think the situation is reasonably clear. The only issue is whether cynodonts are to be described as including the mammals or as ancestors of them. --Stfg (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The article treat examples differently. The first three give details of phylogeny and stratigraphy. The three last emphasize the anatomical traits that make them "transitional". Which one is more relevant? Thrinaxodon is almost entirely about anatomy. The Ambulocetus section mention only one a single trait (aquatic hearing), Tiktaalik not a single one. I think we should some common elements to each example. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add Thrinaxodon. I'm using this article as a guide to what transitional fossils to add. However the articles I would like to incorporate text from isn't as high quality as some of the other articles. I'm simply cobbling together text from various articles, so right now it's really a "work in progress". Which is why I'm posting it here. Feel free to make edits to it to improve it.

The most major problem sit that it's not clear to the casual reader why it's transitional or in any way special. I need to make that point without it turning into a copy of Evolution of mammals

The quote by Paleontologist is new text that I've included, make sure it is formatted properly. Be sure to check the source

Articles I'm incorporating text from:

• Thrinaxodon
• Evolution of mammals
• Cynodont

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(Feel free to edit the following section to improve it so that it can be good enough to include on the main page)

Thrinaxodon

Main article: Thrinaxodon

See also: Evolution of mammals

The cynodonts were a group of therapsids (often called "mammal-like reptiles," although not actually reptiles) very near to the origin of mammals.^{[contradictory]} While having a lower jaw composed of several bones (mammals only have one), they had distinctly mammal-like dentition, including multi-cusped cheek teeth.^[1] The teeth were, however, replaced continously as in reptiles.^[2] Early cynodonts displayed other reptilian features, such as sprawling hind legs, a sideways-flexible lower back and a hip-bone connection much like that of a crocodile.^{[citation needed]} The front legs, though, were more or less erect, and the feet rather mammal-like. Like most reptiles and monotremes, they laid leathery eggs.

Many early cynodonts, like the Triassic genus Thrinaxodon, show an amalgam of traits typical of transitional fossils.^[3] Thrinaxodon was a genus of small cynodont whose fossils have been found in collapsed burrows, suggesting that it was one of the first cynodonts to burrow, a trait normally associated with mammals.^[4] It also had secondary bony palate and a diaphragm, indicating that it was homeothermic or at least semi-homeothermic. Its small size suggests that it may have had an early form of fur, although no direct evidence of fur in cynodonts is known.^[5]

The middle ear bones consisted solely of the columella (homologous with the stapes in mammals) as in reptiles. The other ossicles had yet to evolve from the jaw joint into the mammalian arrangement, so it probably lacked the acute hearing of mammals. The brain filled the endocranial cavity, and pits on the skull suggest that Thrinaxodon may have had whiskers,^[1] indicating that it had sharp senses typical of nocturnal animals.

If this text is more to your liking, I'll dig up refs for all the anatomical details. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit: We could probably use a better picture too, something like this. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A few things:

• It seems like this is always the case, but we should clarify whether cynodonts are being described as a clade or a grade. Maybe: "From a phylogenetic perspective, Cynodontia includes traditional cynodonts and their mammalian descendants." Smokeybjb (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• ...hip bone connection much like that of a crocodile - What does this mean? I've never heard of this comparison, and these descriptions should probably be more specific.
• ...the front legs were more or less erect... - Shouldn't this say hind legs? Hind limbs seem to have evolved a more erect posture before forelimbs.
• Like most reptiles and monotremes, they laid leathery eggs. - Although it's assumed that cynodonts laid eggs, there's no direct evidence. Maybe we should mention phylogenetic bracketing, although that would be getting a little complex for an article that's mostly a general overview.
• Most papers on cynodonts seem to use "stapes" rather than "columella", so maybe it would be better to simply call it the stapes.

Smokeybjb (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• The cynodont comment is a tricky one, because we are her squarely in the battleground between phylogenetic and traditional classification. A lot of research uses the term for a clade, but tradtionally it is a grade, and is stil in use as such (notably by Benton). Among researchers it is an minority position, but the problem here is that if cynodonts are a clade, then Thrinaxodon isn't a transitional fossil any more, it is just transitional between some cynodonts and some other cynodonts. Only by drawing a line between mammals and their ancestors can something be transitional between the two. Basically, this whole article is about the relationship between grades and their excluded daughter groups. If we move away from this way of looking at the world, this article loose all relevance.
• I'll see about the sprawling bit, I have an article on it somewhere...
• The hip bone comment refer to the sacrum. The cynodont sacrum looks externally much like that of a crocodile.
• I'd stay well away from dragging bracketing in here. Those interested in cyndonts will no doubt read the relevant article where we can reference bracketing.
• Use stapes, it makes for much more clarity! Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't notice that cladistics versus traditional classification is discussed earlier in the article, so I guess it's alright. Thrinaxodon would still be transitional if Cynodontia was a clade, since it still possesses features of reptile-like synapsids ("some cynodonts") and mammals ("some other cynodonts"). Smokeybjb (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The simplest solution is simply not to mention cynodonts at all. Everything that is said about them here can be equally well be attributed to Thrinaxodon. We could just exclaim it as transitional between mammal-like reptiles and mammals, and let it be with that. We could even just say it was a "small cyndondot" (and nothing more), and everyone would be happy. While we're at it, we should drop the "although not actually reptiles", because it 1) depends on chosen classification and 2) doesn't really contribute to the article, particularly as it goes into "reptilian" details of Thrinaxodon anatomy. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree we don't need to mention cynodonts, but I still think it's important to say that "mammal-like reptile" is a misnomer, or at least say that it's transitional between mammals and earlier amniotes, not actual reptiles. Maybe something like "Thrinaxodon had many reptile-like features inherited from early amniotes" would be best. I know we're aiming for clarity and simplicity, but calling Thrinaxodon a mammal-like reptile is inaccurate and outdated. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Again it depends on whose definition of reptiles you are working from. The common interpretation of "reptiles" is all amniotes that are not birds or mammals,^[6] so yes, cyonodnts (trad.) falls on the reptilian side of the divide and can thus be classified as reptiles.^{[7][8][9][10]} The importance of "mammal-like reptiles not being reptiles" is solely a byproduct of a shift of emphasis from Linnaean classification to phylogenetic classification, and if we go fully phylogenetic here, this article comes apart at the seams. We could avoid the whole problem by using synapsid, but the problem is that the term is ambiguous as it is either a grade (trad./Benton^[11]) or a clade (phyl.). The term "mammal-like reptile" is unambiguously a grade, which is why I chose it in the first place. I'm not married to the phrase, but we do need a name for a groups that mammals have evolved from.^[12] Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we using American or British English? I just skimmed for evidence and couldn't find any. In the section "The rise of plants", I've just expanded "mm" to "millimetres". If anyone wants to change that to the Americal spelling, please go ahead. --Stfg (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm working from several computers (work and home), some with different language packs installed. British English it is! Please have a look at the lede while you are at it. I found a source actually defining a transitional fossil, but the text now flows a bit unevenly. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede is very good. An improvement in clarity, in my view. --Stfg (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The technical aspect of the article is a bit dry. I have thought about taking the various examples in the "History" section and use them to illustrate the techincal aspects, thus combining history and definitions in one go. Archaeopteryx is a fine illustration of the definition (one group giving rise to another). The same goes for Rhynia. Java man illustrates the great chain of being/missing link aspect well. I have considered writing a section on Ichthyostega the "fish-with-legs", which will be a wonderful illustration of "Transitional versus ancestral" problem. Is it a good idea, or will it just make the article "chatty". Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have merged the section on "Missing link" and the one on "Java man". Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect if I were to submit this to GA status review it might fail. What is needed? I recommend reviewing the peer review which has ended. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the flurry of activity seems to have died down, without any consensus on what direction this article should take. I think we need to have a serious look at what we want in this article, and how we want is organized. For example, while the examples are important, they take up a lot of the article space, and much of what is written fails to justify just why these are good examples. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I just want to add that the examples were added because they were prominent (the reason I renamed the section} and because they gave the paleontologists a good deal of information regarding how two groups are linked to teach other. Archaeopteryx, australopithecus, ambulocetus, and tiktaalik were all a huge help to scientists when they were found, although to be honest I'm not sure what Amphistium and Runcaria are doing there. They aren't as prominent, maybe they were just added by someone for variety. If we are to have a "Prominent examples" section we should only include fossils that added a lot to scientists' knowledge of the link between two groups. Cadiomals (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the intermediates between the "major" ranks (class-level and up, with an exception for human ancestors). We also need to be explicit on what makes any such fossil transitional (mix of primitive and advanced features). Another problem is that Archaeopteryx now appear twice, and we have both Australopithecus and Homo erectus.

Further, the section on "Transitions in phylognetic nomenclature" is very weak. This section should be expanded. I also think we should rearrange the text a bit, putting the history section a bit higher up. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm very unhappy with this. It isn't right to destabilise 3/4 of the way through a GA review. Please could the plan be discussed first. Also, please, please could you do section shuffling and text addition/alteration in separate edits. The change from "Scientists, however, do not use the term, as it refers to an outdated view of evolution" to "Scientists, however, tend to avoid the term, as the term itself refers to an outdated view of evolution", which reintroduces the ugly duplication of "the term", is visible in the big diff, but how many other things are not visible because the section shuffling obscures the text comparison? This is too bad. --Stfg (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I reverted. I will work on porting some of the copy-editing over. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The article need some major reshuffling. I suggest taking it at Talk:Transitional fossil/GA1. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The time for big changes was during the big discussions. What you were doing was not "copy editing", which has been done. It was rewriting, including introducing new English errors like "Later specimen, particularly the exquisitely preserved Berlin specimen found in 1874 or 1875 showed it also had teeth rather than a beak and prominent claws on the wings." Duplication of "specimen", and the first should have been plural. Harizotoh, Chiswick Chap, Obsidian Soul, Cadiomals and Smokeybjb have all put substantial effort recently into getting the article where it is. Simply diving in and destabilizing it without consulting about it first is just ... well, you figure out what it is.

Thank you, Harizotoh, for reverting it. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Transitional fossil/GA1, please? Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you are destabilizing the GA review, if you haven't already killed it. Here, not there. --Stfg (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Transitional fossil/GA1: First off, we need a definition-section, which should be followed by the "science" bits (Limitations of the fossil record, Transitions in phylogenetic nomenclature, Transitional versus ancestral). After that should come the history-section, and the article should round off with the examples. Where the examples overlap with the text earlier on, the examples should be dealt with in the earlier sections. Per now, we have two sections on Archaeopteryx, which is neither here nor there. I have tried to get some interest in rearranging the the contents before, but with no response, so I decided to be bold and just do it. Seems it was unpopular though.

If you feel my edits have been so destructive as to kill the review, I'll withdraw from the article and leave you room to improve it as you see fit. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edits may have been fine, but the timing was off. The peer review was practically done a month ago. (I should have mentioned VisionHolder and EncycloPetey in the above list of major contributors.) The PR had already generally agreed not to have an Examples section, for example. Yet nothing much towards restructuring was done in March, and there was an 11-day period in the middle of the month when nothing was done at all. Why now and not then? GA has a stability criterion. How can it be met now? I hope you won't go. You're the scientist, not me. I'll be gone before the end of today anyway. --Stfg (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing was done in that period because I asked for feedback on my proposals for reshuffling and received non. This article is a collaborative effort, so I did not want to go ahead and reshuffle without at least an idea of what the other editors felt. When editing started up again, I wanted to do the edits while it was some attention on the article. While you may feel the article is/was almost done, I am fairly certain the points I mentioned (no definition, science spread all over the place, examples in the middle) would have meant the article would fail a GA review. We all want this to be a GA, right? Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(GA Reviewer) - Clearly agreement is necessary for the GA review to proceed. For what it's worth, I believe the structure can be used almost as it is - I have proposed some small changes in the GAR and in the article itself, and if those are acceptable to people we can proceed on that basis. Comments are therefore invited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure 3 Cetacean/Whale links are really appropriate here - we have 1 vert, 1 Tiktaalik, 3 whale, 1 bird. Undue, probably. Would someone like to remove at least 2 of the whales? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who added those. I'll remove the Smithsonian site since it has the title "Did Whale Evolution go backwards?" which annoys me to no end. Originally the External links were to personal sites and blogs. I tried to find more official sites (museums and scientific sites). However, most of them seem to be sites about specific famous fossils or species. The talk origins site is the only good site that I could find that covers transitional fossil in general. One or two more sites like that, but from more official sources would be ideal. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. An alternative would be to add some more links to other groups; or perhaps to have subsections such as "Children's" and "Research". Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)