Changes

A major problem with identifying transitional forms is in determining whether a particular fossil or living thing is truly intermediate between two others, or is merely an unrelated form which has characteristics common to both other forms.

A major problem with identifying transitional forms is in determining whether a particular fossil or living thing is truly intermediate between two others, or is merely an unrelated form which has characteristics common to both other forms.

[[Archaeopteryx]], for example, has some features in common with both living [[bird]]s and [[reptile]]s, and is often quoted as an intermediate form.

[[Archaeopteryx]] is a good example of an intermediate form. It has well preserved feathers, but is skeletally identical to a small theropod dinosaur. Some of these similarities include teeth and a long bony tail. It is so similar that one specimen without preserved feathers was mistakenly classified as a compsognathus. Some creationists have said that the fact that its feathers are fully developed casts doubt on evolution; however, while the conditions for fossilization are rare, the conditions needed to preserve feathers are even rarer. Still, many fossils of protofeathers have been found.

It was not covered with part-[[scale]]s/part-[[feather]]s, but had fully-functioning feathers and [[wing]]s, and was capable of [[flight]].

There is therefore no reason to think that it is not simply a bird with some features in common with reptiles.

Evolutionists have criticised creationists for claiming that if an intermediate form is discovered, it merely creates two gaps where there was previously one.

Evolutionists have criticised creationists for claiming that if an intermediate form is discovered, it merely creates two gaps where there was previously one.

This criticism ignores the size of the gaps.<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4248 Does a ‘transitional form’ replace one gap with two gaps?], ''Journal of Creation'' 14(3):5–6, August 2000.</ref>

This criticism ignores the size of the gaps.<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4248 Does a ‘transitional form’ replace one gap with two gaps?], ''Journal of Creation'' 14(3):5–6, August 2000.</ref>

However, if the gap is still large, this does not validate the claim of the creationist, as fossilization is a rare process and sometimes evolution occurs rapidly, as in the case of humans, who evolved into their modern form in only a few million years.

However, if the gap is still large, this does not validate the claim of the creationist, as fossilization is a rare process and sometimes evolution occurs rapidly, as in the case of humans, who evolved into their modern form in only a few million years.

Rather than simply producing the occasional form which appears to be intermediate between two different forms, evolutionists need to demonstrate what [[Charles Darwin]] called a "finely-graduated organic chain".<ref name="chain" />

Rather than simply producing the occasional form which appears to be intermediate between two different forms, evolutionists need to demonstrate what [[Charles Darwin]] called a "finely-graduated organic chain".<ref name="chain" /> It should be noted that the science of evolution has progressed monumentally since Darwin's time.

Despite many more fossils being discovered since Darwin's time, the continued lack of a series of fossils showing a smooth transition led [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Niles Eldredge]] to propose [[Punctuated Equilibrium]], which says that the change from one form to another took place is short bursts which generally would not leave a fossil trace.

Despite many more fossils being discovered since Darwin's time, the continued lack of a series of fossils showing a smooth transition led [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Niles Eldredge]] to propose [[Punctuated Equilibrium]], which says that the change from one form to another took place is short bursts which generally would not leave a fossil trace.