Talk:Transitional fossil/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Transitional fossil. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Missing link redux

Documention of the use of this term needs to be provided. I know its not used scientifically, so simply reporting its use in news headlines or magazine covers should suffice. And, as mentioned earlier, transitional fossil is actually the exact opposite of missing link, until such a link is found. proposed change in lede: "The phrase "missing link" has been used extensively in popular writings on human evolution, to refer to a percieved gap in the hominid evolutionary record. It is most commonly used to refer to any new transitional fossil finds, commonly describing them as "the missing link"."(mercurywoodrose)75.61.141.0 (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Done Added and sourced the discussion in the body. Feel free to tweak the wording. Thanks.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"By august command" Section

I have a preference against quotes being used for section headings. However, I've tried but I can't think of a better title to use for that section. Any suggestions? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The first link? Strange monster? Darwins monster? The bird from Solenhofen? Feathers and teeth? The reptile-bird? Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the quote. If it's too whimsical, just "Solenhofen" might do. More explicitly: "Link between birds and reptiles" or "Bird–reptile link" (N.B. that's an ndash). No monsters please! Note that we don't begin section titles with the definite article. --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Tiktaalik picture (again)

The current picture of the "fishapod",File:Fishapods.png, isn't very good. First off, it shows Tiktaalik as one of a number of critters. The drawings themselves are just line drawings and are not very good (Acanthostega is particularly bad), and Tiktaalik bends it head in a rather peculiar way. I don't think it could do that in real life (it could tip it's head up, not down). It also illustrate temporal and habitat distribution, rather than the animals themselves. It would be a decent illustration for Fishapod or Evolution of tetrapods, but I think we should find one better suited for this article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We are free to revert to the image of the reconstruction of Tiktaalik which remains on Commons. No explanation was given for moving to the 'fishapod' drawing, we are free to ask why it was substituted. Meanwhile I've inserted the skull photo which is definitely helpful in showing use of air as well as water...... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it was because there was a round of vandalism last night, removing pictures released by a particular artist on Commons, and someone added the current instead. The old picture was however not ideal either, as it showed Tiktaalik in an improbable "push-up" position. Obsidian Soul was making a new picture, but he did not get around to finish it. We could ask him nicely if he can finish it, or I can make a crude picture (when family time allows). Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the original image is still on Commons, and if it was merely removed in vandalism there's no reason not to revert, so I've put it back for now. That doesn't preclude you or Obsidian Soul drawing a better one, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

My error, got mixed up with the apparent deletion of an allegedly non-free image and added the fishapod pic as an interim measure. None of the images are ideal. If our Tiktaalik article is correct, it "also lacked a characteristic that most fishes have—bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement. This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck, with the pectoral girdle separate from the skull." Lateral (anatomy) implies sideways movement, distinct from fishes which must move their whole body to move their head. Shubin's Your Inner Fish pp. 22–24 is clear that Tiktaalik was distinguished from fishes by having a neck and being able to move its head independently, but these pages don't indicate whether the movement was lateral. There's also the question of habitat: Obsidian Soul's sketch is terrific, hope something on these lines can be made available. . dave souza, talk 14:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh good, an honest mixup, not anything worse. We'll look forward to a better image, then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We could ever so nicely ask Obsidian how things are going. As Davis says, non of the images we have are ideal. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Split Missing Link

Current missing link redirects to Transitional fossil#Missing links. I propose to move this section's 5 paragraphs to a separate article because the content is distinct from the main article (WP:CONSPLIT). Particularly, the section about "missing links" is about the antiquated concept which transitional fossils replaced. I'm reminded of the distinction between abiogenesis and creation myth, or theory of relativity and luminiferous aether. We have different articles about these because the former is scientific and the latter is not. A separate article for "missing link" might make it easier to categorize and reference, e.g., in Category:Misconceptions or from the list of common misconceptions. --beefyt (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be most unfortunate. The redirect is appropriate because 'missing link' describes in a confused and lay (non-specialist) way part of the same idea as transitional fossil: the same, because the idea is that there is some kind of a gap to be transitioned between item of evidence A and item B; confused and lay because of course a gap is inherent in the fossil record, not least because each fossil is discrete so by definition there must be gaps, but also because of the feeling that just one more piece would complete the jigsaw puzzle, or that this one exciting discovery is the magic missing piece. You unfortunately can't dismiss this as purely antiquated because the popular press still treats the likes of Tiktaalik as a missing link; every decade we get headlines like 'throw away your zoology textbooks'. No, 'missing link' is properly a view of the transitional fossil concept, and while it has misunderstanding all around it, you could say that transitional does too; after all, many if not most fossils illustrate some kind of transition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the two terms "transitional fossil" and "missing link" describe the same phenomena. If anything, we should put the term "missing link" in the first sentence of the lede as it probably is the most used (if not correct) term. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Although they describe the same phenomena, the term missing link gives a very different explanation of the phenomena than transitional fossils, i.e., the great chain of being. This article is supposed to be about scientific ideas, but it contains a section about religious and historical ideas. In my opinion this section does not fit, since it leads in a different direction (religion, pseudoscience, etc.) than the main article. To be expanded, categorized, and placed in context (e.g., creationism), the section must be split into a separate article. Flood geology is not a section in the geological history article because the two topics give very different explanations of the same phenomena. Generally, a separate article is be more effective and less confusing to a general reader because the scientific concept would be explained in the context of the lay concept, rather than explaining the lay concept in the context of the scientific concept. --beefyt (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find that the use of the therm "missing link" is a bit more complex than just being religious and pseudoscientific. I am not dead set against a separate article, but just like an article on evolution should discuss Lamarcism in the history-section, this one should have something on missing links, even the pseudoscientific aspect of it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I expected so; I'm not very familiar with the concept other its occurrence in mainstream media. I agree that this article should discuss "missing link". Ideally I'd to keep 1-2 paragraphs here and add a hatnote to the main article. --beefyt (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Over 50 articles currently link directly to missing link. Maybe this is a good signal that the topic deserves its own article? --beefyt (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite true: they link indirectly to the current article. I've undone your change to the redirect. Looking at a few random examples, the redirect is better to the head of the article as it has been. Missing link is still the popular term for "transitional fossil" and by Wikipedia rules that's where it should link. Few people know or care about the great chain of being. I think your proposal below is not supported by most people above. Chris55 (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I'll remove the split tag. --beefyt (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

I propose a new version of "Transitional fossil" and new "Missing link" article,

Is this satisfactory? --beefyt (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I personally would like them to remain one article, but there's certainly enough text to make a Missing Link article. It needs a bit of work though, as it must also present the concept of evolutionary intermediates. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You've done it as well as it can probably be done, but it still has the effect of weakening a Good Article, and of splitting one subject into two articles; and there is the likelihood of increased content forking as people add material to both articles to replace the 'missing' bits not present in each half. No, it's far more satisfactory to leave it as it is, I'm afraid. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)