Can anyone point out to me any examples of transitional forms found in evolution?
812763
Here's one of the easiest examples to see, the gradual sympatric speciation of Globigerinoides trilobus to Globigerinoides bisphericus to Praeorbulina sicana to Orbulina universa (incredibly abundant planktic foraminifera) over several million years. \n\nNow what is your definition of a 'transitional form'? (you have left this very vaguely defined). Most specation is allopatric (occurs in a geographically very restricted subset of the population) and  geologically-rapid (evidenced by observations of evolution and speciation in living populations). The very highest geologic resolution available is in the 1000's of years. But due to the nature of the geologic record, most fossil groups have a much patchier record than this.\n\nAt an inter-species level, there are an overwhelming abundance of examples of 'transitional forms'. The fossil record of hundreds of thousands of species shows copious systematic change from one species/group to the next up the geological column. However, as you are a creationist and are new to asking questions about evolution, I will wait to see what your intellectual honesty and integrity is like before I spend time and effort writing any more detailed answers. Paleontologist.
505328
Transformation\nNucleotides\nBase
134758
Oh no, not this question again. Why doesn't anybody use the Search button?\nLet me address two separate issues (the first part is modified from another answer):\n1) The pattern of evolutionary processes that can be seen (in the fossil record and living species)can be of two types: \nIn _anagenetic_ (meaning "that generate upward movement") events, an entire population evolves in one direction and becomes so different that at some point the people who study it give it a different name. This is encountered in paleontological research and the decision to separate one from the other is ultimately arbitrary. \n_Cladogenetic_ (meaning "that generates branches") events entail a population that splits into different sub-groups; each of these then evolves independently from the others. We share A COMMON ANCESTOR with living apes, but we have not evolved from them directly. \nOur direct ancestors are fossil hominid species. \nAll the species that are living today have their separate evolution and history; also they all (including humans) share common ancestors from which they (we) have inherited our common traits. And apes have their own ancestors that are closer to them than to Homo sapiens; the fact that apes are our closest living relatives does not exclude the existence of more related _extinct_ relatives.\n\n2) What you're stating is one of the arguments that many creationist use, namely, that change within a species (adaptation, i.e. microevolution) is possible (they are astute in not denying this, because the proofs are overwhelming!), but a species cannot transform into another (macroevolution). \nThis is based on a mistaken concept of "species". Most people think in terms of the biological species concept, which is based on reproductive isolation. That is, individuals of each species cannot hybridize succesfully with individuals of other species. However, there is not a single path for the rise of the mechanisms for recognition or isolation that we perceive as the "real boundaries" of a species (see second link for an interesting discussion here at Y!Answers). What the taxonomist calls a species may respond to different species concepts (such as morphological, evolutionary, biological (isolation), paleontological, recognition, etc,), and there are many examples of populations in which speciation (total isolation) is on the way, and there's a thin line between "subspecies" or "geographical races" and valid species (just ask an expert in systematics, which I am not). \nEvolutionary processes are long-term phenomena, and it may seem that there are "evolutionary leaps" from one species to the other. But although there are particular cases of "instantaneous speciation", most of the "leaps" are due to the fragmentary nature of the fossil record. So many populations become extinct or become something else and their former existence is not recorded anywhere! But although the record is fragmentary, life is continuous.\n\nSorry for the lengthy answer, I hope you find it useful.
1064441
We evolved from a species of ape, and chimps also evolved from that same species. That species no longer exists, maybe because of too much competition from the chimps.\n\nThere have been several species which gradually changed from the ancestral ape species to the current Homo sapiens. None of those "in-between" species exist anymore, again likely because they could not compete for resources with Homo sapiens. \n\nAnd no, evolution has not "stopped". It's not like we can look around and say "oh look, we're evolving". Evolution does not happen over a person's lifetime. The human species has changed since we first came into existence (for example, we are taller on average). This is evolution at work. Tens of thousands of years from now, there would probably be a population of humans that has been isolated from the rest of us and is now so different genetically that it can't interbreed with other 'humans' - this is the point when you have a new species.\n\nThere was never a half-human, half-monkey. Evolution is very gradual and the changes take place over many, many generations - not one generation.\n\nSo do you believe that all the other animals evolved to their current form, except for us because we're special?? We were just dropped here from the sky?
1177666
Here's some of my favorites!\nHope you enjoy!\n\nhttp://nationalacademies.org/evolution/\n\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/\n\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/\n\nhttp://lifesciences.asu.edu/evolution/\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/
577498
While some extant species of Caminalcules show clear vestigial features, these same features are not vestigial in all of the Caminalcules.\n\nIn some lineages, the structures have become modified into functional structures, or remain in the ancestral (primitive) state.  \n\nWhich of the fourteen extant species or fifty-seven fossil species of Caminalcules are you referring to?  Without comparing those species to the other species or fossil forms it is impossible to determine which structures are vestigial.
865945
The difference betwen allopatric and sympatric is easy to remember: allopatric is geographical, sympatric is non-geographical.  \n\nAllopatric speciation involves a geographical separation (like a river, a mountain, a drought, separation following a migration, etc.)  Two subpopulations of a species get isolated from each other and evolve separately.  If this isolation is long enough, the two subspecies will first lose the desire, and then the ability to interbreed ... hence speciation.   This is believed to be the most common form of speciation in animals.\n\nSympatric speciation involves no geographical barrier, the two subspecies share territory.  One way that could happen is if there are two niches (like two types of food) in the same territory .... if some members prefer (or are slightly better adapted) for one food and others prefer the other food, then each will tend to meet and mate more with others of the same preference.  Thus any difference in adaptation between the two subspecies will get amplified, and the two may show less desire, and eventually an inability, to interbreed.  This is considered very rare in the animal kingdom except for insects, but may be more common in plants.  An example commonly given is the apple maggot (a kind of fly).\n\n(See source 1 for a better description.)\n\nPunctuated equilibrium is a theory developed by Niles Elderedge and my favorite science writer, Stephen Jay Gould.  It is the view that species often go through long periods of relative stability (equilibrium) that is broken up (punctuated) by periods of relatively fast change.  (See source 2 for a great illustration of how it works.)\n\nContrast this with gradualism, which holds that evolutionary change happens at a steady pace. \n\nThey are similar in that they both hold that evolution is a slow process ... in fact, it is a common misconception that they are opposites, when in fact punctuated equilibrium is a form of gradualism because it still holds that evolution is a long gradual process.  (See source 3)\n\nIn other words the opposite of gradualism is not punctuated equilibrium, it is something called 'catastrophism', where change occurs as a result of short-lived violent events (catastrophes).  Few scientists today are catastrophists. \n\nFeel free to email me if any of this is unclear.
1037020
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species. Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.\n\nSpeciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr’s Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations—sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms’ physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership. Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection—for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits—and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment. \n\nSome Creationists say that evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see “The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. Th
677150
There are several lines which scientist use to prove that evolution is occurring which are embryology, palaeontology, evidence from similar anatomy\nIn case of Palaeontology this is the study of remains of past living organisms. In this case the remains are dug and they show a change from the top going down the earth's crust In this study at the top of the earth's crust the remains of organisms found are complex but going down deeper simple remains of organisms are found this suggest that organism are changing from simple form into complex forms.\nAnother thing that is observed are the remains of certain organism which don't exist by the time and remains of organisms which were not in the inner parts suggest that new species are formed
334406
Could just be mutations.
876341
---EVOLUTION---\n\n中文（简体） (Chinese (Simplified))\n进化,  进展 , 发展\n\n中文（繁體） (Chinese (Traditional))\nn. - 進化, 進展, 發展
83045
"Evolutionary chains" go a long way towards explaining the development of life, including human life, from simpler organisms, but we haven't gotten very far yet in explaining how the mutation and reproduction systems that natural selection requires  got started in the first place.  Some researchers, and by that I mean mainstream ones who fully accept evolution as the fundamental organizing theory of biology, have tried to work around this problem by postulating that the original lifeforms didn't evolve on Earth at all.  However, while this changes the debate somewhat, by allowing far greater timelines for life to evolve, it still begs the question:  OK, if life evolved somewhere else first, how did it get started *there*?  I think we are much better served by looking at whether life could have evolved here, under the conditions of the primitive earth as we know them.
1184816
Are you asking about chromosome transformations such as rearrangements and translocations?
350238
The phrase means 'missing link.'\n\nThe more correct term is 'transitional fossil' or 'transitional form' ('forma transitoria' o 'fósil transitorio'). The term 'missing link' is specifically intended to imply a piece of permanently absent evidence, and therefore a piece of counter-evidence (something that proves the opposite).   With some animals, the fossil record is spotty but growing.  But in hominids (humans and ancestors), the fossil record is quite rich, and there are no 'missing links'.  (Click on the great diagrams on the right of the wiki page I list in Source(s)!)\n\nBy the way, the term Cromagnon isn't so much a species (they were homo sapiens) as a name for the fossils representing some of the earliest European homo sapiens.
289835
1.Evolution occurs.  Lineages of organisms change over time.\n2.Gradualism.  Darwin argued that differences between populations of organisms -- even radically different organisms -- accumulate by a series of innumerable small steps through intermediate forms.\n3. Population speciation: Another idea that was original with Darwin. Individual organisms do not evolve and offspring are not different species from their parents. Evolution is a process that occurs in the heritable characteristics of a population over time. \n4. Common descent: This is the major crux for creationists and an idea original to Darwin. He was the first to argue that species had diverged from common ancestors and thus comprise a great tree of life. \n5. Natural selection: Darwin's most brilliant and original hypothesis, independently arrived at by Wallace. Natural selection is the mechanism of change.\n\nIt is important to remember, however, that Darwin wasn't the first to think of evolution.
770151
OMG, thanks for that link... those pictures are just amazing!\n\nI already accept evolution, though :)
264396
Great stuff going on right now having to do with developmental genes (like Hox genes).  You may know this as "Evo Devo" or evolutionary developmental biology.\n\nCheck out the book "Endless Forms Most Beautiful," by Sean Carroll.  He also gives ideas for research and new fields, lots of peer-reviewed papers.\n\nI just read it this Fall, it was great.