M
That’s cause I wasn’t making a claim about scientific evidence there. I was simply saying that the animal could have existed and be considered transitional and not have been the first terrestrial tetrapod. There could have been more developed terrestrial tetrapods at that time. Again, I am not making a scientific claim. I am just saying that the way you tried to counter one of the reasons it wasn’t transitional, and one of the reasons you are trying to discard the model, does nothing to invalidate the claims made about it.
I don’t need scientific evidence for that, because it is a question of logic while working in the claims and definitions being used.
Well what evidence are you looking for?
Are you referring to some eukaryotes being able to change from haploid to diploid? These exist in eukaryotes we see today, it is usually known as ploidy cycles. It is beneficial to the organism, and that’s why it is selected for, but it can occur (and does occur), with single celled eukaryotes when it doesn’t benefit them. It is just something that happens and we still see it happening in asexual eukaryotes today, one of the articles I cited goes over this. It is not guided by any conscious being, but the selective process is guided by the parameters that are set up by the surrounding environment.
I agree with you when you say that just because something is benefited does not mean it will occur. It is one of the most important parts of evolutions to understand and it explains why so many of the organisms we see are so awkward and suboptimal “designs”. But in this situation the evidence exists that shows the evolution of sex and I have linked articles that explain aspects of it. The genes that were duplicated to allow for this change are understood the mechanisms that allowed for it are known, and the environments that would have selected for it are known to have existed many time periods throughout earth’s history (heck, even today!). There are plenty more articles that exist on this topic and it is pretty easy to find large lists of them. Maybe if you read some of the papers that showed it.
If you are looking for someone to take an asexual eukaryote that doesn’t already have all of the genes involved with sex or meiosis, which are really hard to find ( I am not even sure if they exist anymore), and then put it in an environment and expect the EXACT SAME mutations that would lead to all the specific details that define biological sex (though there are varying definitions for what that is) than you are asking for a nearly impossible feat.
The “assumption” is being derived from a wide body of evidence that are from different fields of biology. Patterns are set up as precedence based on body of evidence and often get referred to as laws. The assumptions that are being used in this context are very similar to the ones used in physics. When we look at big systems we assume a lot of things from the other experiments that have been done over the years because they have been shown to be the case over and over and over. The same goes for this scenario. If we don’t do this then it is impossible to claim to “know” anything.
What kind of experiment would you suggest be conducted to show that it is or isn’t transitional?
Well, restate it because I can’t get a clear picture of what you want from the posts I’ve read. The things I have seen you state clearly have been insane challenges that can be compared to "I want someone to repeat the writing of the bible without reference to know that it was, in fact, written!"