Talk:Transitional fossil

Article feedback
How does one add the Feedback tool to an article? That would be very useful and would show us areas that this article can improve. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Added the feedback option. Haven't gotten any yet. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Reader feedback on Missing links:
"Whoever wrote this seems to be confused regarding what constitutes the term "missing link". I was referring to a post-Darwinian use of the term whereby modern humans are directly connected to a specific line of hominid. Though his (her) explanation of Java man is acceptable, and is definitely not missing, the inference that future discoveries will somehow fill in does infer that for now they are indeed missing."

What are your thoughts? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The commenter seem to have missed the references for the term having several meanings. The article has an example of the term used by a modern researcher (Benton) using it for a non-humanoid fossil, the Archaeopteryx. Perhaps we need to make this more clear? Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Vestigial organs
Should this fit into the article in any way?
 * Vestigial organs are common in whales (legs),[25] flightless birds (wings), snakes (pelvis and lung), and numerous structures in humans (the coccyx, plica semilunaris, and appendix).

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

FA status and other improvements
What would be needed to bring the article to FA status?

What areas do you think need expanding? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Platypus
That last IP edit reminded me. A section on the Platypus and other animals like that could be interesting. It would go under "Misunderstandings". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mm, yes. Love the mammal evolving into a duck, or was it the other way round. It will be a controversial section that could create quite a challenge for FA; finding reliable, undisputed sources for it might be .. interesting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange content in "missing link" section
The section "missing link" (in the as-of-writing current revision does not make sense to me. The sources do support the claim that modern use of the term can be emphasized unduly, or lead to lopsided understanding of human evolution; they does not support a characterization of transitional fossils being a "misconception", or the implication that people looking for transitional fossils were operating under false premises (in fact, just the opposite -- the section details numerous discoveries, like the Java Man, which identified the missing links which had been unknown at the time). I am going to copyedit the section. jp×g 01:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)