New Journal Issue with Focus on Transitional Fossils

[Mallon]

This is pretty cool. The latest issue of the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach has a focus restricted to transitional fossils. It's freely available here:
SpringerLink - Journal Issue
The issue covers all major groups of invertebrates and vertebrates. It's also sprinkled with articles concerning misconceptions of evolutionary theory. Must reading!

 

[howlingwolf]

This is pretty cool. The latest issue of the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach has a focus restricted to transitional fossils. It's freely available here:
SpringerLink - Journal Issue
The issue covers all major groups of invertebrates and vertebrates. It's also sprinkled with articles concerning misconceptions of evolutionary theory. Must reading!

Thanks! I had not heard of that journal before, but it look like a good series of articles (and stuff is not usually freely available through Springer). I'll forward that link on to my advisor though he may already know about that journal.

Howlingwolf

 

[Mallon]

Aye, it's nice that the issue was made freely available. I think all of E:E&O's issues are free, though I might be mistaken. The journal only came out last year. It's a good one!

 

[peace4ever]

This is pretty cool. The latest issue of the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach has a focus restricted to transitional fossils. It's freely available here:
SpringerLink - Journal Issue
The issue covers all major groups of invertebrates and vertebrates. It's also sprinkled with articles concerning misconceptions of evolutionary theory. Must reading!

Good. We'll get to see more tribes of people never before mentioned in history. It's so easy to invent creatures of one's imagination that any child can do it. But it's very entertaining.

 

[Mallon]

Good. We'll get to see more tribes of people never before mentioned in history. It's so easy to invent creatures of one's imagination that any child can do it. But it's very entertaining.

Check out the fossils illustrated in the papers. They're real. They're not imaginary.

 

[peace4ever]

Check out the fossils illustrated in the papers. They're real. They're not imaginary.

Fossils are real; it's man's interpretation of them that is imaginary. For example, if an investigator finds skulls and bones in the desert and makes up a story about them, his case would be thrown out of court because speculation is not evidence; it's speculation.

 

[juvenissun]

This is pretty cool. The latest issue of the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach has a focus restricted to transitional fossils. It's freely available here:
SpringerLink - Journal Issue
The issue covers all major groups of invertebrates and vertebrates. It's also sprinkled with articles concerning misconceptions of evolutionary theory. Must reading!

Fossil seems to have two types: transitional and non-transitional.

So, why don't we make a significant improvement on the classification: we simply call all different fossils as different "species"? Can you give an example of a newly discovered species which is not a transitional fossil?

 

[peace4ever]

Fossil seems to have two types: transitional and non-transitional.

So, why don't we make a significant improvement on the classification: we simply call all different fossils as different "species"? Can you give an example of a newly discovered species which is not a transitional fossil?

Scientists can make fossils be whatever they want them to be. That's the beauty of considering the imagination to be evidence. But of course, their claims wouldn't be considered evidence in a court of law.

 

[Mallon]

Fossil seems to have two types: transitional and non-transitional.

So, why don't we make a significant improvement on the classification: we simply call all different fossils as different "species"? Can you give an example of a newly discovered species which is not a transitional fossil?

Technically, any species that gives rise to a new species is "transitional". Those transitions only appear most noticeably at great scales, which is why palaeontologists focus on transitions occurring at the boundaries of major phenotypes like fish-tetrapods, dinosaurs-birds, "pelycosaurs"-mammals, etc.
Really, though, talk of "transitional fossils" and "missing links" are outdated holdovers from an ancient way of thinking about evolution. A better answer to your question can be found in one of the papers from the journal I linked to:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/501371w1h0h58385/fulltext.pdf

 

[Mallon]

Scientists can make fossils be whatever they want them to be. That's the beauty of considering the imagination to be evidence. But of course, their claims wouldn't be considered evidence in a court of law.

In fact, the teaching of evolution has been tried in the court of law several times -- most recently in Dover, PA. And each time, the court upheld the teaching of evolution on the basis of the evidence in its favour. So yes, the evidence has been considered in the U.S. court of law and the teaching of evolution vindicated.

 

[peace4ever]

In fact, the teaching of evolution has been tried in the court of law several times -- most recently in Dover, PA. And each time, the court upheld the teaching of evolution on the basis of the evidence in its favour. So yes, the evidence has been considered in the U.S. court of law and the teaching of evolution vindicated.

Again, judges are also brainwashed by scientists that scientists know better than they do. So like all cults, the cult members don't have the ability and courage to ever question the cult leader. That's the hallmark of a cult.

But since you claim that speculation is evidence, then I can state that it's a fact that a dog came from an elephant because it makes sense in my imagination. And if I had a degree in science, it would blindly be accepted as a fact because cult members never question their cult leaders. That's how myths become popular.

 

[peace4ever]

Technically, any species that gives rise to a new species is "transitional". Those transitions only appear most noticeably at great scales, which is why palaeontologists focus on transitions occurring at the boundaries of major phenotypes like fish-tetrapods, dinosaurs-birds, "pelycosaurs"-mammals, etc.
Really, though, talk of "transitional fossils" and "missing links" are outdated holdovers from an ancient way of thinking about evolution. A better answer to your question can be found in one of the papers from the journal I linked to:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/501371w1h0h58385/fulltext.pdf

So how can you know from what species a "transitional" species came from without actually watching an animal breed him? Or is it merely one's imagination that scientists pass along as truth? After all, since the "process" of evolution is that the genes of one animal simply changed into the genes of another, then why couldn't a "transitional" species have come from any animal?

 

[Mallon]

Again, judges are also brainwashed by scientists that scientists know better than they do.

Your flip-flopping amuses me. Just a minute ago, you implied that the theory of evolution rises or falls based on how well it performs in the court of law, as though the courts have some merit to them. And then when I told you that evolution has passed every trial it has faced since Scopes, you tell me that the courts are useless because the judges are brainwashed. Amazing.

 

[peace4ever]

Your flip-flopping amuses me. Just a minute ago, you implied that the theory of evolution rises or falls based on how well it performs in the court of law, as though the courts have some merit to them. And then when I told you that evolution has passed every trial it has faced since Scopes, you tell me that the courts are useless because the judges are brainwashed. Amazing.

Nope. All I said is that speculation isn't considered evidence in a court of law, which it isn't. But there have been many cases where a judge has accepted speculation as evidence which has been objected to by the opposing attorney. So even though speculation isn't considered evidence in a court of law, many judges do not follow the law which has been seen over and over again throughout the history of jurisprudence.

 

[juvenissun]

Technically, any species that gives rise to a new species is "transitional". Those transitions only appear most noticeably at great scales, which is why palaeontologists focus on transitions occurring at the boundaries of major phenotypes like fish-tetrapods, dinosaurs-birds, "pelycosaurs"-mammals, etc.
Really, though, talk of "transitional fossils" and "missing links" are outdated holdovers from an ancient way of thinking about evolution. A better answer to your question can be found in one of the papers from the journal I linked to:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/501371w1h0h58385/fulltext.pdf

Good. That is what I always think. Evolution is a "story" based on fossils. EVERY interpretation about any fossil is an interpretation, which is based on the "idea" of evolution. It is very much like the theory of continental drift: a lot of impressive facts, but has a wrong interpretation all together.

 

[Mallon]

Good. That is what I always think. Evolution is a "story" based on fossils. EVERY interpretation about any fossil is an interpretation, which is based on the "idea" of evolution. It is very much like the theory of continental drift: a lot of impressive facts, but has a wrong interpretation all together.

Nothing is shocking anymore.

 

[peace4ever]

Good. That is what I always think. Evolution is a "story" based on fossils. EVERY interpretation about any fossil is an interpretation, which is based on the "idea" of evolution. It is very much like the theory of continental drift: a lot of impressive facts, but has a wrong interpretation all together.

So then it does depend on the imaginations of each individual to know who the common ancestor is. That make the common ancestor as imaginary as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Case proven.