Fossil Forensics is Amazon’s #1 Hot New Release in Paleontology

_{Jonathan Bartlett

July 24, 2017

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I thought I’d let you all know that Jerry Bergman’s latest book, Fossil Forensics: Separating Fact from Fantasy in Paleontology has been holding steady as Amazon’s #1 Hot New Release for several weeks now.

This book focuses on the fossil record from a physiological point of view. Dr. Bergman has taught physiology quite a bit over the years, and this perspective shows through. Bergman goes into quite a bit of depth into the various evolutionary hypotheses connecting the fossils, and he both gives them credit where it is due, and calls them out when they are guilty of pure speculation.

The book has done quite well in its release, and is currently:

The #1 Hot New Release in Fossils
The #1 Hot New Release in Paleontology
The #1 Hot New Release in Biology of Fossils (a different category than the previous one)

As a disclaimer, I should point out that this is published by my own publishing company. But the reason I published it is because I think it is a really good approach to the fossil record, and I have a lot of respect for Jerry Bergman’s body of work, and have made a lot of use of it in the past. You can buy Fossil Forensics here.

Comments

LoL! ID doesn't require God. ID doesn't say anything about worship- nothing about the who to worship, how, when and where to worship- ID has nothing that is required by religion. Clearly you are just an ignorant troll on an agendaET_{July 29, 2017
July
07
Jul
29
29
2017
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

ET @61, Intelligent Design is; A religious argument for the existance of God. You don't know that? In fact it is a religious argument for the existance of a specifically Christian God. I thought that was just accepted.rvb8_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

Marfin (sorry, darn autocorrect)
Goodloosername, Retaliation for getting my name wrong. You say the fossil record sometimes catches evolution sometimes it does not, answer me this on what scale does evolutionary change happen, is it one amino acid at a time one gene,one cell , when going from a fish to a reptile over millions of years how many intermediary’s were there. In the Darwinian model there must have been hundreds of millions do you agree.
I suppose I would say that point mutations count as evolution, although I'm sympathetic to those who would say that they don't believe in evolution but obviously don't have an issue with such mutations occurring and so don't want the two conflated. But there probably were hundreds of millions of nucleotide changes, but far fewer amino acids changes. But if we're talking about fossils, we're talking about anatomy.goodusername_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

rvb8:
ID is not against evolution I am told by ID’ers, we just say you have no proof at the protein level for these changes, or how these changes drive evolution.
troll alert!Mung_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

rvb8:
ET; there really are universities, labs, and individuals, deeply entrenched in the study of these protein, DNA mechanisms that drive evolution.
Are you really that dense? Mere evolution is NOT being debated. Look, if you want to argue against ID it is best you actually learn what ID is about. Otherwise you will continue to look like a willfully ignorant troll. Read the following UD blog post: https://uncommondescent.com/science-education/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-a-guest-post/ See if you can understand it.ET_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Goodloosername, Retaliation for getting my name wrong. You say the fossil record sometimes catches evolution sometimes it does not, answer me this on what scale does evolutionary change happen, is it one amino acid at a time one gene,one cell , when going from a fish to a reptile over millions of years how many intermediary's were there. In the Darwinian model there must have been hundreds of millions do you agree.Marfin_{July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

A short while ago, about thirty years, exo-planets were ridiculed because we hadn't found physical evidence of any; now we have evidence of more than three thousand, many >200, in the 'habbitable zone'. ID is not against evolution I am told by ID'ers, we just say you have no proof at the protein level for these changes, or how these changes drive evolution. (Aaah, mistakes in replication giving altered genotypes, leading to varied expressions in phenotype? Maybe?:) ET@ 49 is a classic example of the 'incredulity', employed as argument that is the basis of ID. ET; there really are universities, labs, and individuals, deeply entrenched in the study of these protein, DNA mechanisms that drive evolution. You can find these institutions if you have a computer, and an index finger:)rvb8_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT}

EricMH @ 52: "...supporters of evolution clearly have an agenda." And they will fight to the death to defend it. I am amazed at how much time a/mat visitors spend reading and commenting on this site. I have zero desire to visit a/mat sites.Truth Will Set You Free_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

The fossil record is woefully incomplete and should never be hailed by a/mats as a good argument for their faith. The evidence just isn't there. Lots of philosophy, wishful thinking, and faith...but no empirical evidence for speciation. None.Truth Will Set You Free_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

goodusername-
Can you describe a hypothetical fossil that would be a better intermediate dino/bird than any already found?
Can you describe the genetic changes that would make such a transition possible? No? I didn't think so...ET_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Margin, Sometimes the fossil record catches evolution in action and sometimes it doesn't. Can you describe a hypothetical fossil that would be a better intermediate dino/bird than any already found?goodusername_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Out of one side of their mouths evolutionists say that the fossil record is incomplete given the nature of the fossilization process, ie not every organism that has died gets fossilized. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And out of the other side of their mouths they say the fossil record supports their claims (even though fossils don't say anything about a mechanism and their claims depend on the mechanisms).ET_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Goodusername- Thats some nice stories they tell to salvage their precious theories, so evolution to fast to be caught by fossil record, a change from a non flying reptile to a flying reptile take a guess at a timescale.Marfin_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Darwin said the fossil record should be filled with transitional fossils. That's false. DNA is supposedly the mechanism of transmission and change for phylogeny. But that's false. Even if DNA transmitted the entire genetic code, random mutations will destroy any signal there is, not amplify it. Systems tend to disorder over time, not increase in order. When put to use in computer science, evolutionary processes are very ineffective, and produce nothing like evolutionists claim, despite working at a much faster rate. No mathematical model of evolution has stood up to scrutiny. All show the inability of evolution to create information, and all are abandoned. Every time evidence is uncovered that could support a proposed mechanism of evolution, it instead falsifies the mechanism, and a new theory of evolution must be invented. Evolution itself is not useful for any scientific endeavor. Such claims merely steal credit from genetics and micro evolution in bacteria. Population genetics shows that evolutionary processes will destroy the genetic code, not improve it. I'm pretty disinterested observer of this whole debate, I'd accept evolution if good evidence and arguments were offered. But, not only are all the arguments bad, but counter arguments rely on strawmen, ad hominem, or otherwise avoiding the meat of any disproofs of evolution, and supporters of evolution clearly have an agenda.EricMH_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Marfin,
If Gould saw a Darwinian pattern of transitional fossils in the fossil record they would have had no support for their P.E hypothesis , the fact that he said the extreme rarity of transitional fossils means what it says.
Of course it means what it says. And elsewhere where they write about an abundance of transitional fossils it also means what it says. The only sense that the transitional fossils don’t fit the Darwinian pattern is that they are found in the peripheral populations rather than the main bodyof a species.
And while P.E. does not mean a different mechanism of evolutionary change it does meant changes happen a lot faster and leave virtually no transitions in its wake. So you have a problem so called transitions are extremely rare this is a fact, then on the other hand you have to explain some type of hopeful monster mechanism to get species to change as rapidly as required which we know through molecular biology is nigh on impossible.So both theories, ideas, hypothesises call them what you will have serious if not fatal flaws.
Even Darwin believed that evolution can be too fast to catch by fossilization (due to its rarity), so that’s not the biggest change with PE/allopatry. The main issue is that most evolution occurs in smaller populations. When Gould writes: “The sharp break in a local column accurately records what happened in that area through time.” The break isn’t due to sudden evolution or a “hopeful monster”, it’s because evolution was occurring gradually, but in a smaller peripheral population elsewhere. At some point the new species may migrate and replace the local column. Thus what the fossil record is recording is not a jump in evolution, but a migration event.goodusername_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

The way to defend yourself from the charge of quote mining is to show that the quotation you used was relevant and not taken out of context. You haven’t done that, but changed the subject.
That's right! You're guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent.Mung_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

rvb8- You are not even wrong and you are totally clueless. Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution There aren't any universities looking into how natural selection or any other blind, mindless process could produce protein machines and no one knows if genetic changes can produce the anatomical and physiological transformations required for universal common descent. And given starting populations of prokaryotes yours doesn't even have a mechanism for getting beyond more populations of prokaryotes. And don't even get me started on the origin of living organisms. You are just another gullible bluffer- all mouth and no substance. Good luck with thatET_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Florabama @ 40 - The way to defend yourself from the charge of quote mining is to show that the quotation you used was relevant and not taken out of context. You haven't done that, but changed the subject.
So, go on. Explain how an article explaining that the situation in about 1975 was not the same as it was in 1985 supports your statements about the situation now.
OK Oh, and at some point you'll also have to explain how changes in the fossil record mean that evolution didn't happen. The
1. The point of this thread is the book, Fossil Forensics which questions the Darwinian narrative on fossils. We on the same page so far?
OK
2. My first “quote mine” was a response to rvb8 who seems to think, as I assume you do, that indeed, the fossil record is filled with the millions of transitional forms that Darwin predicted would be found, but have not.
Unfortunately your quote mine does nothing of the sort. At best it says that there is stasis between transitions. But that doesn't rule out transitional forms (like, for example, early theropod dinosaurs, tiktaalik etc.). But had you actually read that piece, you would have found that it was saying that the state of palaeontology had improved since what was described. Hence, taking it out of context gives the wrong impression about what the author was communicating.
Not only did that not happen, but the opposite in fact became more and more apparent — the fossil record is a testament to non-evolution aka stasis.
With evolution in between. Please try to understand the punk eek argument - it's not that evolution doesn't happen, it's that it happens through changes that are too quick to be seen in the fossil record, and in between there are periods of stasis. (the evidence for this is equivocal: I guess because sometimes it happens, and at others not)
Just yesterday there was a article here about a beetle dating back to 300 mya with “modern” features. How did that happen? Even gradualists admit that stasis is the primary feature of the fossil record, and this over riding phenomenon of “stasis,” was the whole basis for Punk Eek which theorized that evolution happens so fast, it leaves little in the way of evidence.
Apart, of course, from all of those fossils that show some traits of older groups, and some of newer groups. How would you describe such fossils?
... 3. Here is the money quote from Wiki that counters to your “goal post moving” claim actually makes the point quite nicely: “Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.”
OK, so what accusation would you prefer? Goal post moving or attacking straw men? Now you're on about gradualism, not evolution. Evolution doesn't have to be gradual over geologic time - is there any reason why the tempo has to remain constant?
Gradualism is virtually non-existent in the fossil record and non-evolution is the dominate feature. While one might not call that evidence for a creator, it is certainly not evidence for Darwinian evolution, but it doesn’t leave a lot of other options. One thing is certain, the fossil record has falsified Darwinism. Evolution may have happened, but not gradually.
Yep, goal post moving. Now you're explicitly attacking gradualism, and not evolution. That much seems clear.Bob O'H_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

RVB8- So are you saying you only accept biological evolution as fact , and from nothing then through the big bang and up to the point life popped into existence all this happen by some other mechanism other than an evolutionary one.Marfin_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

ET @43, essentially you're not wrong, as evolution explains how organisims change and evolve in the natural environment over time, not how it all started. But that area is now under serious and on going innovative research; abiogenesis. Serious universities, institutes, and private organisations, are all involved, and making remarkable progress, if you choose to follow it. As God is reduced to ever diminishing gaps S/He/It, may find the temperature in the kitchen rising.:)rvb8_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

Goodusername, If Gould saw a Darwinian pattern of transitional fossils in the fossil record they would have had no support for their P.E hypothesis , the fact that he said the extreme rarity of transitional fossils means what it says. And while P.E. does not mean a different mechanism of evolutionary change it does meant changes happen a lot faster and leave virtually no transitions in its wake. So you have a problem so called transitions are extremely rare this is a fact, then on the other hand you have to explain some type of hopeful monster mechanism to get species to change as rapidly as required which we know through molecular biology is nigh on impossible.So both theories, ideas, hypothesises call them what you will have serious if not fatal flaws.Marfin_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

Bob O`H -at 37 I will read this and respondMarfin_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

rvb8- In order to explain the fossils you first have to have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms that were fossilized. And you don’t have thatET_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

Fossils exist. Because they exist humans need to explain them; that is what we are, curious. (Although, by the nature of some of the comments here, that could be up for debate.) These fossils have a natural answer, or some other explanation. I hope we are all in agreement that we accept the natural answer? Captain Robert FitzRoy, of Darwin's Beagle, suggested God placed them in odd spots to test us. Heh:) Now, our collection of fossils is vast and growing; agree? Some of these fossls which are found in Antarctica, South America, Africa, and Australia bare similrities that are hard to explain unless these fauna, and flaura, were in close proximity: What is God up to? The best explanation for these flora, and fauna, is that they have had contact in a distant past, but have now changed so much from one another as to be new species. This is obviously because the seperating continents created many different new and various environments, creating huge selection pressure; the clinical motor of evolution, along with randomness. Tell tale evidence reamins however, suggesting a distant link. That's our very well supported premise, backed up by morphology, DNA, biogeography, and many other disciplines. Yours? God did it! Heh:)rvb8_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

Marfin,
Bob thats just waffle Gould and Eldridge`s theory stands in direct opposition to Darwin`s slow gradual change over time.They came up with their theory because there were no transitional fossils , only stasis, so the stasis and lack of slow gradual change over time had to be explained hence punctuated equilibrium.
Gould didn’t say that there aren’t transitionals, although they are rarer than one would expect if most evolution occurred via phyletic gradualism. Gould actually wrote quite a few articles talking about transitional fossils, so he obviously believed that they exist, and in his words there were “more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy.” What he says is that most intermediate fossils occur in the satellite populations of a species rather than the main body. Although punctuated equilibrium is often spoken of as a theory, to me it’s more correct to describe it as an observation: It’s a description of the fossil record, one that back’s Mayr’s allopatric theory. Mayr argued that speciation usually occurs in small satellite populations of a species, while the main body is relatively stable. Gould said that a study of paleontology showed that to be exactly the case. And that was Gould’s major contribution – he brought the theorists and paleontologists together. Up until then the two fields had pretty much ignored each other. The paleontologists weren’t keeping up with the latest findings from the theorists, while the theorists were ignoring the paleontologists because the theorists didn’t think fossils had anything to say about the mechanism of evolution. In the original paper on PE, Gould and Eldredge write that “the picture of punctuated equilibria is more in accord with the process of speciation as understood by modern evolutionists." In other words, they aren’t proposing a new process of evolution, they were saying that they have additional evidence in favor of the model of speciation that was already mainstream (allopatry). Also, Mayr’s model didn’t arise as a result of a lack of fossils, it came as a result of studying population dynamics. As mentioned, the theorists, like Mayr, were pretty much ignoring paleontology. (This is why Maynard Smith wrote to the paleontologists welcoming them back to the "high table," because they actually had something to contribute to their field.) As for the theory standing “in direct opposition to Darwin`s slow gradual change over time,” Darwin didn’t believe that evolution always occurred at the same rate: "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." Although IIRC, Darwin believed that most evolution would occur in the largest populations of a species, while allopatry essentially says the opposite, so that might be the one thing Darwin would be surprised about.goodusername_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H, @ 38, speaking of moving goal posts -- I guess the "quote mining" dismissal didn't work, so you moved your own goal posts to uh, well, moving goal posts. All too tired and predictable. Let me spell it out for you. 1. The point of this thread is the book, Fossil Forensics which questions the Darwinian narrative on fossils. We on the same page so far? 2. My first "quote mine" was a response to rvb8 who seems to think, as I assume you do, that indeed, the fossil record is filled with the millions of transitional forms that Darwin predicted would be found, but have not. Not only did that not happen, but the opposite in fact became more and more apparent -- the fossil record is a testament to non-evolution aka stasis. Just yesterday there was a article here about a beetle dating back to 300 mya with "modern" features. How did that happen? Even gradualists admit that stasis is the primary feature of the fossil record, and this over riding phenomenon of "stasis," was the whole basis for Punk Eek which theorized that evolution happens so fast, it leaves little in the way of evidence. Of course, someone less committed to materialistic naturalism might say, "Hey maybe the fossil evidence for evolution isn't there because it didn't happen." Of course that never happens with evos. No matter how far fetched, they come up with a new "just so story," to explain the fact that the evidence does't fit the narrative. That worked for a long time but people have become hip to the fact that there's really nothing there. 3. Here is the money quote from Wiki that counters to your "goal post moving" claim actually makes the point quite nicely: "Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species." Gradualism is virtually non-existent in the fossil record and non-evolution is the dominate feature. While one might not call that evidence for a creator, it is certainly not evidence for Darwinian evolution, but it doesn't leave a lot of other options. One thing is certain, the fossil record has falsified Darwinism. Evolution may have happened, but not gradually. That much seems clear.Florabama_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H- If a student asked you how to test the claim that natural selection and other blind, mindless processes produced vision systems (Darwin, Mayr, Coyne, Dawkins, et al.) would you tell them no one knows, would you tell them to read books that don't have the answer or would you tell them to stay home?ET_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Florabama - Ah, and now you're moving your goalposts, from evolution not happening to evolution being gradual.Bob O'H_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Marfin @ 33 - there's a discussion of tests here.Bob O'H_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Awhh, the old "quote mining" dismissal, Bob OH @ 10. You need some new material my friend. What would evos do without the "quote mining" dismissal? They might have to actually think for once, but as it stands, every time an evo is honest about evolutionary evidence and put its out there, if you can't deal with it, just call it "quote mining" and be on your merry way. No need to show that it is actually incorrect or out of context. How convenient for you? Unfortunately, you have not demonstrated that either quote is in any way incorrect or out of context. They both demonstrate that the primary feature of the fossil record is NON-EVOLUTION. If you are making the claim of misquoting, then the onus is on you to show that the quote is actually wrong. I know that Eldredge was a staunch evo even though he was honest about the fossil record. His and Gould's honesty forced them to resort to the "Poof Theory." No, evolution, no evolution, no evolution, no evolution (rinse and repeat a hundred million times) then POOF! Evolution happens and guess what? No need for thousands of transitional forms between claimed ancestors. And you guys claim that creationists believe by faith? Here's Wikipedia on Punk Eq. Notice the word "non-existent?" “Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once species appear in the fossil record they will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of their geological history. This state is called stasis…In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[2] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.” Wikipedia, Punctuated equilibriumFlorabama_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply