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

...there are many books on evolution that you could read...
I've been reading one called The Evidence for Evolution. It's a real hoot!Mung_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H waffle? No way!Truth Will Set You Free_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Bob O`H- 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. So is it slow gradual change over eons or short sharp bursts with no transitions , whats the test .Marfin_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H- I know that you cannot help me as it is clear you don't have a clue. Perhaps it is you who should go home as it is clear that you don't have anything to offer beyond equivocations and bluffs.ET_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Does any know how natural selection produced finches? No. Evolutionary biology doesn't even know what determines that a finch develops. Dogs? Natural selection cannot account for dogs so why does Bob O'H even bring them up? Natural selection isn't anything like artificial selection- only artificial selection is actual selection whereas natural selection is an elimination of the less fit.ET_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

ET - I'm afraid I can't help you, then. Would it be impertinent of me to simply suggest you go home?Bob O'H_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Marfin - read the Eldridge piece you quoted from. It's also worth noting that what may be gradual on one time scale can be sudden on another, e.g. think of the changes in beak size in Darwin's finches. Given how fast morphological changes can occur (think domestication of dogs too), it is perhaps not surprising that the fossil record can contain big changes with no intermediates observed.Bob O'H_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H, I Have read many books on evolution including Darwin and Coyne. Neither Darwin nor Coyne had any idea how to test the claim that natural selection is a designer mimic. BTW, do you realize that Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution? The point being is all Coyne does is equivocate. And he actually thinks that Darwin's "evidence" for the evolution of the eye is actually scientific- it isn't. Darwin didn't present any evidence to support his claims and neither did Coyne.ET_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Bob O`H - So Goulds quote about the EXTREME rarity of transitional fossils being the trade secret of palaeontology, hence his punctuated equilibrium theory does not sit in opposition to Darwins gradual change over time, of course it does. So Which theory is correct and once again how can you test the fossils to show which ones are transitional to show which theory is correct.Marfin_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

ET - there are many books on evolution that you could read (starting with Darwin's 1851 abstract!). Try Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, for example.Bob O'H_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
Now let’s see if you can manage to find a quote from an article by an evolutionary biologist that does support your view.
Can you and yours manage to find any evidence to support your point of view? If so please present it.ET_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

rvb8:
Sure it is useful, you may actually try looking for the near limitless resources supporting the science of evolution.
How arte you defining "evolution"? There isn't any science that supports Darwin or Dawkins view of evolution, that is why I ask.ET_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Marfin - even under punctuated equilibrium one can still get transitional fossils: they simply stick around in stasis before the next bout of morphological change.Bob O'H_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

RVB8-So correct me if I am wrong you are admitting there are no tests and that palaeontologists opinion is what is used to determine if a fossil is a bringing species.So why is the opinion of Gould and Eldridge different from the standard Darwinian model, and how do we test which is correct if both sides are giving their well educated scientific opinion.Marfin_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

Marfin, sometimes the opacity of your questions leaves me scratching my head. I think your question is; 'how do evolutionary paleontologists determine if a certain fossil is a link from one major clade to another, or transitional?' Is that fair? Well thy look at shared characteristics, bone structure etc. They look at the age of the fossil and determine its relationship to all other known fossils from that geologic period. I'm sure there are many other prcedures they carefully and professionally follow, to determine scientific authenticity; again what they do to determine a transitional fossil should be very easy to google, why haven't you tried? Tiktaalik, is such a beauty; truly remarkable encompassing features of fish, and amphibians in the one transitional organism. There are a vast many of these 'bridging' species that we have beautiful fossils for; let your index finger do the walking.:)rvb8_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT}

Florabama @ 10 - you might like to read the sources you quote mine - that piece doesn't say that "[t]he more fossils are pulled out of the ground, the more non-evolution is apparent". It actually doesn't discuss contemporary fossil finds at all (that's not the point of the article). Now let's see if you can manage to find a quote from an article by an evolutionary biologist that does support your view.Bob O'H_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

RVB8- The last time the fossil record came up I asked you a simple question, how do we test transitional fossils to know "yes these are transitional fossils".You never answered the question Bob OH said scientific study and opinion says they are transitional , but if you cannot put these studies and opinions to the test how can you ever determine there validity. So once again whats the test.Marfin_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

Belfast @16, 'It's no use referring someone to google, or sarcastically referring to the Book of Genesis.' Sure it is useful, you may actually try looking for the near limitless resources supporting the science of evolution. Also, I referred you first to wiki, and their extensive page, 'List of transitional fossils', then to 'talkorigins'. That site is literally bursting with good transitionals, and other evidence. I love the book of Genesis, and go back to its poetic style often. But like AIG, it is not a reference that is reliable.rvb8_{July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

Dio @15, I've read and immensely enjoyed, 'One Day in the Life of Ivan Denesovyk', 'Cancer Ward', 'The First Circle', 'Lenin in Zuric', 'The Gulag Archipelego', 'August 1914', and assorted short stories. As Solzhenitsyn aged he became ever more the 'Great Russian', and cleaved ever closer to his growing faith; Orthodox of course. He was embraced by Putin (always worrying), and became somewhat closed to the idea of foreigners. So, as the great artist I agreed with his honesty, humanity and compassion. As he grew older and became more intolerant his writing also flagged. A great and courageous man, left somewhat lesser as his senility over road his more, and older, humanism.rvb8_{July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

Rvb@3. You said you were certain counter arguments existed to a book you haven't read, namely, fossil forensics. It's no use referring someone to google, or sarcastically referring to the book of Genesis.Belfast_{July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

rvb8 @12: "I am a Pasternak, and Solzhenitsyn fan" Do you agree with everything Solzhenitsyn said or wrote? Is there anything you don't agree with him on? What is it?Dionisio_{July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

rvb8- Alleged transitional fossils do not say anything about a mechanism. And they are also lacking in the fossil record of marine invertebrates, which happen to comprise the vast majority of the fossil record.ET_{July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Mung @6, heh:) Good one!rvb8_{July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

EugeneS, I am a Pasternak, and Solzhenitsyn fan, and have indeed read, in its entirety, that massive, brilliant, exposition, 'The Gulag Archipelego'. The evidence I suggest, 'absolutely certainly exists', is easy to find EugeneS. It is everywhere and not knowing where to find this easily accessible evidence points to blind, or willfull ignorance. Start with 'List of transitional fossils', at Wiki, then move on to 'talkorigins', simple google searches after that will flood you with info. On the other hand, you could read Genesis, Dembski, and AIG; up to you.rvb8_{July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

What's obvious is that people are looking for alternative models. This one may or may not be better, may or may not shed more light. But non-Darwinian evolution books continue to sell for a reason: People know something is wrong, whether or not they understand what it is.News_{July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H, @ 5, actually it's gotten worse for evolution. The more fossils are pulled out of the ground, the more non-evolution is apparent. “Stasis is a common (I would say the dominant) pattern of anatomical (non)change in the evolutionary history of species; …And, of course, given a concatenation of many separate ‘punctuated equilibria’ events all happening more or less at the same time, Darwin, armed with his particular conception of evolution through natural selection, must have felt totally helpless in the face of such a monstrous pattern. He could blame stasis on a poor geological record, but faced with paleontologists talking up Cuvierian patterns, Darwin simply cut and ran.” (Eldredge, Niles, “Confessions of a Darwinist,” http://www.vqronline.org/vqr-portfolio/confessions-darwinist Spring 2006.)Florabama_{July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

RVB "I am absolutely certain that counter arguments exist; and probably counter solid evidence as well." When Boris Pasternak was ostracized in USSR for dissent, somebody in the press published a phrase that has since become a proverb: "I have not read his books, but I condemn them".EugeneS_{July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

The vast majority of fossils are of marine invertebrates- as is to be expected of the process. Yet in that vast majority we do not see evidence for universal common descent. Why is that? Also there isn't any teetering monolith that is evolutionary theory as there still isn't any scientific theory of evolution.ET_{July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

rvb8 @ 3: "I am absolutely certain that counter arguments exist; and probably counter solid evidence as well." Fair statement, but remember that just about every person thinks this way, e.g. I am absolutely certain that counter arguments exist, and probably solid counter evidence as well, against Darwinian evolution theory (of every stripe). We all think we have the best evidence!Truth Will Set You Free_{July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

The teetering monolith, that is evolutionary theory, suffers yet another broadside that eviscerates its long held doctrines.
hear! hear!Mung_{July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply