Category Archives: Evolution

More questionable science reporting

Posted on by

I recently picked up the March/April issue of a new magazine, Science Illustrated which is sort of like Discover Magazine-lite. Lots of pretty pictures (as the name suggests) but the actual information content is somewhat limited and in some cases it is more than limited, it is simply wrong.

For example while flipping through this issue I ran across a little two paragraph editorial piece on a small (non-avian) dinosaur fossil known as Sinosauropteryx: “Researchers Pluck “Feathered Dinosaur” Theory”.

Read on»

“Tests Confirm T. Rex Kinship With Birds”

Posted on by

Just ran across this on the science section of the NY Times web site:

Tests Confirm T. Rex Kinship With Birds

The article, by science writer John Noble Wilford, reports on results from a Harvard study to be reported in the next edition of the journal Science.

In the first analysis of proteins extracted from dinosaur bones, scientists say they have established more firmly than ever that the closest living relatives of the mighty predator Tyrannosaurus rex are modern birds.

The research, being published Friday in the journal Science, yielded the first molecular data confirming the widely held hypothesis of a close dinosaur-bird ancestry, the American scientific team reported. The link was previously suggested by anatomical similarities.

This, if it bears out, it is further evidence supporting the evolutionary relationship between theropodcomparative anatomy. dinosaurs and birds that has been strongly suggested by the evidence from

The anti-dino/bird faction amongst scientists (Martin, Feduccia etc.) will no doubt claim that this is merely yet another example of the many (supposed) convergences between dinosaurs and birds. Creationists will probably deny, deny, deny.

Remember to stay tuned on this though. This is only the popular level report, the peer reviewed material is yet to be seen; and it is only the first such study. More studies, if possible, will be needed to confirm this finding.

They apparently did some similar tests on mastodon bones:

Similar molecular tests on tissues from the extinct mastodon confirmed its close genetic link to the elephant, as had been suspected from skeletal affinities.

Perhaps not terribly surprising, but still interesting nonetheless.

Streaming video from the journal Nature

Posted on by

I received an e-mail from Nature.com advertising their streaming video page, and thought I’d pass it along. They have videos on a number of interesting scientific topics, here is a sampling:

“Whale Evolution” featuring cetacean paleontologist Hans Thewissen.

“Language Evolution” on how languages change over time.

“Hominid evolution and development” a multi part video on paleoanthropology.

Check it out…

Contradictory stories from the ID crowd on the Expelled incident

Posted on by

I guess they don’t read each others blog posts.

Over at Post-Darwinist, Denyse O’Leary is quoting Expelled producer Mark Mathis as admitting that he:

…banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more.

Nothing about being uninvited, or sneaking in, or gate-crashing, but apparently the right hand of O’Leary didn’t bother to let the left hand of DaveScot know because over on Uncommon Descent DaveScot graces us with yet another round of bleating about Myers and Dawkins being uninvited gate-crashers.

DaveScot: Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers are running around saying they weren’t “gate crashers” at a pre-screening of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. But that’s exactly what they were.

Make up your minds people.

Read on »

“Primitive” and “Advanced” in evolutionary biology

Posted on by

A commenter made a good point regarding something I said in one of my follow-up comments in the thread after my rant on intermediate fossils that I thought I would move up here to respond to.

Oldfart: While you are at it, explain “primitive” and “advanced” traits. Since it is also often said that later is more advanced than earlier assuming some kind of “direction”.

You’re right I should clarify this.

Read on »

Are all fossils “transitional”? A test rant.

Posted on by

All over the net I see people trying to defend evolution from the attacks of antievolutionists which is good. However when they do so using false or inaccurate arguments that is not so good. For example one of my pet peeves is a particular argument that I’ve seen commonly used to rebut antievolutionist claims that there is a lack of “transitional” forms in the fossil record which often goes something like this:

“You don’t know what you’re talking about, all fossils are transitional.”

Unfortunately this is simply not true. Not all individuals reproduce; nor do all species give rise to new species. In fact many (if not most) lineages in the history of life have led to dead ends. Think about it, if a fossil represents a species which did not give rise to new species, what is it transitioning to?

Of course part of the problem is the use of term “transitional fossil” since the word transitional implies that there is some certainty about specific lineages which is actually rarely the case in paleontology.

It is better to talk about “intermediate fossils” since this refers to morphological characters (facts) rather than hypothetical lineages.

For example Archaeopteryx is undeniably intermediate in form between dinosaurs and birds being a mixture of both dinosaurian and avian (and some in between) characters, this is a fact. The question as to whether or not the genus Archaeopteryx is itself ancestral to later birds would be a hypothesis which is 1) very difficult to test and 2) not one that all paleontologists who work on dinosaurs/birds necessarily agree upon.

So please, for the sake of my sanity (and for scientific accuracy), spread the word to stop claiming that all fossils are “transitional” and maybe encourage the use of the term “intermediate” instead.

End rant.