The Transitional Tiktaalik Tirade

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "The Transitional Tiktaalik Tirade" by Isotelus.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/science/the-transitional-tiktaalik-tirade/

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

My hopes are that this post offers a brief but comprehensive review of the literature reporting on Tiktaalik and tetrapods as a whole, as well as describes clearly what a transitional is and isn’t, and what it means, and what it doesn’t.

I would have added something about Romer’s gap. However, I believe your hopes have been met.

 

[Inferno]

Another excellent post.

This time, I would suggest adding links to various key words (it has the added benefit of highlighting them) and explaining some words. (what does "highly derived" mean, what are "anagenetic events", etc.)

I also think a primer on phylogenetics might do some good. There are several videos on the subject (PHS: Understanding Phylogenetic Trees (1), Bozeman Science: Phylogenetics and CHSBiomonsters: Introduction to Phylogeny & Cladograms) but I believe all of them are woefully inadequate.

 

[Isotelus]

I would have added something about Romer’s gap. However, I believe your hopes have been met.

I considered doing this, but a ghost lineage is a phylogenetic designation, while Romer's gap is a temporal range lacking particular fossils. While I realize that both involve "filling in the gaps", the concepts are just different enough to potentially cause confusion, and I didn't want to be accused of conflating terms. If I had added anything, it would be a source showing a ghost lineage in particular being filled in, which I didn't really find.

I'm glad you think I fulfilled my purpose with this post!

Another excellent post.

This time, I would suggest adding links to various key words (it has the added benefit of highlighting them) and explaining some words. (what does "highly derived" mean, what are "anagenetic events", etc.)

I also think a primer on phylogenetics might do some good. There are several videos on the subject (PHS: Understanding Phylogenetic Trees (1), Bozeman Science: Phylogenetics and CHSBiomonsters: Introduction to Phylogeny & Cladograms) but I believe all of them are woefully inadequate.

Thank you . I submitted a minor revision addressing the words you mentioned, although I remained very simplistic when describing derived, as I felt it was enough to get the gist of it.

Do you mean a phylogenetics primer as a separate blog post, or a revision of this one (personally I would choose the former)?
I can see what you mean by inadequate. I don't like how the third video used phones to describe phylogeny; that just fuels the fire of common design. So what aspects of phylogeny in particular do you think you would like to see me write on?
The use of shared-derived traits (synapomorphies) in phylogenetic analysis I could see being useful for sure. Maybe a bit more on what the branches themselves mean? Going over statistical analyses would be more difficult, if only because I might struggle a bit more in trying to find as simple an explanation as possible.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I also enjoy the alliteration of your title very much.

 

[Isotelus]

I just noticed my post has been updated with revisions, which is awesome, but I also realized I missed two spelling errors :lol:. Talk about a tirade!