Are there Any Depths to Which the Darwin Lobby Will not Sink?

_{Barry Arrington

December 12, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

I have used the following quotation from Eldredge and Tatterson extensively on these pages in the last several days:

Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.

On December 11, 2013, someone who goes by “REC” at antievolution.org posted the following:

Had to stop by the library for other reasons, but apparently, Barry was right. The quote he used to pillory people with wasn’t mined, it was fabricated

The post was cross-posted at The Skeptical Zone.

Then, REC posted this:

TLDR version: the quote is in there, on another page

Dear readers, everywhere I post I do so under my real name. I have been accused in front of the entire world of fabricating a quotation. This is an extremely serious matter indeed.

I call on both websites immediately to take down every reference to the fabrication accusation.

Does anyone know who REC is?

Comments

Nick Matzke @ 46, Oh, I see, it is OK to say that someone fabricated a quote at the top of a post so long as way down in the body you include some weasel words about how it might be somewhere else in the book. So, from this I take it that you would be OK with me going around the Internet posting items with the heading: Nick Matzke Caught Fabricating Quote!!* So long as somewhere in the middle of the lengthy post otherwise blasting you I add “*or maybe he didn’t.” Just say the word Nicky boy, and that’s what I’ll start doing. You think it is OK for me. Is it OK for you?Barry Arrington_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

Barry writes,
Barry ArringtonDecember 13, 2013 at 5:41 pm Nick, this was what was said about me at antievolution.org:
Had to stop by the library for other reasons, but apparently, Barry was right. The quote he used to pillory people with wasn’t mined, it was fabricated
This is false. The quote was not fabricated. The book says exactly what I said that it said, and Eldredge meant exactly what I quoted him for. Nevertheless, you are defending those who defamed me. From that I conclude you believe that it is perfectly OK falsely to proclaim on the Internet that someone has fabricated a quotation. Let’s test this. Is it OK with you if I go on the internet and post the following on various forums:
Had to stop by the library for other reasons. The quote Nick Matzke used was fabricated.
Barry, what world are you living in? How can you defend yourself from claims that you are doing shenanigans with quotes, by doing shenanigans when quoting your accuser? Here's the full original statement of your critic:
Had to stop by the library for other reasons, but apparently, Barry was right. The quote he used to pillory people with was not mined. It was fabricated:*
Quote Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record. Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.
DOES not appear on pages 45-46. Not with ellipses. The words are just not there. There appears to be 1 and only 1 edition of the book. *Or comes from some other source/place in this book. I don't have time to read the whole book right now, or go on a wild-goose-chase through the literature on Barry's behalf. And considering he references it as Myth_.... The other quote from the same pages: Quote
Darwin himself, . . . prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search . . . One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46
Is there, but quite mangled, and comes from a section titled: What are species? , where the authors discuss stability in the fossil record, within species. There is no sort of implication that there are not any transitional fossils, and the section isn't dealing with changes between species, but rather the identity and seeming stability of some species. I think Lizzie dealt with this one? It looks like a pretty standard evolutionary biology book, perhaps with the exception that chapter 2 beats up on creationism!
You can't just quote the first part and not the asterisk and what came after. Not if you want anyone who can read to take you seriously. Furthermore, the very same author wrote another post soon after, saying that the quote is in the book, just on page 48. This happened several days ago now. Why don't you discuss this context? Not even your original critic was accusing you of fabrication, he was saying the quote appeared to be fabricated, since it wasn't where you said it was. All you did was copy it in your heedless copy-paste operation. And he himself found the actual location and posted that update. So he's not even making the claim that the quote was fabricated anymore. This all happened days ago, yet you are pretending like it didn't. In the meantime, you still haven't explained: 1. Why you got the reference wrong. 2. Why you refuse to admit that the quote, in context, is just about the rarity of transitions between very similar species, and does not indicate that transitions are rare across larger morphological differences, nor does it indicate a general lack of support of the fossil record for evolution.NickMatzke_UD_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

TheisticEvolutionist, 35 Hopeful-Monsterism v2.0 is probably going to be the central dogma in another 10-20 years. (maybe with some natural genetic-engineering thrown in) It's really the only place that the materialist have left to turn after climbing out of the ashes of neo-darwinism. Though, they still have a few good years of bluffing left. Which will be either extremely comical or extremely frustrating to watch, depending on what mood your in.lifepsy_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

KairosFocus,
>> Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. … That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, … prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search … One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982) The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, p. 45-46 >>
Here is TalkOrigins "rebuttal". http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html They note that this line follows that quote:
Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved. TalkOrigins: Note the claim that the fossil record supports evolution.
LOL. There's your answer. Evolutionists can not admit the obvious, (what has already been admitted by their leaders years ago), but with mealy-mouths, they will sheepishly fall back on some vague notion that the fossil record "in a general sort of way" supports evolution. And furthermore will continue to toss out the clearly erroneous and absolutely pathetic cry of "quote-mine" as a distraction. How low can they get?lifepsy_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

Querius @41, I'm sorry but I disagree. Matzke deserves no respect precisely because he's a professor. He has no excuse. He should be vilified and the nonsense that he spews out should be uncovered for what it is, the dishonest preaching of a false preacher. And not just Matzke. The whole bunch of them should be shamed and, if it were possible, tarred and feathered. The truth is too important to allow a bunch of cockamamie self-appointed gurus to claim a monopoly on it. I'm sure others have different opinions but that's my take on it.Mapou_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Box @40, You're right. In this case, context is not Nickey's friend. That quote is a killer, a Darwinist's worst nightmare. LOL. The mystery here is, why is Eldredge still a Darwinist? Peer pressure? Fear of being ostracised? Who knows? The fact is that his and Gould's punctuated equilibrium hypothesis is just a bunch of BS. Random mutations do not wait millions of years for anybody, especially paleontologists.Mapou_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Mapou,
If advanced intelligent beings designed life on earth, this is precisely what we would expect. Advanced designers would have powerful simulation machines to test out their designs before introducing them to the environment, right? I think so.
Exactly. Nicely stated! ---------------------- There's also a general observation that I'd like to make. It's not aimed at anyone in particular, but I do think professor Matzke is not being treated with respect. He's not much different than some professors that I've encountered (some of whom were insufferable egotists). Rather than slamming him, I'd be more interested in civil conversation and the exchange of viewpoints. I definitely would point out his squirming and misrepresentation. But I wouldn't make any ad hominem attacks against his character. Just my two cents. -QQuerius_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Mapou, Nick really must provide some context, because, on first impression, this quote looks even more damning for evolutionism than the quote presented by Barry.Box_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Box @37, Thanks for that quote. I like this part:
Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else.
If advanced intelligent beings designed life on earth, this is precisely what we would expect. Advanced designers would have powerful simulation machines to test out their designs before introducing them to the environment, right? I think so.Mapou_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Nick, this was what was said about me at antievolution.org:
Had to stop by the library for other reasons, but apparently, Barry was right. The quote he used to pillory people with wasn’t mined, it was fabricated
This is false. The quote was not fabricated. The book says exactly what I said that it said, and Eldredge meant exactly what I quoted him for. Nevertheless, you are defending those who defamed me. From that I conclude you believe that it is perfectly OK falsely to proclaim on the Internet that someone has fabricated a quotation. Let's test this. Is it OK with you if I go on the internet and post the following on various forums:
Had to stop by the library for other reasons. The quote Nick Matzke used was fabricated.
Barry Arrington_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

Nick, what is Eldredge talking about here? Can you provide some context?
NE: No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting of cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change -- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution. - Reinventing Darwin (1995) p.95 [my empahisis]
Box_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

TheisticEvolutionist, give it a rest, man. Nobody is claiming that evolutionists are denying stasis. Of course, they know about it. It's in their faces; how could they deny it? They are simply acting as if it's not a major refutation of their false religion. I am making the point that stasis falsifies Darwinian evolution. Why? Because there is no reason for random mutations (the very creative source of evolutionary theory) to go into hiding for hundreds of millions of years. That is absurd.Mapou_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Here's some information on Eldredge http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Niles_Eldredge He was an early advocate of the extended evolutionary synthesis. He wasn't anti-Darwin. If you want a non-Darwinian evolutionist then look up Richard Goldschmidt. He was originally laughed at by both creationists and neo-Darwinists but some of his research was proven correct in evolutionary developmental biology. Here's what Donald Prothero writes in his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters:
The past twenty years have vindicated Goldschmidt to some degree. With the discovery of the importance of regulatory genes, we realize that he was ahead of his time in focusing on the importance of a few genes controlling big changes in the organisms, not small-scales changes in the entire genome as neo-Darwinians thought. In addition, the hopeful monster problem is not so insurmountable after all. Embryology has shown that if you affect an entire population of developing embryos with a stress (such as a heat shock) it can cause many embryos to go through the same new pathway of embryonic development, and then they all become hopeful monsters when they reach reproductive age.
TheisticEvolutionist_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Also see David Raup, he's another one the creationists usually quote mine: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Raup His article "Conflicts between Darwin and Palaeontology" is a favourite of the creationists.TheisticEvolutionist_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

There is no strict "universal" gradual evolution in the fossil record, but this has been known for over sixty years, nobody is denying stasis in the fossil record. It's a bit a of a straw man that modern creationists are still claiming modern evolution holds that view. Donald R. Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" explains much of this.TheisticEvolutionist_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Dishonest Nickey:
the very same book contains many other passages confirming that many other aspects of the fossil record and found transitional fossils support evolution
Nobody is disputing the fact there are transitional fossils, Nickey. So what? Intelligent design over time would also result in transitional fossils. How do they prove Darwinian evolution? What the fossil record does not support is the Darwinian prediction of huge numbers of finely graduated transitional fossils. They are nowhere to be found. What is seen are sudden explosions of new species followed by long periods of stasis, as if all the random mutations in the world conspired together and decided to go on long holidays lasting tens and, sometimes, hundreds of millions of years. You're pathetic, Matzke.Mapou_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Hmm. So far, it looks like: 1. Barry copied-and-pasted a quote from some creationist website, without looking up the original reference. 2. There is only one English edition of this book, and the creationist website's reference was wrong, and Barry didn't check. 3. The quote doesn't mean what Barry and the other IDists/creationists want it to mean. Eldredge was talking about the rarity of fossils smoothly bridging very small species-to-species transitions, but people at UD take it to mean that the fossil record completely fails to support Darwinian evolution. They ignore: - fact that the quote in question comes from a chapter and section of the book specifically on fossil *species* - the very same book contains many other passages confirming that many other aspects of the fossil record and found transitional fossils support evolution - the fact that the author, Eldredge, is clearly on record in print confirming that many transitional fossils have been found, and that these confirm evolution 4. The creationists/IDists have not even tried to make substantive points contradicting any of the above, instead they (a) try to switch topics, (b) pound the table and repeat the use of the quote while refusing to consider its context, or (c) insult, threaten, and/or ban the evolutionists for daring to raise the above objections, which are actually just matters of basic scholarship. If you ever want to know why creationists are unpopular in academia, look no farther than this episode! These sorts of shenanigans would get a student graded down in any subject. They are appealing only to demagogues. Why can't you guys just follow the evidence where it leads about what this quote means, and what Barry inappropriately did with it?NickMatzke_UD_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

It may be considered ill manners to point at the elephant in the room – naturalists seem to be wrong about everything every time. What I really would like to know is: when was the last time that a naturalist actually won an argument at this forum?Box_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

PPS: To see the point, cf 260 on in context here.kairosfocus_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

PS: The target painters are operating out of -- anti evolution.kairosfocus_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

MF: You have misrepresented what I have said. I have indicated that the moral yardstick 1 is undeniable on pain of absurdity. You have repeatedly shifted to subjectivism, and I am challenging that subjectivism as fundamentally unable to ground the yardstick case, which is worlds apart from saying you in particular approve of the murder of children. (I will not here ask about abortion, which is a closely related case.) But of course you have to try a comeback somehow to try to pretend a immoral equivalency. To that I say, a live case of target painting is on the table, in reply to false accusations of nazism. Kindly, face it and what it says, don't try immoral equivalency games. KFkairosfocus_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

This all would be hilarious if it weren't so damn sad. Look at the field packed full of Matzke strawmen. His dreck sycophants come to hack them down only to ruin their own credibility as well.TSErik_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Dishonest Matzke:
Evidence? I see just one edition on Worldcat and Amazon. There is hardback and paperback but that’s different.
Still beating your little stupid diversion drum, eh Nickey? The fact remains that the quote is correct and Eldredge and Tatterson did in fact write those words and they mean exactly what Barry said they mean. Those despicable little morons at antievolution.org, caught with their pants down and having no plausible excuse for it, decided to play the ad hominem game in order to save face. It's their favorite little game. The point that Barry Arrington wanted to make originally (before you bozos started jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth) is that even well-known evolutionists have admitted that the most important of all the predictions of Darwinian evolution has been soundly falsified. The only reason that the theory is still surviving is that asteroid orifices like you and your brain-dead buddies at antievolution.org are keeping it alive via artificial respiration. What a bunch of gutless crybabies you people are. :-DMapou_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

I think Barry has made his point. Clearly, none of his adversaries deplore this unjust act and each rationalizes it in his own creative way. Mark Frank, Neil Rickert, Lar Tanner, Nick Matzke, 5for, and Pro Hac Vice all hope--or are at least content with the prospect--that the lie will continue to reverberate through cyberspace and the social network.StephenB_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

There is more than one edition.
Evidence? I see just one edition on Worldcat and Amazon. There is hardback and paperback but that's different.NickMatzke_UD_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

TLDR version: the quote is in there, on another page There is more than one edition. I keep a collection from primary sources here. Normally Google Books can make a trip to the library unnecessary, but not in this case. This is all a trivial distraction. These are the words Eldredge wrote and you have clearly used them in the sense he intended. If atheists had better points to make, I suspect they would.bevets_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

I have been accused in front of the entire world of fabricating a quotation. This is an extremely serious matter indeed.
These things are relative – on another thread KF just accused myself and other materialists of condoning the torture and murder of children (I also always publish under my real name)Mark Frank_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

Are there Any Depths to Which the Darwin Lobby Will not Sink?
Sadly, my dealings with darwinists have led me to conclude the answer to your question Mr Arrington is: NO I'm sorry they have tried to tarnish your good name....it speaks volumes about them. Very sad.Blue_Savannah_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT}

LT: Maybe it has escaped your notice that at one of the fever swamp sites, there was a recent attempt to publish my residential address. For good reason, I would find that a vicious SA-style tactic -- that is what Brown-Shirt means, after all -- to try to paint a target on not only my back but those of my wife and family, as well as in-laws who live at a similar address. I, for cause, therefore call you a hypocrite and false accuser here and now if you do not immediately publicly repudiate such tactics on your side and apologise for outrageous mud-slinging, especially when you have just sought to smear and taint millions as Nazis. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

Querius, Beautiful take on it!AussieID_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply