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

NickMatzke_UD wondered
Just trying to figure out what happened. If you used the primary source, it would be possible that you could accidentally type something wrong, or leave out a line of the quote, or mis-type the page number, or leave that out, or whatever. If you used a secondary source, they could have made one of those mistakes, or the mistakes could have been added in your copying or some previous round of copying.
Actually, it's not unreasonable to hope mistakes were indeed made to the original text because, if the changes happen to be beneficial, the improved versions are more likely to be circulated around the Internet and survive, while the degraded versions will tend to die off. Over time, these quotes will become both fascinating and brilliant! ;-) I once found a typo on Kenneth Miller's web page. I emailed him, suggesting that he could observe his statement in the process of evolving. Funny, he never emailed me back, but he corrected the typo within a few days. I guess Dr. Miller simply lacks faith! Seriously though, when I read a quote, I usually try to verify it from the source. I have found on a few occasions, the quotes were mangled or intentionally altered. -QQuerius_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

It appears that at most REC followed your own citation to pages 45-46, didn't find the quote, and assumed that the quote was a fabrication. Despite your outrage (when was the last time you had a civil and friendly conversation with someone who disagreed with you? I can't recall seeing such on this blog) he didn't accuse YOU of fabricating the quote. He accused you of using a fabricated quote. There is a stark difference. It's obvious by now that you were plucking those quotations from out-of-context online sources, after all. REC made an understandable mistake, given that he was following your own mis-citation. When he found the material on a different page, he acknowledged that fact and explained in detail why your citation to it was inappropriate in context. I think the correction was the proper thing to do. I dont think there's any need to "immediately to take down every reference" to the offending material. Not all websites are as reliant on censorship as yours. And of course, you have never applied such a standard to yourself. For example, some time ago you quote-mined Justice Ginsburg to imply that she supported eugenics. Reading the quotation in context, it's quite clear that you misrepresented her. You did not correct yourself, as REC did. You did not remove the insulting material, as you are now demanding. You simply let it stand. Why are there two standards, one for Barry Arrington and one for the rest of the world?Pro Hac Vice_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

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.
In other words, Darwinian evolution has been soundly falsified. Sir Karl Popper can rest easy in his grave. But the denialists, atheists and other cowards will never admit it. The alternative to Darwinism is just too much for them to bear. Oh, the shame! Oh, the humanity! :-DMapou_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Two secondary sources here:
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. Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982) The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, p. 48 http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Stasis.html

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. The Myths of Human Evolution (1982) p.45-46 http://bevets.com/evolutionevidence.htm
There is no e-version of the book, but plenty of used copies here: http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Human-Evolution-Niles-Eldredge/dp/023105145XChance Ratcliff_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Nick, you really are pathetic. Keep digging. Let everyone see how contemptible you are.Barry Arrington_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

8 BoxDecember 12, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Barry, Well, you can clear all this up by indicating: 1. Did you have the original book and copy the quote directly from it? 2. If not, what was your source for the quote?
Matzke, are you saying that the Eldredge quote is fabricated? If not, and the quote is correct, why do you ask such questions?
Just trying to figure out what happened. If you used the primary source, it would be possible that you could accidentally type something wrong, or leave out a line of the quote, or mis-type the page number, or leave that out, or whatever. If you used a secondary source, they could have made one of those mistakes, or the mistakes could have been added in your copying or some previous round of copying. When someone compares the quote you gave and the original, they could conclude the quote wasn't in the primary source, and then, if they are the suspicious sort, draw a more dramatic conclusion than "someone made a mistake." Where did you originally use the quote? I can't even remember where this all started.NickMatzke_UD_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Neil, 5for, Nick and Lar answer the question in the title of the post “no.” I get defamed and they try to defend the defamer and/or attack me. Do you have no shame?Barry Arrington_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

Box asked:
Matzke, are you saying that the Eldredge quote is fabricated? If not, and the quote is correct, why do you ask such questions?
It's a diversion tactic, obviously. They want to take attention away from the damning evidence against their stupid religion. It's a favorite tactic of asteroid orifices everywhere. :-DMapou_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Does anyone know who REC is?
I believe he also goes by the handle "guy-ros-mucous" to avoid the Alinsky-ite outing tactics of religious brown-shirts.LarTanner_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Barry, Well, you can clear all this up by indicating: 1. Did you have the original book and copy the quote directly from it? 2. If not, what was your source for the quote?
Matzke, are you saying that the Eldredge quote is fabricated? If not, and the quote is correct, why do you ask such questions?Box_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Neil Rickert:
The criticism that I see directed toward you, is that you appear to have copied the text from other sites instead of going back to original sources.
So what? How does this take away from the fact that the fossil record fully and clearly falsifies Darwinian evolution?Mapou_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Barry, Well, you can clear all this up by indicating: 1. Did you have the original book and copy the quote directly from it? 2. If not, what was your source for the quote?NickMatzke_UD_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @3:
>> 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.
How can a scientific theory suffer such a punishing blow and still manage to survive? It's obvious, at least to me, that there are powerful criminal factions within the government and the academic world who are supporting it. But they can't keep this farce up forever. Sooner or later, the whole thing will come crashing down.Mapou_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Pretty cool that you take on a false accusation. I see false accusation everywhere in origin discussions. Words, ideas, and motives are accused against me to discredit or hurt me ALL THE TIME. All one can do is deny it and demand ones accuser to justify thier accusation before it is taken seriously by fair people. When the Judge is the forum owner however often there is no trial but a judgement. I have lost many despite snow white innocence. Your the boss here and still must fight to defend yourself. Its impossible for the little folks. One must endure it and remember its the bad guys who need to throw false accusation. I don't mean honet errors.Robert Byers_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

F/N: Here is a longstanding reference to the clip: __________________ >> 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 >> ___________________ Let's see how the chips lie after they fly. KFkairosfocus_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Funny that you just republished something you say is defamatory.5for_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

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.
I am not seeing any suggestion that it was you who did the fabrication (if there was fabrication). The criticism that I see directed toward you, is that you appear to have copied the text from other sites instead of going back to original sources.Neil Rickert_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply