Darwinian Debating Device #5: The False Quote Mining Charge

_{Barry Arrington

October 16, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

One of the Darwinists’ favorite tactics is the “False Quote Mining Charge.” For those who do not know what “quote mining” is:

Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner’s viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don’t in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It’s a way of lying.

In summary, to accuse someone of quote mining is to accuse them of lying. It is a serious charge. Let us examine a recent example of the charge to illustrate.

In Origin of Species Darwin wrote this about the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record:

But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

In a prior thread I asked Alan Fox the following question:

Are you suggesting that the fossil record now reveals the “finely graduated organic chain” that in Origin Charles Darwin predicted would be ultimately revealed as the fossil record was explored further?

He replied:

As far as it reveals anything, yes. The current record is certainly not incompatible with gradual evolution over vast periods of time.

I replied:

Again, leading Darwinists disagree:

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 Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.

In response, in three separate comments, Mr. Fox charged me with quote mining:

Nice selection from the Bumper Book of Quote-mines, Barry

The quote-mine lifted (and I bet not by Barry) from a book implies that Eldredge has a problem with evolutionary theory.

Returning to the thread topic and Barry’s quote mine of Eldredge:

Let us summarize:

1. I quoted Darwin for the proposition that the fossil record should show a “finely graduated organic chain” and the fact that is does not show any such chain is the strongest objection to his theory.

2. I asked Alan Fox whether he believed the fossil record does show such a chain, and he said yes and that the record was not incompatible with gradual evolution.

3. I quoted Eldredge for the proposition that “Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.” VERY IMPORTANT: When I quoted Eldredge I called him a “leading Darwinist.”

4. Alan begins screaming “Quote mine”!

Now let’s go back to the beginning. To accuse someone of quote mining is to accuse them of quoting a source out of context to make it appear as though they agree with you when they don’t. It is a form of lying.

The proposition that I was advancing was that the fossil record has not turned out as Darwin expected. Alan disagreed. I quoted Eldredge to support my claim. Alan accused me of quoting Eldredge out of context to support my claim. This means Alan was accusing me of taking Eldredge’s words out of context to support my claim when in context they do not. He then said that I implied Eldredge has a problem with evolutionary theory. Bottom line: He accused me of lying and gross deceit.

But the truth is that I did not quote Eldredge out of context. Eldredge wrote that change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record, and that is exactly what he meant. Nothing in the context of the quotation changes that. He has never changed his views.

I never implied that Eldredge had a problem with evolutionary theory. Indeed, the whole point of quoting him is that his is an admission against interest. I called him a “leading Darwinist.” Alan’s charge is not only false it is imbecilic. He said I implied that a leading proponent of a theory has a problem with the theory, and that is absurd on its face.

In summary, Alan Fox should be ashamed of himself. He came onto these pages and falsely accused me of lies and deceit.

Comments

Matzke: “I explained the context issue very carefully . . ." And I explained very carefully that I am asking you whether you agreed with Eldredge, not with me. I am pretty sure you are not too stupid to understand that that means I am asking you whether you agree with Eldredge’s statement as Eldredge meant it to be understood in the context in which he made it. So, once again, do you agree with Eldredge’s statement as Eldredge meant it to be understood in the context in which he made it? Prediction: Further bobbing, weaving and evasions from Matzke.Barry Arrington_{December 6, 2013
December
12
Dec
6
06
2013
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Hey bornagain, Do you think Prothero thinks there are lots of transitional fossils, and that transitional fossils support evolution? Check his 2007 book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters.NickMatzke_UD_{December 6, 2013
December
12
Dec
6
06
2013
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Also isn’t there another dimension to the term “macro-evolution” that many will add. This is the investigation of the origin of complex functional novelties (my term and it may not be the best description but most know what it being referred to.)
Another common usage of "macroevolution" is looking at traits across a phylogeny -- i.e. across multiple species. Basically, "microevolution" is stuff within species, "macroevolution" is stuff across species. But this isn't really about "bigness of difference", even though creationists universally misinterpret it that way. You could look at the macroevolution of feather color across a phylogeny, just as you could look at the macroevolution of live birth or some other "major adaptation". So, studies of the origin of "complex functional novelties" should probably be referred to as "study of complex functional novelties". Sometimes these studies are macroevolutionary (when they occur across a phylogeny), but they sometimes could be microevolutionary (when they occur inside a population). E.g., live birth is a polymorphism *within* some species, i.e. some members of the species lay eggs, and other members of the same species have live young. In this case, you have a "major difference" but it is a microevolutionary study.
I doubt most who are pro-ID are interested in the way you have delineated the terms “speciation” and “macro-evolution” and would not debate too much over these processes.
Well, that's one of my main points around these parts. Creationists/IDists basically make up their own definitions of words, don't realize that these are technical scientific terms that scientists are using in a very specific way, and then because of this difference the creationists/IDists read quotes and misinterpret what they mean, because they don't understand what is actually going on in the professional field. Then they make lists of the quotes, endlessly repeat them, convince naive audiences in church basements that they know what they are talking about etc. It's all pretty silly once you do know the ins and outs of what the professionals are talking about.NickMatzke_UD_{December 6, 2013
December
12
Dec
6
06
2013
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

are essentially the same thing. The second just adds extinction but not origins and why some species may beget more species than others. Am I wrong?
Yes. It's similar to the difference between studying the process of birth in humans, and studying human population demographics, why different countries have different population densities, etc.NickMatzke_UD_{December 6, 2013
December
12
Dec
6
06
2013
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Barry said: Nick Matzke: Still waiting for answer! Your silence is speaking volumes. I certainly hope he hasn’t dashed away (like usual) yet. Watching his implosion has been entertaining.
Heh, you guys are ridiculous. I explained the context issue very carefully, you are still avoiding addressing the context issue, because to do so would be to admit that the Eldredge quote is being misused when taken out of context.NickMatzke_UD_{December 6, 2013
December
12
Dec
6
06
2013
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Barry said:
Nick Matzke: Still waiting for answer! Your silence is speaking volumes.
I certainly hope he hasn't dashed away (like usual) yet. Watching his implosion has been entertaining.TSErik_{December 6, 2013
December
12
Dec
6
06
2013
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke: Still waiting for answer! Your silence is speaking volumes.Barry Arrington_{December 6, 2013
December
12
Dec
6
06
2013
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

as to Matzke's claim here:
Statements about “transitional fossils” in one context don’t tell you much at all about the existence of transitional fossils in the other context. And, both topics have themselves changed significantly since the 1970s and 1980s, so people can’t just wantonly quote mine the old literature and pretend that it represents the modern data.
yet
Darwin’s Legacy - Donald R. Prothero - February 2012 Excerpt: “For the first decade after the paper [Punctuated Equilibrium] was published, it was the most controversial and hotly argued idea in all of paleontology. Soon the great debate among paleontologists boiled down to just a few central points, which Gould and Eldredge (1977) nicely summarized on the fifth anniversary of the paper’s release. The first major discovery was that stasis was much more prevalent in the fossil record than had been previously supposed. Many paleontologists came forward and pointed out that the geological literature was one vast monument to stasis, with relatively few cases where anyone had observed gradual evolution. If species didn’t appear suddenly in the fossil record and remain relatively unchanged, then biostratigraphy would never work—and yet almost two centuries of successful biostratigraphic correlations was evidence of just this kind of pattern. As Gould put it, it was the ‘dirty little secret’ hidden in the paleontological closet. Most paleontologists were trained to focus on gradual evolution as the only pattern of interest, and ignored stasis as ‘not evolutionary change’ and therefore uninteresting, to be overlooked or minimized. Once Eldredge and Gould had pointed out that stasis was equally important (‘stasis is data’ in Gould’s words), paleontologists all over the world saw that stasis was the general pattern, and that gradualism was rare—and that is still the consensus 40 years later. … In my dissertation on the incredibly abundant and well preserved fossil mammals of the Big Badlands of the High Plains, I had over 160 well-dated, well-sampled lineages of mammals, so I could evaluate the relative frequency of gradualism versus stasis in an entire regional fauna. … it was clear that nearly every lineage showed stasis, with one minor example of gradual size reduction in the little oreodont Miniochoerus. I could point to this data set and make the case for the prevalence of stasis without any criticism of bias in my sampling. More importantly, the fossil mammals showed no sign of responding to the biggest climate change of the past 50 million years (the Eocene-Oligocene transition, when glaciers appeared in Antarctica after 200 million years). In North America, dense forests gave way to open scrublands, crocodiles and pond turtles were replaced by land tortoises, and the snails changed from those typical of Nicaragua to those of Baja California. Yet out of all the 160 lineages of mammals in this time interval, there was virtually no response.”,,, In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature
Not quite the ringing endorsement Matzke needs to sell his bunk is it?bornagain77_{December 6, 2013
December
12
Dec
6
06
2013
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

NickMatzke_UD, master of Darwinian obfuscation, is asked to clarify a point??? This ought to be entertaining :) Here is a brief history of Nick Matzke's work on 'clarifying' issues. (aka literature bluffing) https://uncommondescent.com/cambrian-explosion/steve-meyer-cambrian-gaps-not-being-filled-in/#comment-482236 Here are a few site that call into question Matke's scholarship and integrity: https://uncommondescent.com/cambrian-explosion/steve-meyer-cambrian-gaps-not-being-filled-in/#comment-482194bornagain77_{December 6, 2013
December
12
Dec
6
06
2013
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

I meant to say.
The second just adds extinction to origins and why some species may beget more species than others.
jerry_{December 6, 2013
December
12
Dec
6
06
2013
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

speciation research — how and why gene pools / populations split to form new species
and
macroevolution — the dynamics of species originations and extinctions through time;
are essentially the same thing. The second just adds extinction but not origins and why some species may beget more species than others. Am I wrong? Also isn't there another dimension to the term "macro-evolution" that many will add. This is the investigation of the origin of complex functional novelties (my term and it may not be the best description but most know what it being referred to.) I doubt most who are pro-ID are interested in the way you have delineated the terms "speciation" and "macro-evolution" and would not debate too much over these processes. But they would be very interested in the formation of anything really novel in a new species. Is there a better term than macro-evolution to describe this more complex process? And as far as the fossil record is concerned are there examples of these transitions taking place that is clearly illustrating the process of these novelties developing or unfolding?jerry_{December 6, 2013
December
12
Dec
6
06
2013
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

What about subspecies?
Typically paleontologists say that what we identify as subspecies in species living today would be indistinguishable if all we had was fossils. This is a generalization, there are always exceptions, but this is a pretty good generalization.
Actually species are not really “units” at all,
Everything in science is an approximation, but -- sure they are units. They get described, named, and counted, and there is a huge body of work studying how they originate, persist, and die.
and their classification is often controversial (lumpers and splitters).
This part is definitely true, although it depends on the group and the number and completeness of the fossils. Of course, if evolution is true and species aren't fixed but instead evolve into each other, then we would expect ambiguities, especially when we aren't looking at species in a single time and place, but instead look across millions of years and across the globe.
It was once hoped that analysis of similarity in proteins would settle some of the classification issues, but the results made no sense, so the anticipated method was simply abandoned.
This part is bizarre and indicates you don't know what you're talking about. Allozyme research was very important in the early days of molecular systematics, although these days it has mostly been replaced by DNA sequencing. Protein sequences, though, are routinely used in phylogenetics. I have published several such papers myself.NickMatzke_UD_{December 6, 2013
December
12
Dec
6
06
2013
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Here is what I don’t understand. Gould and Eldridge first presented their idea in 1971 and published in 1972. You are claiming that they were referring to very subtle gaps but are admitting that there were still many large gaps into the 1980s. If it is true that much of the transitional work is of relatively recent vintage, why would Gould and Eldridge be only discussing the very subtle?
You seem to think that all of these quotes are about the same topic. They aren't. There are a large number of interesting questions in science. They get divided up quite finely. When we look just at the field of evolutionary biology, there is a long list of topics that scientists find interesting. Some of them are things that creationists care about, and some of them aren't, and some of them are things that creationists think are important, but only because they don't understand what they are reading. So "evolution" isn't just one thing. All sorts of things evolve. Some of the major topics are: population genetics -- how allele frequencies change in gene pools (populations) speciation research -- how and why gene pools / populations split to form new species macroevolution -- the dynamics of species originations and extinctions through time; e.g. why do species numbers go up and down, why are some clades more diverse than others, why are there more species in the tropics than in the temperate zone, etc. Each of these subfields has a set of techniques, study systems, etc. And these are just three among hundreds of topics. The punctuated equilibrium literature which started in the 1970s is basically about speciation, and specifically about how speciation appears in the fossil record. It is not particularly relevant to the origin of the many animal groups in the Cambrian, which is its own major topic. Statements about "transitional fossils" in one context don't tell you much at all about the existence of transitional fossils in the other context. And, both topics have themselves changed significantly since the 1970s and 1980s, so people can't just wantonly quote mine the old literature and pretend that it represents the modern data.NickMatzke_UD_{December 6, 2013
December
12
Dec
6
06
2013
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Mister Matzke, I don't know whether or not you are right that transitional fossils have been found such that Darwin's prediction has been satisfied. it would take me quite a while to go through the source material. However there is something odd about what you are claiming in these comments. You argued that the Mr. Arrington's quotations of Gould and Eldridge were misleading because the "sudden" appearances they were referring to were very subtle, such that they would be classified as "microevolution" by creationists. When faced with quotations describing gaps in the fossil record beyond subtle species change you wrote:
you switch to quote-mining pre-cladistic Cambrian Explosion literature from the 1980s, ignoring even the discussion on UD over the past few days showing that transitional fossils exist even between Cambrian phyla. Most of these were discovered after the 1980s, and they weren’t comprehensively analyzed until David Legg’s paper in 2013, which is what we were discussing.
Here is what I don't understand. Gould and Eldridge first presented their idea in 1971 and published in 1972. You are claiming that they were referring to very subtle gaps but are admitting that there were still many large gaps into the 1980s. If it is true that much of the transitional work is of relatively recent vintage, why would Gould and Eldridge be only discussing the very subtle?conceptualinertia_{December 6, 2013
December
12
Dec
6
06
2013
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

NickMatzke @ 32 claims
This is a discussion of how species change. Species are the smallest units of analysis for paleontologists.
What about subspecies? Actually species are not really "units" at all, and their classification is often controversial (lumpers and splitters). It was once hoped that analysis of similarity in proteins would settle some of the classification issues, but the results made no sense, so the anticipated method was simply abandoned.
It says nothing about changes in higher groups, e.g. hominids, whales, mammals, tetrapods. Eldredge, like Gould, thinks transitional fossils are common across those larger evolutionary distances, just not across the tiniest transition between one species and its closest sister species.
So what's the transitional species between bears and whales? Or do whales come from wolves? Or from pakicetus based on similarity of the inner ear (but no similarity of teeth or baleen)? Again, we are treated to a 19th century fantasy that substitutes "Millions of years ago" for "Once upon a time." Darwinism artificially lines up similarities in selected features of animals in a some non-unique sequence, and claims ancestry. It's as if you took all electronic devices and arranged them in a "Tree of Life" based purely on physical appearance rather than their electronics . . . and then concluded that cell phones "evolved" from pocket calculators. Get it? -QQuerius_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

bornagain77:
“Phylogenetic systematics,” the entomologist Michael Schmitt remarks, “relies on the theory of evolution.” To the extent that the theory of evolution relies on phylogenetic systematics, the disciplines resemble two biologists dropped from a great height and clutching at one another in mid-air.
:-DMapou_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

NickMatzke_UD, those quotes you are griping about are snipped from your very own post at 41. OOOPS! Guess I should ask you if I'm allowed to talk about what you yourself are talking about in your own posts before I comment on it? I don't seem to recall you being given that power on this blog,, my fuehrer! Moreover, regardless of what you imagine that cladistic analysis has done for 'explaining away' the Cambrian explosion, the fact of the matter is that you were also recently shown to be severely disingenuous towards the evidence in that line of thought as well:
A One-Man Clade - David Berlinski - July 18, 2013 Excerpt: Matzke acknowledges the point without grasping its meaning. "... [P]hylogenetic methods as they exist now," he writes, "can only rigorously detect sister-group relationships, not direct ancestry, and, crucially, ... this is neither a significant flaw, nor any sort of challenge to common ancestry, nor any sort of evidence against evolution." But there can be no sisters without parents, and if cladistic analysis cannot detect their now mythical ancestors, it is hard to see what is obtained by calling them sisters. No challenge to common ancestry? Fine. But no support for common ancestry either. Questions of ancestry go beyond every cladistic system of classification, no matter the character states. It follows that questions with respect to the ancestry of various Cambrian phyla cannot be resolved by any cladistic system of classification, however its characters are defined. We are now traveling in all the old familiar circles. The claim made by Darwin's Doubt is that with respect to the ancestors of those Cambrian phyla, there is nothing there. The relationship between cladistics and Darwin's theory of evolution is thus one of independent origin but convergent confusion. "Phylogenetic systematics," the entomologist Michael Schmitt remarks, "relies on the theory of evolution." To the extent that the theory of evolution relies on phylogenetic systematics, the disciplines resemble two biologists dropped from a great height and clutching at one another in mid-air. Tight fit, major fail.7 (7) A point made vividly by Matzke's own source, which he cites in solemn incomprehension: Whatever the character matrix, Brysse observes, "... there is only enough reliable information available to construct cladograms, not trees." Brysse, Keynyn (2008). "From weird wonders to stem lineages: the second reclassification of the Burgess Shale fauna." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 39(3), 298-313. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade074601.html
Moreover those 'kooky quotes' from David Tyler, are actually a summary comment on a 2011 Douglas H. Erwin paper
Evolutionary uniformitarianism Douglas H. Erwin Developmental Biology, Volume 357, Issue 1, 1 September 2011, Pages 27?34.
Nick, I guess you were too busy trying to get your ad hominem out about Dr. Tyler to actually read the paper? So much for intellectual honesty on your part! So thus to sum up, your beloved cladistic analysis is shown to be completely useless ass to meaningfully explaining anything about the Cambrian explosion save to deceive yourself and others that you have actually explained anything meaningful about the Cambrian explosion, which come to think of it, given your long history of literature bluffing, I firmly believe you find to be an appealing quality of cladistic analysis. Throw on top of that your ad hominem attack of Dr. Tyler and me and I guess that pretty much sums up the negative contribution you have made to the furtherance of knowledge on this thread.,,, Oh wait, didn't you requested some gospel music?:
John Tesh • We Three Kings • Christmas in Positano, Italy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJbfLcD9O9s Psalm 108:3 I will give thanks to you, LORD, among all the peoples; I will make music to you among the nations,
I guess your post wasn't completely useless after all! :)bornagain77_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

As to your first sentence: These are 60-year old quotes!! which you stated in regard to these quotes that were given to you: Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.” G.G.Simpson. “Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly” G.G.Simpson. – circa mid 1950?s Well has the situation changed much for Darwinists since then? Not according to these following quotes and studies:
Hehe! Abandon previous quote mines and lay out new quote mines! Having abandoned the Punk-Eek quote mines, you switched to 60-year old Simpson quotes. Having abandoned those, you switch to quote-mining pre-cladistic Cambrian Explosion literature from the 1980s, ignoring even the discussion on UD over the past few days showing that transitional fossils exist even between Cambrian phyla. Most of these were discovered after the 1980s, and they weren't comprehensively analyzed until David Legg's paper in 2013, which is what we were discussing. To that, you add some kooky quotes from young-earth creationists like David Tyler. You expect this to impress anyone who knows anything about scholarship? The only thing you forgot is the gospel music link! I don't know what you're smoking that makes endless, random pasting of off-topic quote mines, plus music (!), a reasonable activity, but whatever it is, I want some!NickMatzke_UD_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

M: Thanks for allowing me to find out the continued cyber stalking and target- on- the- back painting being carried out by these nihilist lowlifes. They, and those who enable them need to realise what they are doing and what it marks them as. We all need to face some not so pleasant facts about what we are dealing with when we see this sort of behaviour. KFkairosfocus_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @53, Don't let those guys get under your skin. They're like whining little demons, the Beavises and Buttheads of Darwinism and materialism.Mapou_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @52, Be gentle on poor Nick, will you?Mapou_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

PS: There is a false assertion that I have tried to post a comment to TSZ over the past several months. I don't know if that is identity theft enabled by the earlier misbehaviour, but that does not speak well of both TSZ and AE. We are dealing with nihilists.kairosfocus_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

NickMatzke_UD at 41 states:
These are 60-year old quotes!! Dinobirds, whales with legs, many new transitional-proto-tetrapods, transitional-proto-arthropods, etc. were all discovered since the 1980s! Act like a scholar if you want to be treated like one.
Well, Well, Well, those are some pretty strong statements Nick. With exclamation points no less! Must be some pretty strong evidence to back up your claims! You don't mind if we take a look under the hood of what trying to sell to see if it lives up to your billing do you? As to your first sentence:
These are 60-year old quotes!!
which you stated in regard to these quotes that were given to you:
Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.” G.G.Simpson. “Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly" G.G.Simpson. - circa mid 1950's
Well has the situation changed much for Darwinists since then? Not according to these following quotes and studies:
As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science, "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that, "The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa." “If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be the rocks of the late Precambrian to Ordivician times, when the bulk of the world’s higher animal taxa evolved. Yet traditional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then.” (Valentine, Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.84, 1987) “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas." James W. Valentine - On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine - video - I believe the video was made sometime in the early to the mid 2000’s (He appears in 'Darwin's Dilemma to) http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/php/video_show_item.php?id=7 The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - May 2011 Excerpt: The pervasive pattern of natural history: disparity precedes diversity,,,, The summary of results for phyla is as follows. The pattern reinforces earlier research that concluded the Explosion is not an artifact of sampling. Much the same finding applies to the appearance of classes. These data are presented in Figures 1 and 2 in the paper. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/05/16/the_unscientific_hegemony_of_uniformitar Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head - July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: "This pattern, known as 'early high disparity', turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn't a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.",,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html
Well that doesn't seem to support Nick's contention that things have changed drastically over the last 60 years in regards to the fossil record since G.G. Simpson made his quotes! Well lets see what Nick's next sentence was:
Dinobirds, whales with legs, many new transitional-proto-tetrapods, transitional-proto-arthropods, etc. were all discovered since the 1980s!
As to Dinobirds:
Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence - video and notes http://vimeo.com/30926629 "The first and most complete fossil of archaeopteryx, found in 1855, was misidentified as a flying pterodacylus for 115 years. The newest finding, though, demonstrates that our understanding of even well-studied fossils like archaeopteryx -- scrutinized, measured, modeled for 150 years -- can still be upended." Bye Bye Birdie: Famed Fossil Loses Avian Perch - Oct. 2009 “The whole notion of feathered dinosaurs is a myth that has been created by ideologues bent on perpetuating the birds-are-dinosaurs theory in the face of all contrary evidence” Storrs Olson, the curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History Dinosaur feather folly - video Even renowned (evolutionary) ornithologist Dr Alan Feduccia agrees that dinosaur to bird evolution is 'full of holes'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag5WYzrjnhQ etc.. etc.. etc..
Well, that doesn't seem to help Nick either. Let's check his next example:
whales with legs,
This is actually a funny example for Nick to cite:
An Email Exchange Regarding "Vestigial Legs" Pelvic Bones in Whales by Jim Pamplin Excerpt: The pelvic bones (supposed Vestigial Legs) of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known. In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus. The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion. James G. Mead, Ph.D. - Curator of Marine Mammals - National Museum of Natural History - Smithsonian Institution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-darwinism-a-better-explanation-of-life/#comment-454624
As to the supposed whale fossil sequence, the following video has one of the leading experts on supposed 'whale evolution' admitting that the fossil series that is popularly portrayed in museums, textbooks, and on the web, is misleading:
Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed http://vimeo.com/30921402
The following video also shows how fraudulent Darwinists can be with this fossil evidence:
Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - Dr. Terry Mortenson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032568
In the following video, Dr. Richard Sternberg shows, using population genetics, that the Darwinian origin of whales is mathematically impossible:
Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Dr. Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203
Well, that certainly did not help Nick established his preferred Darwinian position in the least (and actually seems to have hurt his claim of being an esteemed 'scholar'). ,,, Suffice it for now (unless he presses the matter further) to say that Nick's claims for proto-tetrapods, and proto-arthropods are equally as imaginary as the preceding examples were as to providing any real support for his a-priorily preferred Darwinian position.bornagain77_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

M: For some reason, I took a moment. I see a certain OA imagines that it is fun to try to paint targets around people. Speaks volumes to the nihilism we are dealing with. Isn't there a law out there on stalking online? Or, do such think that hiding behind or enabling anonymity or false names allows them to imagine they have a right -- might makes right -- to do what they think they can get away with? I guess folks like this are known by the company they keep and the behaviour they enable or carry out. Nihilists, exactly as charged. KFkairosfocus_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Take a look at this link: Antievolution.org. It's a riot.Mapou_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

What other forums? If I had fans, I'd take a look, but I don't know where they are!NickMatzke_UD_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Mapou: "especially when you’re involved in the discussion" Really? I had no idea. Why do you say this?Barry Arrington_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Arrington:
Why do you refuse to admit something that is so glaringly obvious?
Barry, he will never admit it because he's being watched by his Darwinist cheerleaders on other forums. Those lonely souls are pathologically obsessed with what goes on here, especially when you're involved in the discussion. It's a personal thing to them. And it's hilarious.Mapou_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Nick, you are not fooling anyone you know. The fact of the matter is that Eldredge is right. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record. What’s more, you know he is right, but you refuse to admit it. Why do you refuse to admit something that is so glaringly obvious? I can only speculate, but I suppose it is because your cognitive dissonance coping strategies won’t let you admit that St. Charles was ever wrong about anything, even when you know he was.Barry Arrington_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Nick @ 42:
If you want a direct answer, you need to specify, when Eldredge says “Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record”, whether you think Eldredge is talking about transitions between very similar species, or transitions at all timescales across all degrees of morphological difference.
A double dodge. But I’ll continue to play along. “whether you think Eldredge is talking about. . .” For you to answer my question it is simply not relevant what I think Eldredge is talking about. I did not ask you whether you agree with me. I asked you whether you agreed with Eldredge. I will ask you again. Eldredge says that change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record. Do you agree with Eldredge?Barry Arrington_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply