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

Ah, my bad, the quote is by british zoologist Mark Ridley, not british journalist Matt Ridley. It still looks like something confused by the early cladistics debates.NickMatzke_UD_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

38 Barry ArringtonDecember 5, 2013 at 10:02 am Jerry @ 37: “Is this essentially correct except for grammar?” Yes, that’s pretty much it. Which is why honest Darwinists admit that the fossil record does not, overall, support the theory.
Some paleontologists maintain that animals have evolved gradually, through an infinity of intermediate stages from one form to another. Others point out that the fossil record offers no firm evidence for such gradual change. What really happened, they suggest, is that any one animal species in the past survived more or less unchanged for a time, and then either died out or evolved rapidly into a new descendant form (or forms). Thus, instead of gradual change, they posit the idea of ‘punctuated equilibrium.” The argument is about the actual historical pattern of evolution; but outsiders, seeing a controversy unfolding, have imagined that it is about the truth of evolution – whether evolution occurred at all. This is a terrible mistake; and it springs, I believe, from the false idea that the fossil record provides an important part of the evidence that evolution took place. In fact, evolution is proven by a totally separate set of arguments – and the present debate within paleontology does not impinge at all on the evidence that supports evolution . . . In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist 90 (June 25, 1981): 830-1, 830-32 (emphasis mine).
Under Ridley’s reasoning, I suppose he would have to exclude Nick from the “real evolutionist” category since he uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution.
This doesn't look like it's out of context. It looks like Ridley is just wrong. It is wrong enough that I wouldn't be surprised that there were letters published in New Scientist saying so back in 1981. Probably Ridley, a journalist, was confused by some of the rhetoric tossed about when cladistic methods was being introduced back then. He wasn't the only one. Have you guys ever thought about the reasons your quotes are so often ancient?NickMatzke_UD_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Barry writes,
34 Barry ArringtonDecember 5, 2013 at 8:58 am Nick Matzke, Do you agree with the following statement? “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 If the answer is “yes,’ then you agree with the very narrow proposition I was advancing, and it follows that your charge of quote mining (i.e., lying) was boorish and false. If you deny it, please cite whatever evidence you have that change in the manner Darwin expected is found in the fossil record. Prediction: Nick will evade.
I didn't see this before my previous post. You are dodging the question of context. You can't abstract quotes out of their relevant context, not if you are doing scholarship. Avoiding the relevant context is quote-mining. It is the practice of "proof-texting" Biblical fundamentalists, perhaps, but not serious scholarship. 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. My prediction: you will avoid the question of relevant context, as you have been avoiding it throughout the thread.NickMatzke_UD_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

So, embarrassing as the fossil record may be with regard to species, it does offer transitional forms between higher taxonomic ranks. G.G.Simpson and others strongly disagree with you: “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution… This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. 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 and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.” Derek V. Ager – Paleontologist, (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK)
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.NickMatzke_UD_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

@Nick Matzke
Eldridge: Darwins prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. (…)

Nick Matzke #32: This is a discussion of how species change. Species are the smallest units of analysis for paleontologists. 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, embarrassing as the fossil record may be with regard to species, it does offer transitional forms between higher taxonomic ranks. G.G.Simpson and others strongly disagree with you: “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution… This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. 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 and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.” Derek V. Ager – Paleontologist, (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK) more …Box_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Yes, that’s pretty much it
I assume that no anti-ID person (for the lack of a better term) disputes this assessment. And if they do not dispute this, then they must understand why the pro-ID person takes many of the positions that they do. So the term "IDiots" is misplaced especially since the ID people have apparently analyzed the implications of the fossil record accurately. (and they are not the only one to have analyzed the fossil record and have come to the same conclusions.) This analysis of the fossil record is reinforced by an analysis of the necessary steps that would be required in the genome to produce such morphological changes. And that these genomic changes also have no record of arising by naturalistic means. It does not assume they didn't but that there is no evidence that they did arise naturalistically or even could. ID maintains that it is extremely unlikely that these genomic changes could take place in any reasonable time through naturalistic processes. That should be the next area of discussion to follow up on for why there is a lack of transitions in the fossil record. Everything ID supports is internally consistent while those who oppose ID have to rely on unknown events or wishful thinking to justify their position. I assume that this is mainly correct except for grammar.jerry_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Jerry @ 37: "Is this essentially correct except for grammar?" Yes, that's pretty much it. Which is why honest Darwinists admit that the fossil record does not, overall, support the theory.
Some paleontologists maintain that animals have evolved gradually, through an infinity of intermediate stages from one form to another. Others point out that the fossil record offers no firm evidence for such gradual change. What really happened, they suggest, is that any one animal species in the past survived more or less unchanged for a time, and then either died out or evolved rapidly into a new descendant form (or forms). Thus, instead of gradual change, they posit the idea of ‘punctuated equilibrium.” The argument is about the actual historical pattern of evolution; but outsiders, seeing a controversy unfolding, have imagined that it is about the truth of evolution – whether evolution occurred at all. This is a terrible mistake; and it springs, I believe, from the false idea that the fossil record provides an important part of the evidence that evolution took place. In fact, evolution is proven by a totally separate set of arguments – and the present debate within paleontology does not impinge at all on the evidence that supports evolution . . . In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.
Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist 90 (June 25, 1981): 830-1, 830-32 (emphasis mine). Under Ridley's reasoning, I suppose he would have to exclude Nick from the "real evolutionist" category since he uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution.Barry Arrington_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

The grammar is wrong.
I was high 99th percentile in math but in the mid 70's in verbal. So I live with the fact that I do not write well, getting tense, case, number, quantifiers and person frequently wrong.
There is still a lot of missing transitions.
So this is true. What we have are species and nothing else, and that is all that ever exists. Species appear at different geological times that have similar morphological characteristics and are assumed related because of this. The assumption is that those that appeared at a later time descended from the prior species by some form of naturalistic process that created this different species. Sometimes these species are associated with each other with terms such as genera, family, etc. But they are still just mental constructs. Sometimes the morphological distinctions are quite small but sometimes they are quite large and this latter case would often require substantial changes in the genome to account for the large morphological differences. (I understand that sometimes small changes in the genome can lead to large morphological differences) And transitions between these large morphological differences requiring substantial changes in the genome are generally not available even though the fossil record during the intermediate time frame provides examples of large numbers of other unrelated species. These other fossils are just not thought related to the transition in question. That means there was opportunity for the missing transitions to be fossilized but for whatever reasons it just rarely if ever happens. (I am well aware of most of the arguments for the rarity of fossilization) Is this essentially correct except for grammar?jerry_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

My prediction in 34 is confirmed.Barry Arrington_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

jerryDecember 5, 2013 at 8:44 am Species are the smallest units of analysis for paleontologists. Species are the only unit of analysis. Organisms exist and inner breed and then constitute a population. They are then called a species. (understanding that the term “species” is a little mushy.) There is no other real classification because the higher levels do not really represent any real unit. They are all just species. All are mental concept to associate different species with each other under the assumption that at one time there might have been a common ancestor. But it is an assumption, not a fact. Maybe a good assumption but still an assumption So the higher classification are all artificial constructs. So when one says that there are transitions that are common across those larger evolutionary distances, it just means there is an awful lot of missing transitions with an occasional species showing up that is similar to a previous one. There is still a lot of missing transitions. Is this wrong?
If you don't like the higher groups, that's fine, we can just talk about morphological distance. What the Punk Eek people were saying is that across tiny morphological distances -- those between sister species, often species so close it takes an expert to tell them apart -- there are few smooth, absolutely continuous transitions. Instead, you often get one species, then another closely-related species, often "suddenly", geologically speaking. Just how often this is found is still debated -- there are cases in mammals and other things with extremely good fossil records where you But this amount of morphological distance is really quite small. It is clearly change that creationists would all dismiss as "within the kind" evolution. So making some big stew out of quotes talking about transitions missing at this ultra-fine scale doesn't help creationists at all, they've already accepted that this kind of evolution is trivial and happens all the time! (And the young-earthers would say it happened in just a thousand years!) It's difference-in-dog-breeds-type evolution. Across larger morphological distances -- the morphological distances between whales and hippos, mammals and reptiles, between the euarthropod phylum and the onychophoran phylum -- fossils with intermediate fossils are well-known and reasonably common. They are of course, only expected near the time and place when the groups are evolving, not "everywhere" or any random time/place someone chooses to look. There are no hominids in the Cambrian, and no proto-arthropods in the Pleistocene. Kurt Wise, and Gould, point out that transitionals at this scale are common. But the people posting here just play ostrich and stick their heads in the sand to avoid admitting the point.
There is still a lot of missing transitions. Is this wrong?
The grammar is wrong. :-) But, yes, there are still a lot of missing transitions. Everyone admits the fossil record isn't perfect. But, there are a lot of found transitions as well. Some of the major ones in the past 30 years include dinosaurs-to-birds, origin of whales, origin of tetrapods, and origin of arthropods. Kurt Wise lists more in that quote.NickMatzke_UD_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

Nick Matzke, Do you agree with the following statement? “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 If the answer is “yes,’ then you agree with the very narrow proposition I was advancing, and it follows that your charge of quote mining (i.e., lying) was boorish and false. If you deny it, please cite whatever evidence you have that change in the manner Darwin expected is found in the fossil record. Prediction: Nick will evade. Barry Arrington_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Species are the smallest units of analysis for paleontologists.
Species are the only unit of analysis. Organisms exist and inner breed and then constitute a population. They are then called a species. (understanding that the term "species" is a little mushy.) There is no other real classification because the higher levels do not really represent any real unit. They are all just species. All are mental concept to associate different species with each other under the assumption that at one time there might have been a common ancestor. But it is an assumption, not a fact. Maybe a good assumption but still an assumption So the higher classification are all artificial constructs. So when one says that there are transitions that are common across those larger evolutionary distances, it just means there is an awful lot of missing transitions with an occasional species showing up that is similar to a previous one. There is still a lot of missing transitions. Is this wrong?jerry_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Barry did not indicate that he interpreted Eldridge as talking about the general condition of the fossil record. However he would (also) be right if he did – Nick Matzke is wrong about Eldridge. The next quote shows that Eldridge refers to the general condition of the fossil record. Niles Eldridge and I. Tattersall, The Myths Of Human Evolution, 1982:
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… Darwins 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.
This is a discussion of how species change. Species are the smallest units of analysis for paleontologists. 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. These words mean specific things to actual scientists in the field. You can't just blend it all into a mash and assume they mean whatever you want it to mean. Kurt Wise gets it. He lays out 4 different versions of transitional fossils, and notes which one involves the punctuated equilibria pattern that Gould & Eldredge were talking about. Why can't you guys do as well as Kurt Wise?NickMatzke_UD_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

I am making a simple argument, you guys are not addressing it. This kind of thing is why creationists/IDists are not taken seriously.
You're a joke. When you are caught in pseudo-intellectual nonsense you begin the equivocation game, hoping that we will simply see your wall of absurd text and cower away. Strawmen, bold assertions followed by "you fools don't understand" are all that is in your proverbial tool chest. Sorry, Captain Literature Bluff, your nonsense is transparent.TSErik_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Nick Matzke #15: You are interpreting Eldredge as talking about all aspects of the fossil record, whereas he was just talking about continuous, smooth transitions between sister species over very short evolutionary distances.
Barry did not indicate that he interpreted Eldridge as talking about the general condition of the fossil record. However he would (also) be right if he did - Nick Matzke is wrong about Eldridge. The next quote shows that Eldridge refers to the general condition of the fossil record. Niles Eldridge and I. Tattersall, The Myths Of Human Evolution, 1982:
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... Darwins 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.
Box_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

[snip] UD Editors: This was not an apology for falsely accusing Barry Arrington of quote mining DiEb. Which part of "you will remain in mod until you apologize for your false accusation" do you not understand?DiEb_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

DiEb @ 27:
Close, but no cigar. N. Matzke is telling you that you are using the quotation out of its scope . . .
This is idiotic. You really are shameless. Now you owe me an apology for joining those who suggest I have engaged in deceitful quote mining, and you are now in mod until you apologize. Again, the proposition for which I was quoting Eldredge is extremely narrow: “Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.” Call this proposition “X.” Eldredge, in context, meant exactly proposition “X.” Now, Matzke comes along and says Barry is quote mining Eldredge because while Eldredge did in fact intend to advance proposition “X” he didn’t mean to advance proposition “Y.” If, as you say, Matzke is telling me I am using the quotation out of its scope, then he is simply wrong. I am using the proposition to advance proposition “X” and not proposition “Y.” Eldredge and I mean exactly the same thing -- and nothing more.Barry Arrington_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

@Barry Arrington
But in order for Matzke’s accusation to be valid, the Eldredge quote would have had to mean, in context, something other than “change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.”
Close, but no cigar. N. Matzke is telling you that you are using the quotation out of its scope, or, as he says:
You are interpreting Eldredge as talking about all aspects of the fossil record, whereas he was just talking about continuous, smooth transitions between sister species over very short evolutionary distances.
This would be indeed quote-mining even in one of the points of the definition you have been giving (..."to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don’t ...). But I'd rather like you to answer my questions above:
Which texts or books of Niles Eldredge have you read? Have you read “The Myths of Human Evolution” (or at least some chapters) and spotted the quote – or did you get the quotation from a secondary source?
DiEb_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

Nick @19:
I am making a simple argument, you guys are not addressing it
And I am also making a simple argument, to wit that you falsely accused me of deceit through quote mining. And you are not dealing with it. (BTW, the way to deal with it would be to apologize for your boorish behavior.)Barry Arrington_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT}

Yet this "strongest single class of facts in favor of my theory" is in fact found to have been a strongly fraudulent class of facts:
Haeckel's Embryos - original fraudulent drawing http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Haeckels-Embryos-Cropped-II.jpg Darwin Lobbyists Defend Using Fraudulent Embryo Drawings in the Classroom - Casey Luskin - October 11, 2012 Excerpt: embryologist Michael Richardson, who called them "one of the most famous fakes in biology," or Stephen Jay Gould who said "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions," and that "in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent," Haeckel "simply copied the same figure over and over again." Likewise, in a 1997 article titled "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," the journal Science recognized that "[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel." ,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/darwin_lobbyist_1065151.html Actual Embryos - photos (Early compared to Intermediate and Late stages); http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/PICS/Richardson-embryos.jpg
In fact developmental pathways, much contrary to what Darwin would have presupposed, are now found to be vastly different even between closely related species
The mouse is not enough - February 2011 Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.” http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/ Evolution by Splicing - Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. - Ruth Williams - December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F
Yet changes to developmental pathways early in embryonic development (precisely the changes needed by Darwinism to explain new body plans; Paul Nelson) are, by far, the most likely have a catastrophic effect on the organism:
A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html
bornagain77_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT}

So Darwin's theory can accommodate gradualness, stasis, and abruptness in the fossil record with no threat to the theory. Man that is some kind of theory you guys got there. A theory that can explain one set of facts as well as it can explain an opposite set of facts just can't be beat. (although some might hold that it just can't be science for it to do as such)
"Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures… To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer… The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." —Chapter IX, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record,” On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin - fifth edition (1869), pp. 378-381.
yet we find 'conservatively' that the fossil record at the Cambrian looks like this:
Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin's Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg
Darwin also stated this:
"IF it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." C. Darwin - Difficulties of the Theory
Yet today, due to the advance of science, we can find many such cases,,,
"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way." Doug Axe PhD. - Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/ HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY - WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm These New Protein Findings Are a Problem Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Numbers - Cornelius Hunter - March 2012 Excerpt: And the numbers are even smaller for de novo genes found in humans. The time allowed goes down to about 5 million years and the effective population size goes down by at least two orders of magnitude, to about 10^5. So in this case the upper and lower limits become 10^14 and 10^10, respectively. And while these estimates are optimistic, they fall short by more than 50 orders of magnitude. The numbers don’t add up. The evolution of de novo genes can only count on from 10^10 to 10^18 attempts (and that’s optimistic). But the number of attempts that are required is estimated to be 10^63 and 10^77. This isn’t even close. These numbers show astronomical problems, yet evolutionists are certain their idea is a fact. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/these-new-protein-findings-are-problem.html "Darwin writes that he studied math as a young man but also remembers that “it was repugnant to me"." “John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!” Dr. David Berlinski
Moreover, the number of completely new genes and proteins to be 'explained away' by Darwinists has recently exploded per each new species that has been sequenced:
Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story - 16 January 2013 - Helen Pilcher Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these "orphan genes" are high achievers (are just as essential as 'old' genes),,, But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes appeared out of nowhere, but that couldn't be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven't-quite the opposite, in fact.,,, The upshot is that the chances of random mutations turning a bit of junk DNA into a new gene seem infinitesmally small. As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, "the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero".,,, Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing. http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/web/export/sites/default/ccsb/publications/papers/2013/All_alone_-_Helen_Pilcher_New_Scientist_Jan_2013.pdf Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed 'non-answer' from Darwinists) - lifepsy video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY Proteins and Genes, Singletons and Species - Branko Kozuli? PhD. Biochemistry Excerpt: Horizontal gene transfer is common in prokaryotes but rare in eukaryotes [89-94], so HGT cannot account for (ORFan) singletons in eukaryotic genomes, including the human genome and the genomes of other mammals.,,, The trend towards higher numbers of (ORFan) singletons per genome seems to coincide with a higher proportion of the eukaryotic genomes sequenced. In other words, eukaryotes generally contain a larger number of singletons than eubacteria and archaea.,,, That hypothesis - that evolution strives to preserve a protein domain once it stumbles upon it contradicts the power law distribution of domains. The distribution graphs clearly show that unique domains are the most abundant of all domain groups [21, 66, 67, 70, 72, 79, 82, 86, 94, 95], contrary to their expected rarity.,,, Evolutionary biologists of earlier generations have not anticipated [164, 165] the challenge that (ORFan) singletons pose to contemporary biologists. By discovering millions of unique genes biologists have run into brick walls similar to those hit by physicists with the discovery of quantum phenomena. The predominant viewpoint in biology has become untenable: we are witnessing a scientific revolution of unprecedented proportions. http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0025v1.pdf
Here is another quote of interest from Darwin:
The Strongest Single Class of Facts – 2011 Excerpt: “Embryology is to me is by far the strongest single class of facts in favor” of my theory of evolution, was the claim of Charles Darwin. The nineteenth century embryological evidence was pivotal for the development of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Just two months before the release of the first edition of The Origin of Species in September 1859, Darwin wrote to Charles Lyell, “Embryology in Chapter VIII is one of my strongest points I think.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/11/the-strongest-single-class-of-facts/ "The embryos of the most distinct species belonging to the same class are closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar." This is,,, "by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of my theory." Charles Darwin - Origin of Species (1859), Letter to Asa Gray (1860)
bornagain77_{December 5, 2013
December
12
Dec
5
05
2013
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

The reading would have had to be totally in the blank areas between the lines because Darwin was solidly uniformitarian.
In Origin Darwin writes: "Many species once formed never undergo any further change ... and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." I don't think much reading between the lines is necessary to see that Darwin didn't believe that the rate of change was constant. And so I think Eldredge was wrong in saying that Darwin expected a constant change affecting all lineages through time, and didn't anticipate anatomical conservatism.goodusername_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

NickMatzke_UD complained:
I am making a simple argument, you guys are not addressing it.
Sorry, but it's a target-rich environment of speculation, where the only evidences are speculations by more eminent natural philosophers. Darwin's hypothesis made sense at the time, and explained genetic drift. But neither the math, the genetics, nor the fossil record support Darwin's extrapolation.
1. The issue of whether or not tiny transitions between very-closely-related species are common. This is the issue that the “punctuated equilibria” literature deals with.
PE is attractive, but is missing a driving mechanism, thus reducing it to wishful thinking. Maybe DNA transfer with bacteria and viruses as agents/vectors might be the answer, but the evidence so far is sparse (bacteria recently being found to be able to incorporate DNA from dead organisms).
2. As I said, a separate question is whether or not there are plenty of fossils demonstrating transitions between major groups.
Without smaller transitions, linking only major groups is logically ridiculous. You'd have to show that a bear evolved into a whale in one generation. Since whales and bears have not been observed mating, this transition would have had to occur spontaneously thousands of times. This is really no less miraculous than claiming God did it.
3. Yet another separate question from all of this is what Darwin actually thought about what evolution did. The punk-eek people liked to portray themselves as revolutionary, and thus represented Darwin as an ultra-smooth-constant-rate proponent, but this seems unlikely based on a careful reading of Darwin.
The reading would have had to be totally in the blank areas between the lines because Darwin was solidly uniformitarian.
4. The question of what Darwin thought evolution did is different from the question of how Darwin thought evolution would look in the fossil record. He pointed out, basically accurately, how gappy the fossil record is.
At the time, Darwin had faith that the fossil record, as more work was done, would validate his hypothesis. Unfortunately, it didn't. I'd speculate that Darwin, if he were alive today, would say something like "In my best judgement based on my observations, I had supposed Nature to slowly and almost imperceptibly breed the good into the better. While She most certainly does breed out the weak and defective races, the fossil record, genetic studies, and the mathematics of mutation have convinced me that Nature must avail herself of some other natural mechanism to draw out new alleles. I have set myself to discover such mechanisms, for surely there are several." And that's the difference between a great scientist and the also-rans. -QQuerius_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

Bravo bornagain77.Buzulak_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT}

I am making a simple argument, you guys are not addressing it.
Funny. Now you know how it feels.
This kind of thing is why creationists/IDists are not taken seriously.
Taken seriously by whom? By the crackpots who have hijacked education?Mapou_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

I am making a simple argument, you guys are not addressing it. This kind of thing is why creationists/IDists are not taken seriously.NickMatzke_UD_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington:
Deal with this, i.e., your incompetence or your dishonesty.
Hilarious. Oh, how they wish they could shut you up the way they shut everybody up in the schools by force of law. You just got to love the internet and what it does for freedom of speech.Mapou_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke
I pointed out 4 distinct issues.
Good for you. I pointed out one distinct issue: “Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.” You accused me of quote mining, which, as I showed beyond the slightest doubt in [14] is “either incompetent or dishonest. Take your pick.” Deal with this, i.e., your incompetence or your dishonesty.Barry Arrington_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

In summary, to accuse someone of quote mining is to accuse them of lying. It is a serious charge. It should be noted that it is far easier to cast aspersions and have your opponent defend his integrity rather than attempt the yeomans task of explaining away the substance of the point he made. (Too much explaining and onlookers may get the impression my position is weaker than I let on)bevets_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Barry, I pointed out 4 distinct issues. You are mixing them all together through misinterpretation of Eldredge's quote. You are interpreting Eldredge as talking about all aspects of the fossil record, whereas he was just talking about continuous, smooth transitions between sister species over very short evolutionary distances. Deal with this, or you don't have an argument.NickMatzke_UD_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply