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

“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 . . .” Eldredge wrote: “Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.” Barry Arrington quoted Eldredge to support the proposition that change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record. Nick Matzke accuses Barry Arrington of “ignorantly, uncomprehendingly quote-mining” Eldredge. 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.” Yet, in context, the Eldredge quotation means exactly: “change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.” Therefore, by definition, Barry Arrington did not quote mine Eldredge. Which means that Nick Matzke’s quote mining accusation is “either incompetent or dishonest. Take your pick.”Barry Arrington_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

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.htmlbornagain77_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

Moreover Nick, body plan information is not even reducible to a 'bottom up' materialistic scenario in the first place as is envisioned by Darwinists:
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009) - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 “Live memory” of the cell, the other hereditary memory of living systems - 2005 Excerpt: To understand this notion of “live memory”, its role and interactions with DNA must be resituated; indeed, operational information belongs as much to the cell body and to its cytoplasmic regulatory protein components and other endogenous or exogenous ligands as it does to the DNA database. We will see in Section 2, using examples from recent experiments in biology, the principal roles of “live memory” in relation to the four aspects of cellular identity, memory of form, hereditary transmission and also working memory. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15888340 What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott - Winter 2011 Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: "Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements... take unique meaning from their context.[3]",,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way: "The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)",,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,, http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2 An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications - September 2011 Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi1Qn306IUU time-lapse video reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.,,, "When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo,",,, "We believe this is the first time such patterning has been reported for an entire structure, not just for a single organ. I would never have predicted anything like it. It's a jaw dropper.",,,
To reiterate Nick in case you missed it:
"It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary." Talbott
Verse and Music:
Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. O Holy night by Celtic Woman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5MpQsLJvOw
bornagain77_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

NickMatzke_UD, contrary to what you imagine to be conclusive proof for 'bottom up' Darwinian evolution from the fossil record, the fact of the matter is that the fossil record reveals a 'top down', disparity precedes diversity, pattern for the history of life instead of a bottom up Darwinian picture.
“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 http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/php/video_show_item.php?id=7 Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish "In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution." Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm In Explaining the Cambrian Explosion, Has the TalkOrigins Archive Resolved Darwin's Dilemma? - JonathanM - May 2012 Excerpt: it is the pattern of morphological disparity preceding diversity that is fundamentally at odds with the neo-Darwinian scenario of gradualism. All of the major differences (i.e. the higher taxonomic categories such as phyla) appear first in the fossil record and then the lesser taxonomic categories such as classes, orders, families, genera and species appear later. On the Darwinian view, one would expect to see all of the major differences in body plan appear only after numerous small-scale speciation events. But this is not what we observe. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/has_the_talk-or059171.html 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." Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/jerry_coynes_c067021.html 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 "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." Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK)
etc.. etc.. etc.. Besides that highly embarrassing fact for you Nick, the main point I would like to point out to you NickMatzke_UD, as I did this morning,,, https://uncommondescent.com/cambrian-explosion/steve-meyer-cambrian-gaps-not-being-filled-in/#comment-482405 ,,,is the fact that you do not even have a viable mechanism in neo-Darwinism (Random Variation and Natural Selection) to explain the origination of fundamentally new body plans even if the fossil record had revealed the bottom up progression that you imagine it to do. For instance,,
Darwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/
bornagain77_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Gould apparently grumbles:
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Hilarious! So, we can find transitional forms between chihuahuas and bears, but not between whales and other whales or dolphins or porpoises? So, every species (ok, genus) is a shot-in-the-dark punctuated miracle? Polar bear -> *POOF* -> blue whale Raccoon -> *POOF* -> porpoise Yeah, right. -QQuerius_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Box writes,
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” Stephen Jay Gould
This is a quote about punctuated equilibria, about tiny transitions between sister species. Re-read my post. Gould was infuriated at creationist quote-mining, and so wrote:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." --Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260
NickMatzke_UD_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

NickMatzke_UD: As I said, a separate question is whether or not there are plenty of fossils demonstrating transitions between major groups. There are. Gould agrees.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” Stephen Jay GouldBox_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

NickMatkze_UD wrote:
I didn’t realize, until I read the literature, that the differences between these species are much smaller than you creationists think. Usually it takes an expert to tell them apart.
Yes, indeed! In fact, I've heard that in a number of cases the differences between these species is not actually visible, but their classification depends entirely on the strata in which they're found! The presumption is that of necessity there must be some subtle differences between them due to the millions of years time difference, once again both relying on and proving the fact of evolution. Besides, Gould and Eldridge say some of the darnedest things that, if not taken in the context of all the most current literature, could easily be misinterpreted by people who don't have the benefit of doctorates in evolutionary theory. So really, the best thing is just to trust the experts, because it can get complicated and confusing, especially when new discoveries haven't yet been integrated to the consensus. For example, it's definitely too early to draw any conclusions from the recent discovery of the Bunnysaurus lagomorphi found in what was originally thought to be the Cambrian . . . ;-) -QQuerius_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

This series of threads is a god-awful mess. You guys are confusing several things: 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. This is the source of most of the Gould & Eldredge quotes which you creationists ignorantly, incomprehendingly quote-mine. Whether or not smooth transitions covering these tiny transitions -- they are basically "within-kind" transitions in creationist-speak -- are common doesn't prove anything one way or the other about what creationists care about, which is whether or not transitions exist between highly different groups. 2. As I said, a separate question is whether or not there are plenty of fossils demonstrating transitions between major groups. There are. Gould agrees. Eldredge agrees. Quoting these guys talking about #1, to try and deny #2, is either incompetent or dishonest. Take your pick. Heck, even young-earth creationist Kurt Wise agrees: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/honest-creation.html ================ [p. 218] In various macroevolutionary models, stratomorphic intermediates might be expected to be any one or more of several different forms: – (a) inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates; (b) stratomorphic intermediate species; (c} higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates; and (d) stratomorphic [intermediate] series. As an example (and to provide informal definitions), if predictions from Darwin’s theory were re-stated in these terms, one would expect to find: – (a) numerous stratomorphic intermediates between any ancestor-descendent species pair (numerous interspecific stratomorphic intermediates); (b) species which were stratomorphic intermediates between larger groups (stratomorphic intermediate species); (c} taxonomic groups above the level of species which were stratomorphic intermediates between other pairs of groups (higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates); and (d) a sequence of species or higher taxa in a sequence where each taxon is a stratomorphic intermediate between the taxa stratigraphically below and above it (stratomorphic series). With this vocabulary as a beginning, the traditional transitional forms issue can be gradually transformed into a non-traditional form, more suitable to the creationist researcher. It is a Very Good Evolutionary Argument Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and [p. 219] Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds. [p. 221] REFERENCES 5. Wise, K. P., 1994. Australopithecus ramidus and the fossil record. CEN Tech. J., 8(2):160-165. […] 27. Stewart, W. N. and Rothwell, G. W., 1993. Paleobotany and the Evolution of Plants, Second Edition, Cambridge Universily Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 114-115. 28. Gould, S. J., 1989. Wonderful Ufe: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Norton, New York, pp. 321-323. 29. Carroll, R. L., 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, Freeman, New York, p. 467. 30. Carroll, Ref. 29, p. 473. 31. Hopson, J. A,, 1994. Synapsid evolution and the radiation of noneutherian mammals. In: Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 71, D. R. Porthero [sic] and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennasee, pp. 190-219. 32. Carroll, Ref. 29, pp. 527-530. 33. Ostrom, 1. H., 1994. On the origin of birds and of avian flight. In: Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleonlology Number 71, D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society. Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 160-177. 34. Thomson, K. S., 1994. The origin of the tetrapods. In: Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 71, D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 85-107. 35. Ahlberg, P. E. and Milner, A. R., 1994. Theorigin and early diversification of tetrapods. Nature, 368: 507-514. 36. Gingerich, Ref. 1; Could, Ref. 2; Zimmer. Ref. 3. 37. Carroll, Ref. 29, pp. 527-549. 38. Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education, 31:140-144. 39. For example, as listed in Wise, Ref. 5. [source: pp. 218-219 of: Kurt P. Wise (1995). “Towards a Creationist Understanding of ‘Transitional Forms.’” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 9(2), 216-222. (caps original) [Note: The full article is online here under the “Ape-men…” circle: http://www.bryancore.org/anniversary/building.html In fairness, Wise goes on to claim that this evidence is “explainable” under the creation model, postulating as an alternative the scientific model that “God created organisms according to His nature” (p. 219), which apparently leads to the expectation of “high homoplasy” – because God, I assume, likes homoplasy. -- NJM] ================ 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. 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. He is still right about that, and although we have lots of transitional fossils between major groups, we will never have a complete record, and never will. The Punk Eek peoples' real contribution, rhetoric aside, was to point out that there are small sections of rock, typically covering only a few million years, with very good fossil near-continuous records, and often (how much is still debated), in this situation, you will see one species suddenly replaced by a very closely-related, very similar, sister species. I didn't realize, until I read the literature, that the differences between these species are much smaller than you creationists think. Usually it takes an expert to tell them apart. The decades of creationist/ID abuse of Punk Eek quotes, through basically willful misunderstanding, is an intellectual travesty.NickMatzke_UD_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Sorry, but you came up with this quote of Eldredge in your article. I don't think that it is especially perfidious to ask how this quotation came to your attention.DiEb_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

DiEb in 2. I am the one who has been falsely accused of misrepresenting a quotation from Eldredge. I am the one who has been falsely called a liar. Your “attack the victim” comment is utterly shameless. There really does appear to be no bounds to the Darwinists’ perfidy.Barry Arrington_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Evolutionists have often protested ‘unfair’ to quoting an evolutionist as if he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted are themselves ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point... The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken by a collection of quotes from the many scientists who are biblical creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile witness is the most valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other aspects of evolution. ~ Andrew Snellingbevets_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Just some quick questions: 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 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

I believe Alan's deeply immersed at the moment in the study of nothing, the fecundity of nothing, with his fellow-naturalists.Axel_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply