Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Darwin's False Premise

"The Panda's Thumb" -> OK, I will check the book itself out from the library. I have read many MANY summaries, and I DO belive I understand it, but it IS worth a read.

Now let me make sure I understand you correctly. When you say that the concept of gradualism is "passe", are you speaking of Gould & Eldredge's "phyletic gradualism"? Or gradualism in general? It seems as though you mean the latter.

OK, if the fossil record does not demonstrate transitional forms, then how do you explain the thousands of fossils which demonstrate animals that were on this planet that do not exist any longer?

How can you say that Darwin's premise was false? You'd have to ignore not only fossil evidence, but radiometric dating, replication in the laboratory, and the DNA evidence! Modern biology makes no sense without the principles of evolution! Are you ready to throw that all away as well?

By the way, you sure are getting rather pointed and argumentative in your posts. I'm trying to take away the assumptions and the accusations and the "loud talking", and there is less and less substance here.

What I need you to do, instead of calling me a phony, is answer my questions here, from THIS post. I UNDERSTAND that you don't like Darwin's theory and that you think it should be thrown out. I GOT IT. Now, tell me HOW.

"Scientific" Hypocrisy

Friend:

What replication in the laboratory are you referring to? There is no such work. It is all smoke and mirrors, with lots of bombast. Macroevolution is mere speculation, based on zero hard evidence. No living person was alive during ages past, and all we have to go on are fossil remains. Yet those fossil records do not substantiate evolution. Darwin thought they would, hoped they would, but even Gould had to admit that gradualism is not verified in the rocks, period, and Darwin was wedded to gradualism. That is why Gould came up with PE, which is in contrast to gradualism, but rather than admit that Darwin was bust on gradualism, most evolutionists refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth of the matter. They change the theory without acknowledging that is what they are doing, and there remains no consensus as to which theory they are using at any given time. The result is, they have no physical proof that macroevolution happened, yet they continue to believe it. Believing things for which you have no physical evidence is not hard science, it is religion, or faith more correctly, and that is fine, but don't try to hide it under the rubric of science. Science at some point requires hard proof, and evolutionists simply don't have it. Yet they continue to go beyond the actual evidence and insist that everyone accept their presumed fanciful speculations as Truth, thus breaking the very rules that they insist that others strictly observe--and that is called HYPOCRISY. It is embarrassing to any honest, fair-minded, objective person who has no ax to grind, and it is not science.

Real scientists know it, and the honest ones admit it.

Here are some candid scientists on the subject of the fossil record. The footnotes can be found at www.conservapedia.com:

"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 (Professor of Zoology at Oxford University), 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 ”

“ "...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97[83][84] ”

Solly Zuckerman“ "We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19.[85][86] ”

“ "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.[87]

Finally, you ask me to explain the thousands of fossil remains. Actually, there are millions and millions of them, and there is no question that many strange and wonderful animals actually existed at another time on this planet. As to where they came from and what they mean, that is another question altogether. But jumping to conclusions to provide a "scientific" explanation is not the answer. We are but finite humans, and questions like these have to be approached with humility and not a little awe. Objective truth exists and we have no business substituting our assumptions for reality. Most Americans believe that God created all things, and that would include dinosaurs. One thing for sure, they didn't self-create. There is no evidence for that anywhere.

Can you specify what you mean by "DNA evidence."? As for modern biology making no sense without the principles of evolution, I would like you to provide some evidence for that assertion, before I would attempt an answer.

Thank you for your input, and have a nice day.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"The Panda's Thumb" -> OK, I will check the book itself out from the library. I have read many MANY summaries, and I DO belive I understand it, but it IS worth a read.

Now let me make sure I understand you correctly. When you say that the concept of gradualism is "passe", are you speaking of Gould & Eldredge's "phyletic gradualism"? Or gradualism in general? It seems as though you mean the latter.

OK, if the fossil record does not demonstrate transitional forms, then how do you explain the thousands of fossils which demonstrate animals that were on this planet that do not exist any longer?

How can you say that Darwin's premise was false? You'd have to ignore not only fossil evidence, but radiometric dating, replication in the laboratory, and the DNA evidence! Modern biology makes no sense without the principles of evolution! Are you ready to throw that all away as well?

By the way, you sure are getting rather pointed and argumentative in your posts. I'm trying to take away the assumptions and the accusations and the "loud talking", and there is less and less substance here.

What I need you to do, instead of calling me a phony, is answer my questions here, from THIS post. I UNDERSTAND that you don't like Darwin's theory and that you think it should be thrown out. I GOT IT. Now, tell me HOW.

Re: "Scientific" Hypocrisy

====
What replication in the laboratory are you referring to? There is no such work.
====

The Drosophila experiment conducted by Diane Dodd in 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation

Unless you have another definition for "species", this is it. This alone demonstrates "macroevolution". Can you debunk it? Or are you going to change the definition of "species" on us?

====
Yet those fossil records do not substantiate evolution. Darwin thought they would, hoped they would, but even Gould had to admit that gradualism is not verified in the rocks, period, and Darwin was wedded to gradualism. That is why Gould came up with PE, which is in contrast to gradualism, but rather than admit that Darwin was bust on gradualism, most evolutionists refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth of the matter.
====

Your problem is that you are considering PE to be mutually exclusive of evolution, which you find false because gradualism was considered insufficient by PE. Not only is this moderate circular reasoning, this is totally untrue, and not what Gould meant.

This helps explain things:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_o_0/punctuated_01

====
Real scientists know it, and the honest ones admit it.
====

So you're calling 98% of scientists liars or fools?

====
As to where they came from and what they mean, that is another question altogether. But jumping to conclusions to provide a "scientific" explanation is not the answer.
====

Aha - getting ever nearer to your position, but not revealing it.
The fossils exist. WHERE DID THESE ANIMALS COME FROM? Why CAN'T there be a scientific answer?

====
We are but finite humans, and questions like these have to be approached with humility and not a little awe.
====

Ah, ever closer. So we should just LOOK at the fossils and not STUDY them? What does that answer?

====
Objective truth exists and we have no business substituting our assumptions for reality.
====

Oh boy - here it comes... where is this "objective truth" that is more real than we could possibly imagine?

====
Most Americans believe that God created all things, and that would include dinosaurs. One thing for sure, they didn't self-create. There is no evidence for that anywhere.
====

YEEEE-HAAWW. We got it. "God". (by the way, just becuase "most americans" believe something doesn't make it true.)

OK, so God did it. HOW? WHY?
If evolution's explanation of the things we see is not good enough, then surely you must have a better one.

Didn't self-create? OK, let's be clear. Are you speaking of speciation or abiogenesis?

====
As for modern biology making no sense without the principles of evolution, I would like you to provide some evidence for that assertion, before I would attempt an answer.
====

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -- Theodosius Dobzhansky

Here's the entire essay - SO IT'S IN CONTEXT I might add:
http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

DNA evidence forthcoming. So much going on in these posts.

All Dogs Evolved from Wolves

Really, such a weak argument. The Drosophila experiment proves nothing that we did not already know. Animals can be crossed and produce offspring, but that does not a new species make. You can cross a donkey with a horse and get a mule, but so what? All dogs evolved from wolves, a perfect example of microevolution, but dogs can crossbreed with wolves and vice versa, and one definition of a new species is fertility without the ability to interbreed.

And even if some new species are produced, they are really just subspecies and it cannot be demonstrated that they have the ability to turn into a another whole new animal, such as a fly turning into a bird, or a dog turning into a dolphin. That absurd proposition is what you evolutionists speculate on all the time, and you have absolutely no proof that such a thing has ever happened.

Re PE v. gradualism, your problem is you apparently understand neither concept. Gradualism is descent with modification over millions of years, PE is same in small groups in much shorter leaps, thus supposedly "explaining" the embarrassing lack of transitional fossils. Yet in either case, transitional fossils would have to show up somewhere, and they simply don't exist.

Scientists are people just like everyone else, and they can be snookered just like everyone else. They can also be just as dishonest as other people, and often are. Or are you saying that scientists are members of a select priesthood, and are somehow "holy?" Yes, that would fit into the atheist religion of humanism that most hardcore evolutionists subscribe to. As for me, I believe none of it.

As far as my position on where creation came from, I was not discussing that. I made no assertions, other than that the universe did not self-create. YOU asked me what it all meant, remember?

"OK, so God did it. HOW? WHY?"

So who's talking about God now? You are.

As for your answer, I do not cast my pearls before swine, because I know they can turn and rend, as swine are wont to do.

Know what I mean?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

====
What replication in the laboratory are you referring to? There is no such work.
====

The Drosophila experiment conducted by Diane Dodd in 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation

Unless you have another definition for "species", this is it. This alone demonstrates "macroevolution". Can you debunk it? Or are you going to change the definition of "species" on us?

====
Yet those fossil records do not substantiate evolution. Darwin thought they would, hoped they would, but even Gould had to admit that gradualism is not verified in the rocks, period, and Darwin was wedded to gradualism. That is why Gould came up with PE, which is in contrast to gradualism, but rather than admit that Darwin was bust on gradualism, most evolutionists refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth of the matter.
====

Your problem is that you are considering PE to be mutually exclusive of evolution, which you find false because gradualism was considered insufficient by PE. Not only is this moderate circular reasoning, this is totally untrue, and not what Gould meant.

This helps explain things:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_o_0/punctuated_01

====
Real scientists know it, and the honest ones admit it.
====

So you're calling 98% of scientists liars or fools?

====
As to where they came from and what they mean, that is another question altogether. But jumping to conclusions to provide a "scientific" explanation is not the answer.
====

Aha - getting ever nearer to your position, but not revealing it.
The fossils exist. WHERE DID THESE ANIMALS COME FROM? Why CAN'T there be a scientific answer?

====
We are but finite humans, and questions like these have to be approached with humility and not a little awe.
====

Ah, ever closer. So we should just LOOK at the fossils and not STUDY them? What does that answer?

====
Objective truth exists and we have no business substituting our assumptions for reality.
====

Oh boy - here it comes... where is this "objective truth" that is more real than we could possibly imagine?

====
Most Americans believe that God created all things, and that would include dinosaurs. One thing for sure, they didn't self-create. There is no evidence for that anywhere.
====

YEEEE-HAAWW. We got it. "God". (by the way, just becuase "most americans" believe something doesn't make it true.)

OK, so God did it. HOW? WHY?
If evolution's explanation of the things we see is not good enough, then surely you must have a better one.

Didn't self-create? OK, let's be clear. Are you speaking of speciation or abiogenesis?

====
As for modern biology making no sense without the principles of evolution, I would like you to provide some evidence for that assertion, before I would attempt an answer.
====

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -- Theodosius Dobzhansky

Here's the entire essay - SO IT'S IN CONTEXT I might add:
http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

DNA evidence forthcoming. So much going on in these posts.

I don't think you understand evolution at all.

John said:
"And even if some new species are produced, they are really just subspecies and it cannot be demonstrated that they have the ability to turn into a another whole new animal, such as a fly turning into a bird, or a dog turning into a dolphin. That absurd proposition is what you evolutionists speculate on all the time, and you have absolutely no proof that such a thing has ever happened."

NO Evolutionary scientist would propose such a transition. It would not be an example of evolution. It would be an argument disproving evolution. You really should know something about the subject you are talking about before spouting off.

Evolutionists Assert that Dolphins Evolved from Dog-like Animals

Re: Did Dolphins Evolve from Dogs?

Date: Tue Feb 1 09:58:26 2000
Posted By: Diane Kelly, Post-doc/Fellow, Biomedical Sciences, Cornell University
Area of science: Evolution
ID: 943359334.Ev
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:

Evolution is nothing more than a statement that living things have changed over time. As such, it is not a scientific theory -- it is a fact. Paleontologists have found fossils of thousands of ancient species that are similar, but not identical, to related modern species. There are scientific theories that try to explain how evolution might occur, but no biologist doubts that living organisms have changed over time.


If you understand that living things change over time, it's easy to see that whales couldn't have evolved from dogs, because whales and dogs are both modern animals, so neither animal can be the ancestral species from which the other evolved. In fact, the oldest known whale fossils are 49 million (49,000,000) years old, while the earliest known remains of domestic dogs are only 12,000 years old. Dogs are much younger than whales! Even the earliest known fossil canids are younger than the oldest whale fossils.


But whales (and dolphins, and all other members of the order Cetacea ) did evolve from a group of doglike animals that were closely related to the ancestors of ungulates like antelope and moose. These extinct animals -- called mesonychids -- had hooves on the ends of their legs, but the shape of their teeth suggest that they were meat- eating and probably predators.


The most complete fossil of an early whale is called Ambulocetus ("walking whale") . It lived in the area that is now Pakistan about 49 million years ago. The paleontologists who found the fossil could tell it was a whale by the shape of its ear bones, but it also had projections on its vertebrae similar to those found in mesonychids, and four well- developed legs. Later whale fossils have smaller and smaller back legs; all that is left of the legs in modern whales is a remnant of their hips buried deep in their bodies.



Print References:
Nowak, R. M. 1991. Walker's Mammals of the World, 5th edition. Johns
Hopkins Press: Baltimore.

Theiweissen, J. G. M., S. T. Hussein and M. Arif 1994. Fossil evidence for
the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science: 263: 210-
212.

Zimmer, C. 1998. At the Water's Edge: Macroevolution and the Transformation
of Life. Free Press: New York.


Here we supposedly have a dolphin evolving from a dog-like animal, so don't tell me that I have no idea about the utter nonsense you people indulge in.

It has even been proposed and accepted in many circles that the disappearance of the dinosaurs is due to the "fact" that they all turned into birds.

I have never heard of such juvenile nonsense in my entire life. There is nothing you people will not believe, no matter how outlandish.

What a joke!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

John said:
"And even if some new species are produced, they are really just subspecies and it cannot be demonstrated that they have the ability to turn into a another whole new animal, such as a fly turning into a bird, or a dog turning into a dolphin. That absurd proposition is what you evolutionists speculate on all the time, and you have absolutely no proof that such a thing has ever happened."

NO Evolutionary scientist would propose such a transition. It would not be an example of evolution. It would be an argument disproving evolution. You really should know something about the subject you are talking about before spouting off.

Re: Evolutionists Assert that Dolphins Evolved from Dog-like Animals

John said:
"Here we supposedly have a dolphin evolving from a dog-like animal, so don't tell me that I have no idea about the utter nonsense you people indulge in.

It has even been proposed and accepted in many circles that the disappearance of the dinosaurs is due to the "fact" that they all turned into birds.

I have never heard of such juvenile nonsense in my entire life. There is nothing you people will not believe, no matter how outlandish.

What a joke!"

I haven't read the first source cited by the post you copied, but I have read the other two. They would be of some help to your understanding of whale evolution.

Whales did evolve from ungulates and are most closely related to artiodactyls. Pakicetids have ears that share specific characteristics only with extant whales. Their ankle bones had the unique astragalus that both later aquatic whales and all artiodactyls share. Read some of Prof. Thewissen's papers and Zimmer's book. They make a solid case.

As for your dinosaur statement, it is clear that you don't understand what has been proposed by science. Nearly all of the dinosaurs were wiped out. It is clear that there was an impact near the end of their time on earth. Whether that is largely responsible for their demise or simply the last straw has been debated. Birds are closely related to theropod dinosaurs. Many of them had feathers and other more avian characteristics. Birds were able to survive, and are the last of the dinosaurs.

There is a reason that God gave us a brain. He expects us to use it. These scientists are doing God's work by applying that brain power to questions of the survival of life on earth. To dismiss this work as juvenile nonsense indicates that you are happy to continue to misunderstand how we got here. That is your choice, although I think not a very wise nor respectful one.

Punc. eq.

John said:
"Re PE v. gradualism, your problem is you apparently understand neither concept. Gradualism is descent with modification over millions of years, PE is same in small groups in much shorter leaps, thus supposedly "explaining" the embarrassing lack of transitional fossils. Yet in either case, transitional fossils would have to show up somewhere, and they simply don't exist."

I think that you should read this article.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

It explains that the origins of PE were based on the speciation that has been observed in modern species (neontology). Neontological species appear to be more the result of splitting of daughter species from a larger population. This would be a good explanation why transitionals would not be all that common. You are right that they would occur in small isolated populations in shorter periods of time. However, this is not different from but a refinement of "descent with modification over millions of years."

Re: "Scientific" Hypocrisy

John said:
"What replication in the laboratory are you referring to? There is no such work. It is all smoke and mirrors, with lots of bombast. Macroevolution is mere speculation, based on zero hard evidence. No living person was alive during ages past, and all we have to go on are fossil remains."

Any evolutionary change from speciation or above is macroevolution. Take some time to read about observed instances of speciation before saying macroevolution is mere speculation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Another good resource on macroevolution is here. Clearly there is more than simply fossil evidence for macroevolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Perhaps you should inform yourself about this before claiming HYPOCRACY.

John said:
"Yet those fossil records do not substantiate evolution. Darwin thought they would, hoped they would, but even Gould had to admit that gradualism is not verified in the rocks, period, and Darwin was wedded to gradualism. That is why Gould came up with PE, which is in contrast to gradualism, but rather than admit that Darwin was bust on gradualism, most evolutionists refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth of the matter. They change the theory without acknowledging that is what they are doing, and there remains no consensus as to which theory they are using at any given time. The result is, they have no physical proof that macroevolution happened, yet they continue to believe it. Believing things for which you have no physical evidence is not hard science, it is religion, or faith more correctly, and that is fine, but don't try to hide it under the rubric of science. Science at some point requires hard proof, and evolutionists simply don't have it. Yet they continue to go beyond the actual evidence and insist that everyone accept their presumed fanciful speculations as Truth, thus breaking the very rules that they insist that others strictly observe--and that is called HYPOCRISY. It is embarrassing to any honest, fair-minded, objective person who has no ax to grind, and it is not science."

Did you actually read the essay by Gould? Darwin's assumption of phyletic gradualism was that an assumption. The evidence did not support Darwin's assumption of smooth steady evolution of whole or most of the individuals of a species. Read this FAQ. It gives an understanding of the thinking of scientists on this issue.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html

I don't think that quote means what you think it means, or the dangers of quotemining.

John said:
"Real scientists know it, and the honest ones admit it.

Here are some candid scientists on the subject of the fossil record. The footnotes can be found at www.conservapedia.com:

'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 (Professor of Zoology at Oxford University), 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 ”"

Implying, of course, that evolution is sunk. Not really. The article talks about how other forms of evidence build a stronger case for evolution.

From PandasThumb:
"This quote is originally taken from Mark Ridley's, "Who Doubts Evolution", New
Scientist, Vol. 90, No: 1259: 830-832, June 25, 1981. This quote is of course obsolete, nor does it mean what Lary abused it to mean as we can see by just reading a little further. From the same article:

`Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media.' (page 830)

`In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.

`So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.' (page 831)

`These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defenses of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature.' (page 832) "
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/stones_bones_an.html

A bit more on the dangers of quotemining.

PandasThumb continued:
"This popular creationist quote is also discussed by Don Lindsay. As a matter of fact, what Ridley is refering to is that with so much superior data avialable demonstrating natural selection and common descent, the academic paleontology argument whether gradulism or "punctuated equilibrium" are superior explanations of the fossil record no longer held significance in the discussion of evolution theory. This was true 23 years ago. An easily available discussion of genetic analysis of common decent by Wesley R. Elsberry is Sequences and Common Descent: How We Can Trace Ancestry Through Genetics. And another good genetic article avialable on the web is Compelling Data for Common Descent from Matching Redundant DNA Sequences by Steve Hinrichs. There are of course millions of pages of texts in thousands of journals that demonstrate the validity, and utility of evolutionary theory today.

I'll give Ridley the last words on this topic, 'The theory of evolution is outstandingly the most important theory in biology.' Evolution Boston: Blackwell Scientific, 1983."
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/stones_bones_an.html

Have creationists not one shread of decency?

John [mis]quoted:
"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97[83][84] "

John, I really think that you sould read the text from this one. This quote mine is particularly dastardly.

From the Quotemine Project: Quote #60
"The first sentence, and the first part of the typically chopped up second sentence clearly focuses us on the truth of evolution. The second half of the second sentence (the part most often quoted by creationists) is obviously a criticism of the plant fossil record. And from what we know about Corner's career, and from his next paragraph, we know that his criticism is particularly directed at the fossil tropical record. This is not the understanding that professional creationists try to force on us. The second paragraph completes Corner's criticism and makes his meaning crystal clear: the Botanical establishment's focus on European plants and paleontology can not provide the answers to the (then) important issues in plant evolution. Corner's answer is that the tropical ecologies, and paleontology where the answers were and that textbooks and field work should be revised accordingly.

There are two really irritating things about this abuse of Corner's work. First, the professional creationists waited until near Corner's death before they started to misuse his then 35 year old book chapter, which denied him the opportunity to defend his work. Just think about it, in 1961 not even one gene had been sequenced. Second is the way that the professional creationists habitually misrepresent the facts in their effort to bail out their sinking literalist ship."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

The Actual Quote From Gould In Context

Jeez, after only a LITTLE Google searching, I found not only the quote from Gould in question, but a nice analysis of HOW its used out of context.

So, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html...
(NOTE, JOHN, HOW I AM LINKING TO MY COMPLETE SOURCE HERE)
=====
A more correct and complete citation is:

Gould, S. J. 1977. "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History 86(5):12-16.

This is the same article as:

Gould, S. J. 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" in The Panda's Thumb, pp. 179-185. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

It shouldn't surprise those familiar with Gould's books that an article for the magazine Natural History would show up in one of his essay collections, but it is surprising that it has a different title and that there are some differences in the body of the article. And so, it's now obvious why the last sentence in the above is also in Quote #14 of the original Quote Mine Project. They both refer to the same article, and in fact appear in the same pages in "The Panda's Thumb" (pp. 181-182). John Wilkins certainly did more than an adequate job of clarifying Gould's beliefs in that entry, but a slightly different claim is being made here, so I'll do what I can.

A more complete quote would be as follows (words in square brackets ([]) appear in the "Panda's Thumb" essay, and not in the original):
---
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

<> (this is the subquote from darwin -ed)

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]

[1] Referring to Huxley's warning to Darwin, literally on the eve of the publication of Origin of Species, that "[y]ou have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly." - Ed.
---
So it would seem that Gould has no problems with the fossil record. But did he believe that transitional forms are lacking? Note that in the quote originally presented, the claim is made that they are rare, not absent. Also, as anyone who is familiar with Gould's writings will know, the text quoted reflects his recognition that, while there is a scarcity of transitional fossils between species, there is no such lack of transitional fossils between major groups.
=====

Gould is obviously talking about puntuated equilibria versus gradualism, not the validity of the theory overall.

You're not alone here in trying to take Gould's quotes out of context. There's TONS of these on this web page. I had no idea that people desired to so misrepresent Gould as to search so hard for quotes like this and misrepresent them.

Your "Context" Adds Nothing

You seem to be unable to understand even the simplest concept with any kind of clarity, but since you cannot grasp even a few words and yet have put up all of those paragraphs, I will focus in on a few key words and phrases. And even though you have elevated obtuseness to an art form, other readers will no doubt see exactly what I am talking about. Gould:

"The EXTREME RARITY of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

Do you know what the phrase "extreme rarity" means? It means that not only are any forms that can be construed to be transitional RARE, they are EXTEMELY RARE!

"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the EMBARRASSMENT of a record that seems to SHOW SO LITTLE OF EVOLUTION DIRECTLY."

Hello--are you awake? Do you know what the word "embarrassment" means? The fossil record was so embarrassingly bereft of any evidence to demonstrate gradualism, that Gould had to admit this:

"I wish only to point out that it [gradualism] WAS NEVER 'SEEN' IN THE ROCKS."

Is that clear enough? Evidence for gradualism was not even rare, it was nonexistent! "...it was never seen...." The man had labored personally in the field and the lab for decades, trying to find justification for gradualism in the fossil record, and he had to conclude that the evidence simply was not there!

That is why he came up with punctuational change. This was not a discussion of the differences in the two theories, it was a frank admission of the inadequacy of gradualism, and his lame attempt at an alternative explanation.

My reading of the passage is exactly correct. I added nothing and I took away nothing. I misquoted nothing and your charge is completely unfounded. I also did not get any of this from the Internet, because I have the actual book.

If you say that Gould had no problems with the fossil record, you either cannot even read simple English, or you are just not being forthcoming.

Anyone with an honest, unprejudiced mind will see exactly what Gould and Darwin were plainly saying. Darwin was saying that his theory was bust without abundant transitional forms, and Gould was saying that the fossil record shows no evidence of gradualism.

My observations are true and correct.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Jeez, after only a LITTLE Google searching, I found not only the quote from Gould in question, but a nice analysis of HOW its used out of context.

So, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html...
(NOTE, JOHN, HOW I AM LINKING TO MY COMPLETE SOURCE HERE)
=====
A more correct and complete citation is:

Gould, S. J. 1977. "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History 86(5):12-16.

This is the same article as:

Gould, S. J. 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" in The Panda's Thumb, pp. 179-185. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

It shouldn't surprise those familiar with Gould's books that an article for the magazine Natural History would show up in one of his essay collections, but it is surprising that it has a different title and that there are some differences in the body of the article. And so, it's now obvious why the last sentence in the above is also in Quote #14 of the original Quote Mine Project. They both refer to the same article, and in fact appear in the same pages in "The Panda's Thumb" (pp. 181-182). John Wilkins certainly did more than an adequate job of clarifying Gould's beliefs in that entry, but a slightly different claim is being made here, so I'll do what I can.

A more complete quote would be as follows (words in square brackets ([]) appear in the "Panda's Thumb" essay, and not in the original):
---
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

<> (this is the subquote from darwin -ed)

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]

[1] Referring to Huxley's warning to Darwin, literally on the eve of the publication of Origin of Species, that "[y]ou have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly." - Ed.
---
So it would seem that Gould has no problems with the fossil record. But did he believe that transitional forms are lacking? Note that in the quote originally presented, the claim is made that they are rare, not absent. Also, as anyone who is familiar with Gould's writings will know, the text quoted reflects his recognition that, while there is a scarcity of transitional fossils between species, there is no such lack of transitional fossils between major groups.
=====

Gould is obviously talking about puntuated equilibria versus gradualism, not the validity of the theory overall.

You're not alone here in trying to take Gould's quotes out of context. There's TONS of these on this web page. I had no idea that people desired to so misrepresent Gould as to search so hard for quotes like this and misrepresent them.

Re: Your "Context" Adds Nothing

===
You seem to be unable to understand even the simplest concept with any kind of clarity, but since you cannot grasp even a few words and yet have put up all of those paragraphs, I will focus in on a few key words and phrases. And even though you have elevated obtuseness to an art form, other readers will no doubt see exactly what I am talking about
===

My goodness! Let's take the personal attacks out of this, shall we? You're coming off as a little gruff, if not defensive.

===
"The EXTREME RARITY of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

Do you know what the phrase "extreme rarity" means? It means that not only are any forms that can be construed to be transitional RARE, they are EXTEMELY RARE!
===

I certainly understand what "extremely rare" means. What you miss is that is does NOT mean "does not exist". There are "extremely rare" precious metals on this earth - that does not mean they do not exist.

Give me time to read the book and get back to you on this debate. I see how you are interpreting these quotes, but I really believe you are misunderstanding the message of Gould, and I *know* you are misinterpreting the message of Darwin.

But I'd also like to know, and I think you owe me an answer on this one (as I have asked many times), is of the support for evolution that has been found SINCE the publication of the book in OTHER sciences... the DNA evidence for example. Why do all these sciences support the theory?

Also - what is your alternate conclusion for what is seen in the fossil record? Certainly we must have SOME explanation.

Re: Your "Context" Adds Nothing

Ah jeez, this answer is WAY simpler than I thought.

I looked up a few more examples of punctuated equilibrium, and I now understand much better what Gould is talking about. It makes a lot more sense to me now.

But what this explanation does is make you look even more disillusioned, because the idea of punctuated equilibrium doesn't refute Darwin's theory, it simply stands alongside, and in fact requires it's rules in order to work itself. It's simply a way of describing better what is seen in the fossil record. It's rather elegant, actually.

This description helped me a lot:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_o_0/punctuated_01

I don't understand how you can claim that via Gould's PE that he was attempting to deny evolution works as Darwin describes. I think you're looking for what you want to see in Gould's and Darwin's words and making too-obvious points about it.

===
Anyone with an honest, unprejudiced mind will see exactly what Gould and Darwin were plainly saying. Darwin was saying that his theory was bust without abundant transitional forms, and Gould was saying that the fossil record shows no evidence of gradualism.
===

Well, I would agree that both of those are true, if taken literally and perhaps a bit extremely.

However, TAKEN IN CONTEXT, they don't mean what you are apparently thinking they mean, and you're applying a false conclusion.

Pretty simple really.

Re: Darwin Obviated His Own Theory

In Darwin's time the fossil record was scarce, but with the millions of examples we now have, it is clear that there are no "interminable varieties" by which connections are made to transitional forms between species.
======
Really? The paleontological community seems to think otherwise. Where are you getting your information? Please be specific.

=====
The few that do seem to exist, are but the straws the drowning-in-truth materialists clutch at to keep Darwin's faulty premise from going the way of, well, the dinosaurs.
=====
That's some really nice poetry, but doens't have any bearing on reality.

=====
Microevolution is a physical fact, Macroevolution is faith-based. Evolutionism and Creation are both belief systems, but believers in Creation are honest about their foundation, while Evolutionists want their followers blinded by "science."
=====
Well, let's see if you can explain the difference between micro- and macro-evolution to us, and perhaps what the barrier between them might be. Please be specific.

Evolution is not a belief system, it is science. What conjecture are you using to conclude that evolution is a faith?

Also, why is science "blinding"? Or are you just quoting the Thomas Dolby song for dramatic effect?

=====
Darwin gives you permission to reject his views based on the geological record, which we now know is sadly lacking in evidence. Please consider doing so.
=====

Darwin didn't know about the DNA evidence that has been found that corroborates his theory. Darwin didn't know about radiometric dating. Darwin wasn't THERE for the 150 years of further research that does nothing but CONFIRM the theory.

Anyone who rejects the theory cetainly can't intellectually do it based on scientific evidence, they would have to do it for other reasons. I can only imagine what that reason might be. Please be specific.

Darwin's theory has been confirmed.

There are plenty of tranistional forms that have been found.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

The fossil evidence for macroevolutionary change is strong, but it is not the only line of evidence. The one thing that has become more obvious is that many other areas of science have come together to substantiate the truth of the evolutionary theory of the development and diversity of life. For example, up until the last couple of decades, creationists would crow about the lack of whale precursors. They riciculed the theory that whales came from earlier land mammals. Then scientists like Gingerich and Thewissen started finding whale intermediates.

Biochemical evidence from studies in the 1950's in the form of protein similarities indicated that whales were most closely related to ungulates. By testing a variety of mammals scientists concluded that cows shared more proteins in common than the other non-ungulate mammals. More inclusive studies along this line concluded that hippos were the closest related to whales of the ungulates. Genetic evidence recently has confirmed that affinity within ungulates.

Recent fossil evidence shows that ancient whales shared a peculiar ankle arrangement with artiodactyls, or even-toed ungulates. The atragalus of one of the early whales, pakicetids is shared with all artiodactyls. This confirms earlier lines of evidence from both protein and genetic evidence.

Just a couple things ...

First, as seen on this board, when I ask evolutionists to pick just ONE of these 'transitional forms,' the board gets suddenly silent.
Pick one, and we'll go through it with you and when we are finished with that one, we will have you pick another. (It must have slipped your mind, Arneson.)

Secondly, we encourage everyone to go to the postings specifically covering the 'walking whales' folly. It's a very sad indicator of what is considered 'science.'(The postings are a couple of pages back.)

Thirdly, evolutionists have yet to see a quote from their peers that they like. So, instead of providing evidence that contradicts the damaging quotes, they cry 'quote mining' and try to put the attention on silly 'out of context' accusations.
It's really a bad strategy, guys, but go ahead and keep using it if you think people actually take you seriously.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

There are plenty of tranistional forms that have been found.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

The fossil evidence for macroevolutionary change is strong, but it is not the only line of evidence. The one thing that has become more obvious is that many other areas of science have come together to substantiate the truth of the evolutionary theory of the development and diversity of life. For example, up until the last couple of decades, creationists would crow about the lack of whale precursors. They riciculed the theory that whales came from earlier land mammals. Then scientists like Gingerich and Thewissen started finding whale intermediates.

Biochemical evidence from studies in the 1950's in the form of protein similarities indicated that whales were most closely related to ungulates. By testing a variety of mammals scientists concluded that cows shared more proteins in common than the other non-ungulate mammals. More inclusive studies along this line concluded that hippos were the closest related to whales of the ungulates. Genetic evidence recently has confirmed that affinity within ungulates.

Recent fossil evidence shows that ancient whales shared a peculiar ankle arrangement with artiodactyls, or even-toed ungulates. The atragalus of one of the early whales, pakicetids is shared with all artiodactyls. This confirms earlier lines of evidence from both protein and genetic evidence.

A number of whale transitions where shown, and WiYC had no effective response.

WiYC said:
"First, as seen on this board, when I ask evolutionists to pick just ONE of these 'transitional forms,' the board gets suddenly silent.
Pick one, and we'll go through it with you and when we are finished with that one, we will have you pick another. (It must have slipped your mind, Arneson.)"

You were provided with a number of transitional forms that provided multiple lines of evidence supporting the macroevolutionary transition of whales from fully terrestrial to committed marine mammal. You could not effectively counter the evidence. More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.

Yes, do read the whales postings.

WiYC said:
"Secondly, we encourage everyone to go to the postings specifically covering the 'walking whales' folly. It's a very sad indicator of what is considered 'science.'(The postings are a couple of pages back.)"

Yes, read how very specific characteristics of cetacean (whale) ears were present in terrestrial ancestors. These characteristics persisted as the whale ear evolved to a system better adapted for life in the water.

Read how these terrestrial whales shared a specific ankle structure (the astragalus) that is common to even-toed ungulates (artiodactyls). Note that this structure persisted even after whales became marine creatures.

Other morphological characteristics correspond with the changing lifestyle of these creatures from fully terrestrial to obligate aquatic animals. Legs, hips, spine, and skulls all evolve to forms more suitable to aquatic life. Note that the teeth provide further evidence of this change in oxygen isotope ratios. These animals moved from land out to sea and the elements in their teeth document this occurred.

Note that protein and genetic evidence also pointed to an artiodactyl ancestory of whales. Also note that the age of the fossils corresponds with the geological changes in the eastern end of the Tethys sea where these early whales evolved.

Finally, notice that WiYC can't explain any of this evidence and finally drops each and every point.

Morphological Similarities are NOT Fossilized Transitional Forms

Where, oh where, are the transitional forms? They do not exist, which relegates your fanciful musing to the "mere speculation" junk pile. You have zero physical transitional fossil evidence for your assertions, and that is not hard science, because science sooner or later demands proof, and you have none. Worse, you require hard evidence from others, yet you have none yourself, thus breaking the very rules you claim to live by. Hypocrisy on parade, and desperate at that.

Oh, wait. Could you possibly be referring to Darwin's whale bears? Yes, your comments would fit right in with Darwin's "Just So" story, about How the Whale Learned to Swim. (I will share that story at another time. It is hilarious!)

Interesting, but more fit for a child's storybook.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC said:
"Secondly, we encourage everyone to go to the postings specifically covering the 'walking whales' folly. It's a very sad indicator of what is considered 'science.'(The postings are a couple of pages back.)"

Yes, read how very specific characteristics of cetacean (whale) ears were present in terrestrial ancestors. These characteristics persisted as the whale ear evolved to a system better adapted for life in the water.

Read how these terrestrial whales shared a specific ankle structure (the astragalus) that is common to even-toed ungulates (artiodactyls). Note that this structure persisted even after whales became marine creatures.

Other morphological characteristics correspond with the changing lifestyle of these creatures from fully terrestrial to obligate aquatic animals. Legs, hips, spine, and skulls all evolve to forms more suitable to aquatic life. Note that the teeth provide further evidence of this change in oxygen isotope ratios. These animals moved from land out to sea and the elements in their teeth document this occurred.

Note that protein and genetic evidence also pointed to an artiodactyl ancestory of whales. Also note that the age of the fossils corresponds with the geological changes in the eastern end of the Tethys sea where these early whales evolved.

Finally, notice that WiYC can't explain any of this evidence and finally drops each and every point.

Plenty of transitional whale fossils...

John said:
"Where, oh where, are the transitional forms? They do not exist, which relegates your fanciful musing to the "mere speculation" junk pile. You have zero physical transitional fossil evidence for your assertions, and that is not hard science, because science sooner or later demands proof, and you have none. Worse, you require hard evidence from others, yet you have none yourself, thus breaking the very rules you claim to live by. Hypocrisy on parade, and desperate at that."

Not desperate at all. There is a very solid record of transitional fossils for whales. I will assume that you are simply unaware of the science. You can start with this article. It should give you an idea of what I am talking about. I wouldn't expect you to accept this without evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

It lists only a fraction of the whale transitional fossils that have been found. It is far from zero as you claim. These fossils share a number of characteristics that clearly make them part of the transition from land to water for these creatures. The last couple of decades have been very exciting in the area of whale evolution. Little fossil evidence beyond Basilosaurus existed before Gingerich's finds in Pakistan, but new species have been found hot and heavy since then.

Not Darwin's bear, either....

John said:
"Oh, wait. Could you possibly be referring to Darwin's whale bears? Yes, your comments would fit right in with Darwin's "Just So" story, about How the Whale Learned to Swim. (I will share that story at another time. It is hilarious!)

Interesting, but more fit for a child's storybook."

Nope. This is a bit more to the point than the last link. I hope you find both informative.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html

Darwin was working with very little of what we understand now about whale origins. He also didn't have many of the branches of science that provide more support for the transition than just fossil evidence. Although his supposition that whales came from bears was incorrect. He was correct that they did come from land animals.

Quote mine if that is all you have....but it is not honest and doesn't support your position.

WiYC said:
"Thirdly, evolutionists have yet to see a quote from their peers that they like. So, instead of providing evidence that contradicts the damaging quotes, they cry 'quote mining' and try to put the attention on silly 'out of context' accusations.
It's really a bad strategy, guys, but go ahead and keep using it if you think people actually take you seriously."

This example should give an idea of what WiYC considers evidence, how we respond to it and how she slinks away when called on it.

"The ear of Pakicetus was adapted to a terrestrial lifestyle, yet is had several characteristics that are only shared by other whales. The unique 'S' shaped sigmoid process is used to identify whales. Pakicetus has this characteristic. Later, more aquatic whales evolved ears that share the other adaptations to life in the water you mentioned.

Yes, we have been through this before. So perhaps it is time that you took an honest look at the paper you quote.

WiYC posted the following under the title "We've been through this how many times? Repeat a lie long enough and people will believe you":

"After this, go ahead and have last word because I am not interested in such repetition.

The ears of Pakicetus are those of a whale?

'Unlike any other cetacean, the pakicetid outer ear was unspecialized and similar to that of land mammals... '

'It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the ead is in contact with the ground...'

'Taken together, the features of the skull indicate that pakicetids were terrestrial, and the locomotor skeleton displays running adaptations ...'

'Pakecetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphilbious than a tapir.'

From 'Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyles'
Nature/Vol 413 / 20 September 2001 / www.nature.com"
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/716865/

Here is my response:
"In contrast to the debate about the cetacean sister group, the relationships among Eocene cetaceans and the content of Cetacea itself are not controversial. All phylogenetic studies indicate that pakicetids are more closely related to living cetaceans than to artiodactyls and mesonychians, and that pakicetids share the cetacean synapomorphies of the ear. Pakicetids are followed by ambulocetids in the cladogram, and modern cetaceans (toothed and baleen whales) are closely related to Eocene basilosaurids and dorudontids."

Yes, pakicetids were terrestrial, but they were clearly whales. You had better come up with evidence and analysis that refutes "all phylogenetic studies" done on these whales. You haven't done that. You have merely cherry picked quotes that don't really support your position. This has been pointed out to you many times. So it is long past time to come to terms with the evidence and stop making spurious unsupported claims that others are lying. It is unchristian and unbecoming of a mature woman. I will pray for you."
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/716870

Re: Darwin Obviated His Own Theory

A lie, plain and simple. Almost every single fossil we find can be classified as a transitional of observed species. The fossil record is indeed very fractured, but is still a strong supporter of evolution.

Macroevolution is defined as a change in species, which has been observed.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

-Charles Darwin, as quoted by S J Gould, in "The Panda's Thumb," page 181.

In Darwin's time the fossil record was scarce, but with the millions of examples we now have, it is clear that there are no "interminable varieties" by which connections are made to transitional forms between species. The few that do seem to exist, are but the straws the drowning-in-truth materialists clutch at to keep Darwin's faulty premise from going the way of, well, the dinosaurs.

Microevolution is a physical fact, Macroevolution is faith-based. Evolutionism and Creation are both belief systems, but believers in Creation are honest about their foundation, while Evolutionists want their followers blinded by "science."

Darwin gives you permission to reject his views based on the geological record, which we now know is sadly lacking in evidence. Please consider doing so.

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply.