Freethought & Rationalism Archive

randman · 03-07-2002, 09:38 AM

Yea, and I also realize that instead of just admitting that that the contention had been made that somehow the quotes don't mean what they say.
If evolutionists honestly admitted the facts a little more clearly, I wouldn't think it was all propoganda.
It doesn't really matter so much to me whether evolution is right or not, or people beleive in it. What matters is that it is approached and presented in a proper manner. What goes on is more akin to a religion that has state-sponsored status and seeks to squelch any dissent.
I can't respect this kind of "science."
By the way, why is it OK for Gould to state that you don't see the transitions, but it isn't OK for a Creationist, or just a plain doubter of evolution. Seems to me that the high-handed tactics used to defend and present evolution are not indicative of real science.

Mageth · 03-07-2002, 10:09 AM

By the way, why is it OK for Gould to state that you don't see the transitions,...

From <a href="http://www.harpercollins.com/hc/features/evolution/introduction.asp" target="_blank">here:</a>

Quote:

We must therefore turn to a second category of direct evidence from transitional stages of major alterations found in the fossil record. A common claim, stated often enough to merit the label of "urban legend," holds that no such transitional forms exist and that paleontologists, dogmatically committed to evolution, have either withheld this information from the public or have claimed that the fossil record is too imperfect to preserve the intermediates that must once have existed. In fact, although the fossil record is indeed spotty (a problem with nearly all historical documents, after all), the assiduous work of paleontologists has revealed numerous elegant examples of sequences of inter-mediary forms (not just single "in between" specimens) joining ancestors in proper temporal order to very different descendants -- as in the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammalian ancestors through several intermediate stages, including Ambulocetus (literally, the walking whale), the evolution of birds from small running dinosaurs, of mammals from reptilian ancestors, and a threefold increase in brain size during the last 4 million years of human evolution.

-

Stephen Jay Gould

Now, what exactly is Gould's view on the existence of transitional forms?

Mageth · 03-07-2002, 10:14 AM

Letting Mr. Gould speak for himself, again, rather than listening to the creationist bullshit (from <a href="http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/lies/lie009.html" target="_blank">here</a>):

Quote:

We [Gould and Niles Eldredge] proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kind of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuations and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists�whether though 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. Yet a pamphlet entitled �Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax� states: �The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge�are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible.�

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1949, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as �hopeful monsters.� (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt�s theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium�) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the �punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory� and tells his hopeful readers that �it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor.� Duane Gish writes, �According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced.� Any evolutionist who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism�with God acting in the egg.

randman · 03-07-2002, 10:22 AM

That depends on what you mean by transitional forms. Gould can try his hand at damage control all he wants, but what he is saying is clear.

"the assiduous work of paleontologists has revealed numerous elegant examples of sequences of inter-mediary forms (not just single "in between" specimens) joining ancestors in proper temporal order to very different descendants -- as in the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammalian ancestors through several intermediate stages"

Not just single "in-between" inter-mediary forms but several? OK, let's parse this. Is he saying that each one of these forms gradualy mutated into the next one, that all of the species between these inter-mediary forms are shown? No, he is not, and those transitions themsleves are not shown. It may look like these are stages in an evolutionary path, but the species to species path is not shown. Moreover, Gould states that species actually exhibit stasis so that when these changes do happen, we don't see them. All we see is an inter-mediary form down the road a bit.
What I key on here is the lack of evolutionary change within the lifespan of a species. You don't see it. You see stasis according to Gould. Now, he assumes that since later down the road you see "fully formed" species that look like they must have evolved from one another, that these are transtions, but once again, you don't see species exhibiting change. They exhibit stasis.
This undercuts the micro-evolutionary leading to macro-evolution in my view, and it also fits very well with the notion of a Creator who is like an artist.
Moreover, it fits well with the idea that evolution happens by intentional cause and design rather than purely natural causes.

Mageth · 03-07-2002, 10:27 AM

Scotty · 03-07-2002, 11:01 AM

I have to ask if anybody knows, is this the same way people went about translating the Bible?
-Scott

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
That depends on what you mean by transitional forms. Gould can try his hand at damage control all he wants, but what he is saying is clear.

"the assiduous work of paleontologists has revealed numerous elegant examples of sequences of inter-mediary forms (not just single "in between" specimens) joining ancestors in proper temporal order to very different descendants -- as in the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammalian ancestors through several intermediate stages"

Not just single "in-between" inter-mediary forms but several? OK, let's parse this. Is he saying that each one of these forms gradualy mutated into the next one, that all of the species between these inter-mediary forms are shown? No, he is not, and those transitions themsleves are not shown. It may look like these are stages in an evolutionary path, but the species to species path is not shown. Moreover, Gould states that species actually exhibit stasis so that when these changes do happen, we don't see them. All we see is an inter-mediary form down the road a bit.
What I key on here is the lack of evolutionary change within the lifespan of a species. You don't see it. You see stasis according to Gould. Now, he assumes that since later down the road you see "fully formed" species that look like they must have evolved from one another, that these are transtions, but once again, you don't see species exhibiting change. They exhibit stasis.
This undercuts the micro-evolutionary leading to macro-evolution in my view, and it also fits very well with the notion of a Creator who is like an artist.
Moreover, it fits well with the idea that evolution happens by intentional cause and design rather than purely natural causes.

Mageth · 03-07-2002, 11:04 AM

Pretty much. "The bible says this, but what God REALLY means is this..."

Kosh · 03-07-2002, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:

Not just single "in-between" inter-mediary forms but several? OK, let's parse this. Is he saying that each one of these forms gradualy mutated into the next one, that all of the species between these inter-mediary forms are shown?

Wow, you're either an idiot, or studying to be
a lawyer. Harvard was really going to let you
in?

Scotty · 03-07-2002, 11:16 AM

I do have to say, that was very creative writing, I was very impressed, he had me there for a second until I re-read the original.
Thanks!
-Scott

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
Pretty much. "The bible says this, but what God REALLY means is this..."

Morat · 03-07-2002, 11:26 AM

Haven't you figured out what Randman wants here? He wants every single transition between two species.

You want to show a bird/dinosaur? He wants an example of every change, no matter how small. If you went from small feathers, to big feathers, he wants in-between sized feathers.

The fact that the fossil record isn't that fine grained notwithstanding.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2002, 09:38 AM	#41
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Yea, and I also realize that instead of just admitting that that the contention had been made that somehow the quotes don't mean what they say. If evolutionists honestly admitted the facts a little more clearly, I wouldn't think it was all propoganda. It doesn't really matter so much to me whether evolution is right or not, or people beleive in it. What matters is that it is approached and presented in a proper manner. What goes on is more akin to a religion that has state-sponsored status and seeks to squelch any dissent. I can't respect this kind of "science." By the way, why is it OK for Gould to state that you don't see the transitions, but it isn't OK for a Creationist, or just a plain doubter of evolution. Seems to me that the high-handed tactics used to defend and present evolution are not indicative of real science.

03-07-2002, 10:22 AM	#44
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	That depends on what you mean by transitional forms. Gould can try his hand at damage control all he wants, but what he is saying is clear. "the assiduous work of paleontologists has revealed numerous elegant examples of sequences of inter-mediary forms (not just single "in between" specimens) joining ancestors in proper temporal order to very different descendants -- as in the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammalian ancestors through several intermediate stages" Not just single "in-between" inter-mediary forms but several? OK, let's parse this. Is he saying that each one of these forms gradualy mutated into the next one, that all of the species between these inter-mediary forms are shown? No, he is not, and those transitions themsleves are not shown. It may look like these are stages in an evolutionary path, but the species to species path is not shown. Moreover, Gould states that species actually exhibit stasis so that when these changes do happen, we don't see them. All we see is an inter-mediary form down the road a bit. What I key on here is the lack of evolutionary change within the lifespan of a species. You don't see it. You see stasis according to Gould. Now, he assumes that since later down the road you see "fully formed" species that look like they must have evolved from one another, that these are transtions, but once again, you don't see species exhibiting change. They exhibit stasis. This undercuts the micro-evolutionary leading to macro-evolution in my view, and it also fits very well with the notion of a Creator who is like an artist. Moreover, it fits well with the idea that evolution happens by intentional cause and design rather than purely natural causes.

03-07-2002, 10:27 AM	#45
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

03-07-2002, 11:04 AM	#47
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Pretty much. "The bible says this, but what God REALLY means is this..."

03-07-2002, 11:26 AM	#50
Morat Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 932	Haven't you figured out what Randman wants here? He wants every single transition between two species. You want to show a bird/dinosaur? He wants an example of every change, no matter how small. If you went from small feathers, to big feathers, he wants in-between sized feathers. The fact that the fossil record isn't that fine grained notwithstanding.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.