|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bloomington, MN
Posts: 2,209
|
Quote:
Originally posted by randman:
<strong>Anyone that thinks the following quotes are out of context are welcome to explain the true meaning of them. Here they are. Please do so one by one. </strong>
|
Okay.
Quote:
<strong>
On the dumb idea of which mechanism prevents, I guess you are now stating that it is OK to merely state something, and that is proof. What a joke?</strong>
|
I did not state anything. I challenged you to tell us about the mechanism that permits variations within kinds but prevents them between them. I am not proving any position that I hold, but challenging you to prove yours. I will do so again at the end of this post.
Quote:
<strong>This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.] </strong>
|
West is completely right here -- but not in the way that creationists would have you believe. What West appears to be saying when chopped off by the creationists is that evolution and creationism both adequately explain the fossil record. What West is actually saying is that we must use a testable scientific theory, combined with a natural law or universal statement -- in this case, evolution and uniformity -- to explain the fossil record.
Quote:
<strong>
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):
“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
</strong>
|
I could not find that reference anywhere, but the following quotes from a book written by Stanley called "Extinction" (1987 -- only a year after the above article was purportedly written) should prove that Stanley's view of the fossil record is not as bleak as the creationist context-chopper makes it seem:
Quote:
p. 51-52: "Fossil evidence reveals that about 1.4 billion years ago, at least 2 billion years after prokaryotic life evolved, the modern kind of cell came into being... The evidence for the existence of the eukaryotic cell about 1.4 billion years ago is based primarily on the size and wall structure of fossil cells."
p. 67: "Only recently has it been discovered that the nautiloids underwent a dramatic but localized adaptive radiation near the end of the Cambrian time. This event is recorded in the sedimentary record of China..."
p. 77, 79: "Very near the end of the Devonian Period, vertebrate animals joined higher plants on the land. Representing this event is Ichthyostega, an animal whose remarkable anatomy places it in an evolutionary position between Devonian fish and amphibians...Ichthyostega, whose remains have been collected from sedimentary rocks of freshwater origin in Greenland, is a true ‘missing link.'...This Late Devonian animal had the feet of an amphibian but a finned tail resembling that of its fish ancestor."
p. 95: "Modern reptiles differ from amphibians in a number of skeletal structures, but some late Paleozoic species are intermediate in form, leaving experts uncertain as to how to classify them."
p. 95: "In the course of the Permian Period they [reptiles] came more and more to resemble mammals... Many Early Permian species are, in fact, placed in a group called the mammal-like reptiles."
p. 99: "Lystrosaurus, the mammal-like reptile that underwent a population explosion in Gondwanaland following the terminal Permian mass extinction."
p. 121: "...Archaeopteryx, a crow-sized animal whose preserved feathers betray its avian identity, despite its possession of teeth, a tail, and other skeletal features that closely resemble those of other dinosaurs."
|
Quote:
<strong>
If that weren’t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
</strong>
|
The full quotation will make the point that Stanley is simply arguing that the punctuated model is a better explanation than gradualism. The portion quoted by the context-chopper is in boldface.
Quote:
|
"Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very recent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuational model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1)Very weak gene flow among populations of a species (a common phenomenon) argues against gradualism, because without efficient gene flow, phyletics evolution is stymied. (2) Many levels of spatial heterogeneity normally characterize populations in nature, and at some level, the conflict between gene flow subpopulations and selection pressure within subpopulations should oppose evolutionary divergence of large segments of the gene pool; only small populations are likely to diverge rapidly. (3) Geographic clines, which seem to preserve in modern space changes that occurred in evolutionary time, can be viewed as supporting the punctuational model, because continuous clines that record gradual evolution within large populations represent gentle morphologic trends, while stepped clines seem to record rapid divergence of small populations. (4) Net morphologic changes along major phylogenetic pathways generally represent such minuscule mean selection coefficients that nonepisodic modes of transition are highly likely. Quantum speciation or stepwise evolution within lineages is implied. (5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
|
Quote:
<strong>
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
|
</strong>
Again, here is the entire quote in context, with the portion quoted by the context-chopper in boldface:
Quote:
"The chances that remains of an organism will be buried, fossilized, preserved in the rock to our day, then exposed on the surface of dry land and found by a paleontologist before they distintergrate are extremely small...Certainly paleontologists have found samples of an extremely small fraction, only, of the earth's extinct species...In view of these facts, the record already acquired is amazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examples of a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower and intermediate levels and with rather abundant data that can be used either by controlled extrapolation or on a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest. Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or a genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for subfamilies and occasionally for families... Splitting and subsequent gradual divergence of species is also exemplified... Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies and families also are known, but are less common.
In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. When paleontological collecting was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologist were anti-evolutionists... Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences. Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case very unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."
|
Quote:
<strong>
David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:
“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
</strong>
|
I need not deal with this quote in detail since it is not a scientific or a research article, but a book review. The author of the book being reviewed, Grasse, argues that the fossil record does support evolution, and Kitts is simply repeating the point that West makes above. The alternatives that Kitts suggests, as Kitts himself goes on to explain, are all rejected because they do not explain other empirical data, such as nature in the present, nearly as well as evolution does.
Quote:
<strong>E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:
“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
|
Surprisingly enough, this quote is indeed in context . . . but since this is an essay about anthropology and its public image, with no references or footnotes, was not submitted to scientific peer review, and is mentioned only in passing, this quote carries no weight with evolutionists.
Quote:
[qb]Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:
“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
</strong>
|
There is nothing unusual about a punctuated equilibriumist arguing against gradualism. This is hardly an admission that evolution might not be correct. Here are some other quotes from the same article to show how the above one is out of context:
Quote:
p. 116
"Our model of punctuated equilibria is a hypothesis about mode. We claim speciation is orders of magnitude more important than phyletic evolution as a mode of evolutionary change."
p. 119
"We do regard punctuated equilibrium as by far the most common tempo of evolution - and we do assert that gradualism is both rare and unable in any case - given its characteristic rate - to serve as the source for major evolutionary events."
p.119
"We never claimed either that gradualism could not occur in theory, or did not occur in fact. Nature is far too varied and complex for such absolutes . . ."
p.125-126
"D) Potentially valid (but mostly unproved) cases of gradualism. - Among the few potentially valid cases urged against our model, we find only one (Ozawa's forams) that meets all criteria for an adequate test . . . A few additional cases fit a gradualistic interpretation better than any other, but do not contain enough data to convince. Ziegler's (1966) celebrated study of the brachiopod Eocoelia from the Upper Llandoverian strata of the Welsh borderland documents a 'progressive suppression of ribs' among four successive species in 14 samples."
|
<strong>
Quote:
|
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
|
</strong>
One need only look at the very next sentence to see how that quote is out of context:
Quote:
|
"Our model is fully consistent with Darwin's central postulate that natural selection controls evolutionary change. Natural selection requires continuity and intermediacy, for selection must create the fit by steadily increasing the frequency of favorable variants. It does not require exceedingly slow and gradual transformations of entire populations."
|
There you have it: I have demonstrated -- one at a time, per your request -- how each of the above quotations were taken out of context, except for the one case where the quotation actually was in context, and that one exception is a laughable attempt to project authority.
Now it's your turn.
What is the biological or genetic mechanism which, while permitting variations within "kinds" of species, prevents variations between them?
I am prepared to wait for your answer, or your admission that you have no answer, until hell freezes over.
Dave
[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Silent Dave ]</p>
|
03-08-2002, 03:47 PM
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
