Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 03-06-2002, 08:00 PM

[code]
Carnivora
|--Canidae
| |--Canis
| | |--lupus (wolf, domestic dog)
| | `--latrans (coyote)
| `-- Vulpes
| `--vulpes (red fox)
`--Felidae
|--Felis
| `--sylvestris (small wild cat, domestic cat)
`--Panthera
|--leo (lion)
|--tigris (tiger)
`--pardus (leopard)
</pre>[/quote]

Randman, if you don't understand that, then I suggest that you do some serious self-examinationa and self-criticism. Ask yourself why you fail to understand something so simple.

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

randman · 03-06-2002, 08:03 PM

I never claimed to be an expert on evolution, but I do find it odd that so many evolutionists insist that what Gould is saying here is wrong.

Kosh · 03-06-2002, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
[ Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
[Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
[The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
["Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
[Nature 293:19, 1981]
[S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
[S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

"If man had been meant to fly, God would have given him wings" - 1902

Your most recent quote is 14 years old, and of
course, nothing else has been discovered since
then...

notto · 03-06-2002, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
I never claimed to be an expert on evolution, but I do find it odd that so many evolutionists insist that what Gould is saying here is wrong.

They aren't claiming that what Gould is said is wrong, they are claiming that you misunderstand what Gould said (and it is outdated). Perhaps you should inform your sources of the following Gould quote and ask them to include it in their lists.

<a href="http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/lies/lie009.html" target="_blank">http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/lies/lie009.html</a>

Lets let Dr. Gould speak for what his views are. In his �Evolution as Fact and Theory� published in the May 1981 issue of Discover reprinted in his Hen�s Teeth and Horse�s Toes he wrote:

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.�

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: notto ]

randman · 03-06-2002, 08:17 PM

That is because these are the quotes, or similar qoues from the same people, that convinced me evolution was wrong, and moreover, that I had been taught a lie, that the facts were not honestly and objectively examined, but that evolutionists relied more on propoganda than theory.
I have quoted more recent quotes on other threads. Furthermore, since evolution had been taught as fact for decades, these quotes will always be relevant. If evolution turns out to be true, it will be more a testament to intuitive reasoning than science.

theyeti · 03-06-2002, 08:18 PM

[b

Quote:

I am not a paleontologist, but these statements such are either true or a lie.
Are ya'll saying they are a lie?[/b]

There is another possibility. The statements are taken out of context and do not represent the prevailing views of the person who said them, much less the consensus of paleontology. Instead they have been carefully plucked by creationists who have searched through decades of writings to come up with a few choice quotes. Afterall, if this really represents the views of the paleontological community, then why do you rely on a quote from the 1950s? Certainly you could have found one from the 90's or later? Or do you think they're all liars?

Quote:

"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."
That Gould is wrong here, and I have read his whiney complaints about how he never meant to undercut evolution. Gimme a break.

Then you should be able to tell us why you took his statements out of context. What was Gould referring to?

theyeti

Valentine Pontifex · 03-06-2002, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Lord Valentine, yea, I could link you to a scientist that does indeed make a very clear line, and we cab get into that later.

I assume this is refering to the fossil hominids.
The question is where to draw the line and why.
Of course various creationists have said the this and that fossil are apes and this and that fossil or human. The problem is they they have grossly contracted it each and thus demonstrate the fuzziness of the divide between "ape" and "human"
See <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html" target="_blank">this link</a>.

Quote:

But my questions are a little more basic.
What I would like to see from that little list of your's is a breakdown, heck, of even 4 species in a chain.

This was already provided.

Quote:

Specifically, have the changes from say one species that evolves into another species, not steps between been examined, and then so on until a whole new creature is formed.
In other words, could we day here is bird 1, nad it undergoes x genetic mutations into bird 2, etc,etc, ..until we see a whole new creature.

How the Hell can we say what genetic mutations caused x evolution from the fossil record? The fossil record does not show this kind of stuff.

Quote:

I haven't seen this.

Of course, if you set up an impossible standard, you should not complain that nothing lives up to your standard.

Quote:

What I have seen is very sketchy and speculative and over time, tends to change.

That our knowledge tends to change only shows that science, and not dogma, is being done. Why don't you complain that the chemists picture of what the atom is like changes over time? Is this a reason to become a atom denier?

Quote:

Extinct species are said to be transtional based on mere similarities.

This is a false statement and a widespread misconception outside of non-specialists.
You might consider learning some evolutionary biology before criticizing it. The cladograms I gave are NOT based on mere similiarity. You might do some research on what cladistics is.

Quote:

For instance, I would expect to see the fossils of one species in an area, maybe isolated for some reason, and see within that species gradual changes until it becomes something else.
In fact, I would expect this as an ongoing trait of gradual changes in all species if evolution is true.

This is yet another impossible standard. A population that is isolated is almost certainly not going to be found as a fossil for reason that should be so obvious once it is realized that most species are known only from a handful of individuals that I will not insult your intellegence by telling you why. And beyond the obvious reasons, in any particular spot you generally can get the fossils from one particular time -- assuming the exposed rock that can have fossils in the first place. Often for any exact period of time, there will not be that many places to hunt for fossils.

And why do all species must gradually change? Evolution, as we are using the term here, is the all species share a common ancestor -- not that evolution is always gradual and that obvious morphological changes are always happening. Those are your ASSUMPTIONS and they have nothing to do with the reality of evolution.

Valentine Pontifex · 03-06-2002, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Lord V, my searches have shown that the statements of Gould and others concerning the rarity of species to species transitions to be accurate. The fact that people like you still insist this is not the case baffles me.

We are NOT talking about species to species transitions are we. Reptiles to birds is NOT a species to species transition. Reptiles to mammals is NOT a species to species transition. Non-humans to humans is NOT a species to species transtion. Gould has made it VERY clear many times that these sort of things are common.
You have fallen victim to out-of-context quotation. Please don't read what dishonest creationists quote of Gould, actually read Gould in the original.

Valentine Pontifex · 03-06-2002, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Randman wrote:

These are some of the quotes that influenced my thinking some 15 years past.

Ah, quote mining. The favorite tactic of evolution deniers and other quacks when the evidence does not go there way.

Let me guess. You have never read a single one of these writers in the original.

Let me give you a hint:
NONE of the persons you quote deny that there are many transtional forms between mammals and reptiles. None of them deny transitions between human and non-human. None of the deny thatArchaeopteryx blurs the line between reptile and bird.

Valentine Pontifex · 03-06-2002, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
That is because these are the quotes, or similar qoues from the same people, that convinced me evolution was wrong, and moreover, that I had been taught a lie, that the facts were not honestly and objectively examined, but that evolutionists relied more on propoganda than theory.
I have quoted more recent quotes on other threads. Furthermore, since evolution had been taught as fact for decades, these quotes will always be relevant. If evolution turns out to be true, it will be more a testament to intuitive reasoning than science.

Well you have been deceived. When one digs deeper, these quotes cease to be what the creationists say they are. You might want to read
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/" target="_blank">this</a>.

03-06-2002, 08:00 PM	#21
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	[code] Carnivora \|--Canidae \| \|--Canis \| \| \|--lupus (wolf, domestic dog) \| \| `--latrans (coyote) \| `-- Vulpes \| `--vulpes (red fox) `--Felidae \|--Felis \| `--sylvestris (small wild cat, domestic cat) `--Panthera \|--leo (lion) \|--tigris (tiger) `--pardus (leopard) </pre>[/quote] Randman, if you don't understand that, then I suggest that you do some serious self-examinationa and self-criticism. Ask yourself why you fail to understand something so simple. [ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

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

03-06-2002, 08:03 PM	#22
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	I never claimed to be an expert on evolution, but I do find it odd that so many evolutionists insist that what Gould is saying here is wrong.

03-06-2002, 08:17 PM	#25
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	That is because these are the quotes, or similar qoues from the same people, that convinced me evolution was wrong, and moreover, that I had been taught a lie, that the facts were not honestly and objectively examined, but that evolutionists relied more on propoganda than theory. I have quoted more recent quotes on other threads. Furthermore, since evolution had been taught as fact for decades, these quotes will always be relevant. If evolution turns out to be true, it will be more a testament to intuitive reasoning than science.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.