The Antiquity of Dinosaurs

An evolutionist is honest

hi Wolf,

Don't you think this whining about 'quote mining' is getting a little old?

When an evolutionist has the honesty to admit there is a problem that needs addressing, you shouldn't trash folks for referring to the quote of their statement.

It's like this:

Politician A says, 'folks we've got a problem with Social Security. It's not going to be financially solvent very much longer. I propose we do X.'

Politician B says , ' folks , Politician A has said Social Security will not be solvent much longer. I propose we do Z.'

Would you trash B for 'quote mining' A regarding the identification of the problem if he did not agree with him on the solution?

Quote #50

Quote:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)

This is a rather unspectacularly predictable mined quote, as everyone who has had a few hours exposure to Gould's writings on evolution can instantly see that he's arguing against gradualism and probably in favor of punctuated equilibrium, a theory that he co-originated with Eldredge in 1972. Contrary to possible first impressions of the uninformed, Gould is presenting a problem FOR gradualist evolution, and countering WITH solutions to this apparent "problem" later in the paragraph.

And, in typical quote-mining style, this sentence has been taken out of its natural ecosystem. In this section of the paper, Gould is outlining the challenge to gradualist models of macroevolution in three loosely united themes. He is not challenging evolution itself nor is he discounting the vast wealth of fossil data that already exists.

Therefore, someone unfamiliar with Gould who would read the quote alone, above, who does not understand Gould's argument in the paper nor his scientific history will not realize he's just questioning gradualism as a theory of evolutionary change, and not realize he's simultaneously proposing a better idea of evolutionary change to fit the observed data.

As far as the paper goes, the quote above is actually from point #2 in his argument, and you'll have to see the full context to see where it's been selectively snipped. Here's the full context, starting with his point #2 but not encompassing the entire section #2 (which goes on in the same vein a while longer).

real life wrote:

hi Wolf,

Don't you think this whining about 'quote mining' is getting a little old?

Not if you keep doing it. What you're doing right now is the equivalent of the Chinese saying to the US, "isn't accusing us of human rights violations getting a bit old?" If the charge

Quote:

When an evolutionist has the honesty to admit there is a problem that needs addressing, you shouldn't trash folks for referring to the quote of their statement.

But the quotes were clearly taken out of context in such a way as to misrepresent what the original author was saying, with the exception of those which were proven to be by people who didn't know what they were talking about.

That's not to say that "evolutionists" (a meaningless term, RL) as you call them don't admit there are problems that need addressing. I attended in June... or maybe July a Evolution conference by paleontologists and biochemists and so forth. There they addressed problems (mostly classification problems) and discussed them in an honest manner using actual scientific data.

This is not what Creationists do. You and Gunga have clearly shown yourselves to be dishonest, in misrepresenting what Evolution is supposed to do and in gunga's case, misrepresenting what actual scientists have actually said.

If the shoe fits... as saying goes.

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

Quote:

It's like this:

Politician A says, 'folks we've got a problem with Social Security. It's not going to be financially solvent very much longer. I propose we do X.'

Politician B says , ' folks , Politician A has said Social Security will not be solvent much longer. I propose we do Z.'

Would you trash B for 'quote mining' A regarding the identification of the problem if he did not agree with him on the solution?

That's not what the quote miners did.

TalkOrigins wrote:

Quote #50

Quote:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)

This is a rather unspectacularly predictable mined quote, as everyone who has had a few hours exposure to Gould's writings on evolution can instantly see that he's arguing against gradualism and probably in favor of punctuated equilibrium, a theory that he co-originated with Eldredge in 1972. Contrary to possible first impressions of the uninformed, Gould is presenting a problem FOR gradualist evolution, and countering WITH solutions to this apparent "problem" later in the paragraph.

And, in typical quote-mining style, this sentence has been taken out of its natural ecosystem. In this section of the paper, Gould is outlining the challenge to gradualist models of macroevolution in three loosely united themes. He is not challenging evolution itself nor is he discounting the vast wealth of fossil data that already exists.

Therefore, someone unfamiliar with Gould who would read the quote alone, above, who does not understand Gould's argument in the paper nor his scientific history will not realize he's just questioning gradualism as a theory of evolutionary change, and not realize he's simultaneously proposing a better idea of evolutionary change to fit the observed data.

As far as the paper goes, the quote above is actually from point #2 in his argument, and you'll have to see the full context to see where it's been selectively snipped. Here's the full context, starting with his point #2 but not encompassing the entire section #2 (which goes on in the same vein a while longer).

Above is an example of the dishonest tactic I was talking about. It was in Pauligirl's response, but you ignored it only to "trash" us for raising a perfectly reasonable objection.

Gunga's quote miners were doing the equivalent of this...

----------
Politician A: It would appear that the crime rate is increasing. However, my policy has actually freed police officers from paperwork, which means they have been able to go out on the beat to catch the criminals, whom would have otherwise gone unpunished.

Politician B: Politician A has admitted that crime rate is increasing, therefore his policy is flawed. I propose we do policy Z.
----------

Only you and gunga here are doing the trashing.

Neither of you have actually provided any real evidence to suggest that the Theory of Evolution is in peril. Real evidence. Real data. None.

The quote you provide from Pauligirl illustrates my point very well.

Gould identifies a problem with ...

Should the 'quote miner' be prevented from referring to this identification simply because he disagrees with the resolution Gould has proposed?

Part of the problem seems to be you and /or Pauligirl , (or other evolutionists who complain about 'quote mining')may be assuming ignorance of the part of the reader.

Her riff goes like this -- 'Therefore, someone unfamiliar with Gould who would read the quote alone, above, who does not understand Gould's argument in the paper nor his scientific history will not realize ....'

Why not let people judge for themselves whether they buy into what they read , instead of treating them like dopes?

[size=28]THERE ARE NO INTERMEDIATE FOSSILS[/size]

...over the last 60 years or so, a fairly large number of scientists and promenent people have taken a hard look at the situation with evolution and the fossil record and have noted that

[size=28]THERE ARE INTERMEDIATE FOSSILS[/size]

"Quote Mining(TM)" is a refuge for scoundrels

One is that the original formulations of evolution all required that the vast bulk of all fossils be clear-cut intermediate forms;

and that there has been a mad search on for 150 or so years and all they've ever found are a handful of highly problematical cases which are mainly "mosaic" creatures like the platypus or archaeopteryx which NOBODY (except for the idiots at talk.origins) views as any sort of intermediate fossils.

In fact there are real bird fossils older than the archaeopteryx; a child cannot be older than his parents...

Two is that, as you observe in the quotes which the evolosers cry over, pretty much everybody with brains, talent, and any sort of real credentials who has ever commented on the situation over the last 60 years is on the record to the effect that there are no intermediate fossils.

Three is that the new defacto variant of evoloserism, "Punctuated Equilibria", claims to PREDICT the lack of intermediate fossils.

Steve Gouild, Niles Eldridge, Ernst Mayr, and a number of other major scientists put a whole lot of work and effort into that project and, if the idiots at talk.origins are right and there actually are intermediate fossils lying around just everywhere, then all that work on the part of the punk-eekers was an exercise in futility.