Evolution? How?

Source:

". National and Washington news in brief
Echoing similar comments from President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said ``intelligent design'' should be taught in public schools alongside evolution."
Saturday, August 20, 2005 (MercuryNews.com)

Quote mining


Quote mining ....picking out the parts you like and leaving the rest behind.
Quote #3.2
[The lack of transitional fossils represent real gaps]
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist 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 ….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." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.

Representative quote miner: Answers in Genesis: Hopeful monsters revisited, The Revolution Against Evolution: Transition Fossils?, and The UnOfficial Confessing Movement: eVOLUTION-"nO dEBATE aLLOWED" (sic)
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:
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.
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.
- Jon (Augray) Barber

Yet once again, this is Gould discussing "Punctuated Equilibria." It is best, perhaps, simply to allow Gould to defend himself, as he did in his article "Evolution as Fact and Theory", originally published in 1981:

[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through 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.

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

Gould, in this article and many more over the next twenty years, consistently and extensively explained his position and the evidence for evolution, including transitional forms found in the fossil record. The constant abuse of the body of Gould's life's work in the face of this is not merely dishonest, it is despicable.

- John (catshark) Pieret
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

P

Excellent. the "Evolution as FAct and Theory" was written on the anniversary of the death of Kirtley Mather, who, as a Christian and a Scientist , was one of the few scientists who testified on behalf of the concept of evolution in the SCopes Trial.

The point that continued throughout the essay (besides the talkorigins source of "Quote mining" , was the fact that Creationists have NEVER added anything new to any study or anything of scientific research. He tried to explain that Creationists have failed in their arguments from 2 main points
1that the word "theory" has respect and substance in sience but tricks of dishonest debate prevent the Creationists from acknowledging this

2They wish to convey a belief that they are acting sxientifically in arriving at their conclusions when, as the USSC determined 7 years after Goluld published the essay, "SCientific Creationism is a meaningless and self contradictory phrase"... ("Newspeak" so to speak.

One thing that Gould had , as chief phrase master in evolution theory, was an ability to draw lightning when many of his phrases were actually , later, found to be untrue.
For example, he made an appeal that "Punctuated Equilibrium" was a consequence of what we see in the fossil record due to a herky jerky mode of evolution (rapid evolution followed by stasis). Recent fossil finds have not borne this out and have shown, on the contrary that, when fossilization conditions are right, many intermediate forms are seen. Our recent uncovering of fossil whales and birds, supplemented by horses, big cats, giraffes and other artiodactyls.
The science is in the detail and thats why the conjoining of paleo and DNA reseaqrch has opened a new system of classification that looks at genetic rather than only fossil data.

real life said
This is total BS and its a simple minded argument that shows the utter lack of knowledge you carry about. If youre going to try to argue that point from a position of authority please lets get into it. Well start by defining in what area of stratigraphy we each have our experience and go from there.
Your so full of it that you have no idea that youre being used by similarly ignorant preachers . Next thing youre gonna parade out the flood and that dinosaurs were coinhabitants with humans.
I suppose that, should you hire yourself out to do minerals exploration or development of stratigraphically sensitive deposits, youd probably lose your investors huge sums of money before they fired you. When I hire people on my staff , we go through significant field problems and calculations of reserves based upon knowing which formations we want to be in. You couldnt make it past the Admin staffers who make the first cut at candidates.

I at least thought youd bring up some new arguments. This drivvle is direct from Duane Gish's "Evolution, the Fossils Say NO"

I think it is the evolutionists more than anyone who cause the word "theory" to be disrespected when they confuse theory with fact.....as in the title Evolution as Fact and Theory.

What the creationists fail to understand is the fact that fossils require almost a perfect environment for it to result in a fossil. The fossils that are available today just happened by happenstance; the environment was almost perfect. I think I saw some statistics on how many fossils actually survive from the billions upon billions of life forms that have left an imprint; something on the scale of one in ten trillion (guessing). That there are no transitional forms is not surprising, but what the anthropologists and paleontologists are finding in China will reveal more of the transitions of life on this planet. Astrophysicists are also beginning to understand the age of earth from studying the other planets and their moons.

Hi CI--

Fossils are difficult to make only if you suppose they are formed slowly over many years or decades or hundreds of years or thousands or................

A dead animal carcass will typically be destroyed by scavengers or decayed within a short period of time. To suppose that it lay there for extended periods undisturbed while the layer that encases it is formed is quite a stretch. But this is just what evolutionists often propose when they intone 'Thus and such layer was formed over a period of X (hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands) years.........'

Encasement in sediment which produces fossil formation is much more likely to occur fairly rapidly, within minutes or hours; at most within days. This is just what creationists and particularly catastrophists have been saying all along.

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

Your faith in what WILL be found in China is extraordinary, but it is simple blind faith alone, nothing more.

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

Trying to determine the age of the earth by comparing it with other planets and moons, etc may ASSUME that we know when those other planets were formed. It is an assumption unless you can answer "Who observed them during that time?"

It may ASSUME they were formed by processes or influenced by events that may or may not have occurred. It is an assumption unless you can answer "Who observed their process of formation, or these supposed events?"

Why are you all persisting in humouring this loser?

A worthy question, Wilso . . . i for one have given it up, as his dishonesty has become evident.

I guess desperation is understandable when attempting to prop up a failed ideology. Escpecially when it is one on which you base your existence.

FM has identified many of this member's bankrupt statements as being the talking points of IDers and creationists. I rather suspect that the member in question doesn't know squat about the subject, but rather, runs of to online creationist sources to attempt to construct an argument here.

Wilso, That's the key; they've gambled their existence on fraud, and are afraid to admit it.

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe evolutionists DO believe in God.........They just believe it's them.

These "scientists" are really on the horns of a dilemma.

They speak of the "wrongs" caused by human activity being made right, but............

..............if mankind is really part of the result of evolution, how can mankind's activities be anything but part of it as well?

They believe evolution is all about survival of the fittest, but..................

............... species which failed to survive in North America they would like to give a second try.

They believe evolution to be a process of blind chance, but..............

...............somehow they feel it is right to direct 'future evolution' by this intervention.

(Boy, would Captain Kirk ever kick their rears for violating the Prime Directive !! )

from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1204716.cms


After 13000 yrs, elephants, lions will return

LONDON: Scientists are proposing reintroducing large mammals such as elephants, lions, cheetahs and wild horses to North America to replace populations lost 13,000 years ago.

The scientists say that not only could large tracts of North America act as breeding sanctuaries for species of large wild animals under threat in Africa and Asia, but that such ecological history parks could be major tourist attractions.

"Africa and parts of Asia are now the only places where megafauna are relatively intact, and the loss of many of these species within this century seems likely,"the team, led by Josh Donlan from New York's Cornell University, said. "Given this risk of further extinction, re-wilding of North American sites carries global conservation implications,"the team wrote in the new issue of science journal Nature.

It said large mammals were common across all continents until the Late Pleistocene wipeout that hit North America hardest and handed the world to smaller species. The largest mammals in the US today are bison.

The Pleistocene epoch lasted from about 1.65 million years ago to 10,000 years ago.

"Large carnivores and herbivores often play important roles in the maintenance of biodiversity, and thus many extinct mammals must have shaped the evolution of the species we know today,"the scientists wrote.

Reintroducing the modern relatives of Late Pleistocene losers to North America could also contribute to biodiversity and put right some of the wrongs caused by human activities.

Yep, I still don't get how Wikipedia became so creationist, do you? They used the Gould quote in exactly the same context as those wascally wabbits at AIG !!

Hi Wilso,

Bumping up your post count, I see. Too bad you don't seem to have anything worthwhile to contribute.

I see the Aussies are all in a tizzy over the prospect of objections to evolution ever being discussed in the classroom. If free speech ever rears it's head in the schoolroom, what will the result be? Oh my. You must be livid.

I would object to questioning evolution in the classroom if the motivation is the exposure of children to the riduculous monstrosity of creationism. The only way you nutcases have got any supporters is because of the indoctrination of the minds of children. Without early brainwashing you lot would be only be found in the psychiatric wards of hospitals where your deluded minds can run wild without hurting anyone else.

Wilso,
What is it like to live in a vacuum?

There's actually millions of us who have seen through the lies, fear and division of religion.

http://www.atheistalliance.org/internet/net_organizations.html

Now I understand

Real



As usual you have shown everyone of your incredible ignorance of science. So I will give you two sites that will explain, in the simplest terms, about how fossils are made. They're children sites, appropriate for your level of knowledge.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/conker/fossils/how-fossils-were-made.htm

http://imnh.isu.edu/Public/JustForKids/FossilRecord/cont2temp.html



It's not called faith; it's called science, something you know very little about.

What you believe in is based on an old tribal creation story, not science.