Quotes by evolutionists

[artsylady]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/min...-3.html#quote50

Normally I would not recommend this site, but SA brought my attention to their quotes page.

I guess these guys think that the quotes that creationists use, quotes by evolutionists, are out of context.

I personally don't think they are.

I don't think the meaning of the quote was changed by not having the sentence(s) before or after.

You can read what the quotes were, and excepts before and after that the

Talk Origins [/quote] people think creationists should have included.

Anybody got time on their hand?

[Bread_of_Life]

I agree with Ian, it's how the quote is presented by creationists - as denying the existence of transitional fossils, saying that such transitions are impossible, or saying that there are major problems with evolution. Gould (the atheist-marxist roflol, next patient!) wasn't saying any of these things in actual fact, rather he was arguing against phyletic gradualism (a particular type of evolution), in favour of punctuated equilibria.

[artsylady]

He was talking about a very specific type of evolution.

I disagree. Here's the quote as quoted by creationists.

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states 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 gradualistic accounts of evolution.

Clearly, included and now bolded names the very specific type of evolution.

What about the other quotes? How are they 'out of context'?

[fenwar]

I'm not sure what you meant that to point out, but here is the quote with the word that creationists seem to miss in bold:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states 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 gradualistic accounts of evolution.

What SA and Ian are saying is that not all accounts of evolution are gradualistic.

If I said "the seeds are a big problem for me when eating raspberry jam", would you assume I didn't like apricot jam either?

I hope that clarifies the confusion over this quote?

Fenwar

Edited September 1, 2005 by fenwar

[artsylady]

but the word 'gradualistic' is included right there in the original quote.

[fenwar]

but the word 'gradualistic' is included right there in the original quote.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So why do creationists use this quote to say that the low number of transitional fossils is a problem for any account of evolution?

There aren't any seeds in apricot jam.

(Unless you're very, very unlucky )

[fenwar]

So why do creationists use this quote to say that the low number of transitional fossils is a problem for any account of evolution?

Just how many "accounts" of evolution are there? Since Gould was co-publisher of the theory of punctuated equilibrium I assume this is the other account to which you refer. But does his minor modifications really make any major changes in Darwinism? Isn't it a fact that punctuated equilibrium does little to change the theoretical significance in the Darwinian model? The same problems inherent to Darwinism regarding the fossil record are also inherent to punctuated equilibrium. The outspoken defender of evolution, Richard Dawkins, gave this interesting evaluation of Gould's modifications, "I think that punctuated equilibrium is a minor wrinkle on Darwinism, of no great theoretical significance. It has been vastly oversold."

But the point is, punctuated equilibrium predicts a significantly lower proportion of transitional fossils. Which is what we actually have. Therefore the low number of transitional fossils is not a problem if evolution took place in that way.

At least I thought that was what the quote was about.

fenwar - do you find any conflict between belief in the Christian faith and belief in the Darwinian model of life evolving from non-life out of the "warm little pond"  without the need of a Creator?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously. I believe in a Creator; I believe that all creation depends on that creator for its very existence.

The "warm little pond" would actually have been a steaming great ocean... but the point is, it was chaos, and God applied order to it. I don't see any need to question what peer-reviewed scientific research tells us. If anything it can only increase our understanding of creation - and thus our creator.

What annoys me is the portrayal of evolution as an atheist or anti-Christian "agenda". It really isn't, any more than Galileo's findings. And by treating it in the way we have, Christians have set up this relationship of antagonism with the scientific community, which does neither of us any favours.

Fight the assumptions and arguments that evolution or even abiogenesis "proves" the non-existence of a Creator, by all means. I will be right there with you. But there is no point trying to undermine the scientific part of the argument. It just makes Christians look dishonest (or at very least, foolish).

At the end of the day we're supposed to be extending the Kingdom of God, not building a wall around it. Even if evolution is one day proven to be false, the way I see the situation now is that we cannot gain any ground by fighting it - and we will not lose any ground by accommodating it.

[Bread_of_Life]

fenwar,

Fight the assumptions and arguments that evolution or even abiogenesis "proves" the non-existence of a Creator, by all means.

Assumptions, by the way, that I have only *ever* seen creationists make. I have never heard, seen or read an atheist say that evolution or abiogenesis proves the non-existence of a creator. Ever. Makes me think this point of view is a myth created by creationists to peddle biblical literalism.

I've been accused of this many times by the way, always by Christians. They seem convinced of it, that all evolutionists are out to get them, or that by defending evolution or geochronology I am attacking Christianity. It's this weird siege mentality to science, when really there is no siege, no battle, no army, no war.

[Token Atheist]

Just how many "accounts" of evolution are there?

In general, one.

Gould and Dawkins may have disagreed on some minor details, but - to use an analogy - these details are like two Christians arguing over whether Jesus was born in 6BC or 4AD. The details don't affect the basic premises that both agree on, just minor issues about timing of exactly when things happened.

Pucntuated Equilibrium (or "Punk Eek" as it is often known) contradicts nothing that Darwin said. It contradicts nothing in Evolutionary Theory. All it does is hypothesise about the relative speed of speciation at different times and in different conditions.

Since Gould was co-publisher of the theory of punctuated equilibrium I assume this is the other account to which you refer. But does his minor modifications really make any major changes in Darwinism? Isn't it a fact that punctuated equilibrium does little to change the theoretical significance in the Darwinian model?

Correct. Punk Eek does nothing to change the theoretical significance of the Darwinian model.

For someone to hold up Punk Eek as "evidence" that Darwinism is in crisis is as ridiculous as someone holding up the difference in the birth date of Jesus I mentioned above as "evidence" that Christianity is in crisis.

The same problems inherent to Darwinism regarding the fossil record are also inherent to punctuated equilibrium.

There are no problems inherent to Darwinism regarding the fossil record. The fossil record fully supports Darwinism, as does every other piece of evidence that we have so far found (cladistics, genetic studies, observations of changes to populations in laboratory conditions, observed speciation events, etc.)

The outspoken defender of evolution, Richard Dawkins, gave this interesting evaluation of Gould's modifications, "I think that punctuated equilibrium is a minor wrinkle on Darwinism, of no great theoretical significance. It has been vastly oversold."

I would agree with him fully.

Again, the problems found with the failure of the fossil record to support Darwinism remains a very troubling predicament for evolutionists regardless of which "account" of evolution one chooses to follow.

Since there is no failure in the fosssil record to support Darwinism, evolutionary scientists are, surprisingly enough, not troubled at all.

This whole notion of "out of context" quotes is totally groundless.

On the contrary. It is only by taking quotes out of context that the words of scientists can be twisted into making it look like evolutionary theory is "troubled" or "in crisis", when in fact it is more solid than almost any other scientific theory. It is certainly much more solid that the quantum theories that were used to make the computer you are reading this message on.

Gould was an honest scientist who pointed out many of the failings of Darwinism.

First you say that Punk Eek "does little to change the theoretical significance" of Darwinism - then you say that it is a response to the "many failings of Darwinism". Obviously, then, these "failings" must not be things that affect the theoretical significance of Darwinsim.

It is most amusing to watch the song-and-dance routines used to prop up a deteriorating theory as seen on this thread.

Strange, then, that this "deterioration" is not seen by scientists, who quite happily continue to use the theory every day...

Strange too that the only time scientists appear to be "admitting" that the theory is "deteriorating" is when they are quoted out of context by Creationists...

Gould spoke volumes about the shortcomings in the fossil record for which he was routinly critized by those from the Dawkins camp.

Indeed he did. But his complaint is that these "shortcomings" mean that there are parts of the evolutionary history of life on this planet that we don't yet know about - not that these "shortcomings" were in any way relevant to the underlying theory of Evolution.

Again, an analogy is in order. The Bible talks of Jesus's birth, and about his ministry at about the age of 30 - but there is a gap between these times where his youth is not mentioned. This is the sort of gap that Gould is talking about. Just because you don't know what Jesus did when he was 17 doesn't mean you claim that he didn;t grow up. similarly, just because there are gaps in the fossil record doesn't mean that the rest of the record isn't more than adequate. He is lamenting that there are bits we don't know about, not that we don't still have more than enough evidence for the theory.

Of course these were the very same shortcomings acknowledged and agonized over by Darwin himself as Gould explains below:

"Darwin invoked his standard argument to resolve this uncomfortable problem: the fossil record is so imperfect that we do not have evidence for most events of life's history. But even Darwin acknowledged that his favorite ploy was wearing a bit thin in this case. His argument could easily account for a missing stage in a single linage, but could the agencies of imperfection really obliterate absolutely all evidence for positively every creature during most of life's history? Darwin admitted: "The case as present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."

That was indeed a problem for Darwin. He had little evidence to work on. That he came to the correct conclusions despite the sparseness of this evidence shows his genius.

Of course Darwin said this in 1859, and since then we have had 150 years of archaeology and the discovery of the entirely new science of genetics. Both of these have produced vast amounts of the evidence that Darwin was lamenting the lack of.

Furthermore, as this evidence has been discovered, it has all supported Darwin's theory - and allowed people like Gould and Dawkins to expand on Darwin filling in details that he wasn't able to.

"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

Edited September 9, 2005 by Token Atheist

[Token Atheist]

Hey - why didn't my quote tags work...?

Could a moderator please fix my post and/or tell me what went wrong.

Thanks.