Summations Only

The point is the word "rather".What the author says is: "In stead that they attacked the evo theory, they SILENTLY agreed that the fossil record was too poor to do anything but IN A GENERAL SORT OF WAY, supporting that evolution had happened.:So they didn't dare to stand up and tell the truth, but instead they half heatedly vaguely mumbled something about evolution, because if they would not have, their careers and jobs would have been on the line. More accurately; they would have been history.About this Eldredge said:
"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44I repeat: We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."So here we have Eldredge, who loudly and clearly admits that "science" has been lying to the public for more than hundred years.And that is what the addition of that quote refers to, namely that the paleontologists should have stand up and challenged the evo theory, instead of mumbling that the fossile record somehow supported evolution.So back to the quote. Here is my quote, with in green the addition: So the first addition: "The main impetus for expanding the view that species are discrete at any one point in time, to embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil record." simply strengthens my point, it says that the fossile record shows that the species are individually distinct, and not a part of a unity that morphes into different species. So that only strengthens my quote, and in no way alters the meaning of it, or shows that the opposite is meant of what I claim.Second addition: "Instead, collections of nearly identical specimens, separated in some cases by 5 million years, suggested that the overwhelming majority of animal and plant species were tremendously conservative throughout their histories."Same story as above, it strenghtens my point. It says that species for millions of years do not change throughout their histories, they only show STASIS.Third insertion: "Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve his argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was too incomplete, to full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns of change. He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis - that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive - would be vindicated."Also this only strengthens my point, it goes into more detail about Darwin being troubled by the fossil record. Why was Darwin troubled by the fossil record? Because he realised that it shows the oppostite of evolution. No less than eight times in his "Origen of Species" he tells us to ignore the fossil record, because it does not confirm his theory.So also that insertion strengthens and supports my point, that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution.Fourth and last insertion: " Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved."This one is the easiest misunderstood, because it says that the paleontologists in a silent way admitted that somehow, "in a general sort of way", the fossil record supported the basic thesis of evolution. But seen in the foregoing context, it is clear that this is a condemnation of that behavior,So bottom line is: The additons, or the parts left out in my quote, in no way alter the meaning of my quote. The insertions do not change the meaning of the quote to the opposite, as some troubled souls here are saying, in fact, they do nothing than strengthening my point.So why were those points left out? Because people nowadays can only handle sound bites. Everything that requires an attention span of more than 5 seconds is wasted on them.I'm not saying I'm different, it's just the reality we live in, and the reason for clipping those quotes.So, having proved that the quotes are: letter for letter correct, and that the parts left out or the broader context in no way alters the meaning of the quotes, we can conclude that the unproven accusations here on the board, hurled at somebody who has the unbelievable audicity to quote some evolutionistic scientist, are unfounded.To be more specific and to addres the individual silly notions hurled over the board here: The quotes are not distortins and misrepresentations of what the authors said.They are not "ignorant defamation of character". They are not "dishonest and taken out of context". I am not trying to make them say the opposite of what they really say. I'm not misusing them and I'm not going to burn in Hell while Satan spits the word LIAR! in my face for all eternity." (I really like that one )
I'm not commiting the sin of omission which is supposed to be typical for creationists, and my sources are not lying to me.I don't portray their meaning in a false way, and my usage of them is not a lie. I don't obfuscate and ignore their true meaning, and my usage of authority is not invalid.And last but not least, those quotes don't employ deception.Up till here a small sample of what has been thrown around on this board.Looks silly what? If you see it all together this way.The question is; "What evokes such obviously non-sensical, irrational, verbal abuse?"Why do evo's react on citations of high calibre evolutionsts like a bull on a red rag?Why do they start foaming at the mouth and get a red haze in front of their eyes when they are confronted with the facts of life?Or more accurately stated: When they are confronted with the facts about the fossil record?The anser is of course, because they realise that that rips apart there dearly held believe system, that all we really are is animals, and we can do whatever we feel like, without having to give a reckoning to a Higher Authority.Sorry guys, but that's just the way it is."Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion .... it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. .... Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species."Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.Schwartz, Jeffrey H is professor anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh and also evolutionist, writer of boek about evolution: Sudden Origins, a provocative new theory on how evolution works by sudden leaps and bounds:
'Sudden Origins : Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species' by Jeffrey H. SchwartzEdited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : Nothing better to doEdited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : reason: Striving for perfectionEdited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

Bs'dIn those citations high calibre evolutionists say loud and clear that the fossil record does NOT show any evolution, but stasis.You coming up with some pictures is not going to change that.You ignoring those facts is just distraction."The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured .... ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ .... their story has been suppressed."Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium which has been published in Geological Society of America
For more info about prof Stanley look here: Earth & Planetary Sciences | Johns Hopkins University

Bs'dWell, the concept is simple enough: A dog with a dino in it's belly. Like he had just eaten it.Would that disprove the ET according to you?"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."Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360Simpson George Gaylord is anevolutionist and professor paleontologie in Columbia and Harvard.

quote:

---

Well, the concept is simple enough: A dog with a dino in it's belly. Like he had just eaten it.

​

Would that disprove the ET according to you?

---

I guess that you don't understand the issue. A dog existing at the time of the dinosaurs (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous) would be a big problem for evolutionary theory. A dinosaur surviving until more modern times would not.

Do you have one? That would be evidence. And so, Simpson made an argument against gradualism... shocking....Are you admitting here that you cannot find evidence against evolution?You could have just said so.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Bs'dThere we go, suddenly it is not a problem anymore.Silly putty."Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin’s postulate of gradualism .... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."Mayr, E., One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138Ernst Mayer was one of the leading evolutionistic biologists of the 20th century, see here: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ernst_MayrEdited by Eliyahu, : Reason: Why not?

Bs'dThat is evidence, until you get one. Then it is suddenly no evidence anymore.Let's see:

quote:

---

According to the belief commonly held by evolutionists, no advanced mammals were present during the age of the dinosaurs. Artists’ reconstructions generally show the huge reptiles living in swamps, surrounded only by other species of dinosaurs. The late evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson suggested that the only mammals that had evolved up to that point in time (even at the very end of the Cretaceous period) were supposedly small, mostly about mouse-sized, and rare (Simpson, et al., 1957, p. 797). In his book, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Stephen J. Gould addressed the same issue when he wrote:

​

Mammals evolved at the end of the Triassic, at the same time as dinosaurs, or just a tad later. Mammals spent their first hundred million yearstwo-thirds of their total historyas small creatures living in the nooks and crannies of a dinosaur’s world. Their sixty million years of success following the demise of the dinosaurs has been something of an afterthought (1989, p. 318).

​

It thus is completely unthinkable, in evolutionary terms, that dinosaurs and advanced mammals (like elephants or giraffes) could have co-existed. Again, however, Dr. Hubbard’s discoveries have thrown a monkey wrench into the evolutionary timescale.

​

However, a discovery reported in the January 13, 2005, issue of Nature challenged everything evolutionists have ever maintained regarding dinosaurs and mammals. The Associated Press reported: Villagers digging in China’s rich fossil beds have uncovered the preserved remains of a tiny dinosaur in the belly of a mammal, a startling discovery for scientists who have long believed early mammals couldn’t possibly attack and eat a dinosaur (Verrengia, 2005). Not only do we now have additional proof of mammals coexisting with dinosaurs, but we also have scientific evidence of a large mammal eating a dinosaur! The authors discovered the fossil remains of two different mammals. One was 50% larger than previous mammal fossils that were considered to be living with the dinosaurs, and was named Repenomamus giganticus. The other, Repenomamus robustus was fully intactand had a dinosaur in its stomach. Yaoming Hu and his colleagues noted:

​

During preparation of the specimen a patch of small bones was revealed within the ribcage, on the ventral sides of the posterior left thoracic ribs and vertebrae, where the stomach is positioned in extant mammals. Unduplicated dentition [teethBH], limb bones and phalanges [bones of the toes or fingers] in the patch confirm that these bones belong to a juvenile individual of Psittacosaurus, an herbivorous dinosaur that is common in Jehol Biota. The serrated teeth in the patched skeleton are typical of juvenile Psittacosaurus. The skull and most of the skeleton of the juvenile Psittacosaurus are broken, disarticulated and displaced, in contrast to the preservation of the R. robustus skeleton, which is essentially in its original anatomical relation. Although fragmentary, the bones of the Psittacosaurus are packed in a restricted area. These conditions indicate that the juvenile skeleton of Psittacosaurus is the remaining stomach contents of the mammal (Hu, et al., 2005, 433:151).

​

To complicate matters, researchers reported in the April 18, 2002 issue of Nature, one of the premier science journals in the world, that they now have determined that the last common ancestor of extant primates existed (as dated by evolutionary dating methods) 85 million years ago (Tavar, et al., 2002). Since dinosaurs are supposed to have died out 65 million years ago, that means the primate would have lived with the dinosaurs for at least 20 million years. One of the co-authors of the Nature paper, Christophe Soligo of London’s Natural History Museum, stated in regard to the find: What we demonstrate is that modern orders of mammals appeared well before dinosaurs disappeared... (see Primate Ancestor Lived with Dinos, 2002). So much for the belief that mammals evolved just a tad later than the dinosaurs.

---

"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time.
On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187Peter J. Bowler, a scholar of Darwin and evolution, is a prolific author and professor of the history and philosophy of science at Queens University of Belfast.
| American Scientist

But didn't Eldredge say this about gradualism, not evolution? Here's a fuller quote: --PercyEdited by Percy, : Add missing cr.Edited by Percy, : Add missing quotation mark.

Bs'dFor the record, let it be noted that you cannot give any support for your notion that the context of the quotes alters the meaning of the quotes.That is of course, because they don't.You are just throwing lies around.

Sorry, Moose, that was an excellent and well deserved snark.

That is not a dog.The creationist drivel you quote is unusually deceitful and halfwitted even for creationist drivel. Really, they come up with lies this dumb and then they wonder why they're not allowed to teach them in science class?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But this has been shown, and everyone reading this thread knows it.

quote:

---

There we go, suddenly it is not a problem anymore.

​

Silly putty.

---

Up to now there was at least the possibility that you were being deceived by the dishonesty of others. At least you've removed that with this thoroughly dishonest answer.The extinction of the dinosaurs isn't a prediction of evolutionary theory, it's a fact established by the lack of evidence of any surviving dinosaurs (birds excepted) after the end of the Cretaceous. If we found evidence that some other dinosaur had survived long enough to be caught and eaten by a dog that would just mean that some few dinosaurs had managed to survive longer than we believed from the evidence that we had.If you don't understand the theory of evolution to even that extent, that isn't because the theory is "silly putty" it's just that you are hopelessly ignorant of the theory that you are supposedly trying to refute.And, of course, your quote has nothing to do with the issue

No - it just alters your interpretation of the quotes. The quotees disagree with the position you are trying to defend: That the fossil record COMPLETELY disproves evolution. That there is NO evolution.The quotes don't say anything about this. They just talk about the history of evolution as being mostly morphological stasis.And that's what the full context tells us. They aren't saying this disproves evolution (your claim) but that this disproves gradualism as the normal mode of evolution. Something you have failed to address.We're nearly 150 posts in and you haven't provided any evidence for your debate position. Just some quotes which don't support it. It's not looking good, but there's still time! Here you are admitting that they don't agree with your debate thesis. You say they are not telling the truth. So what is the truth? What evidence do you have that actually verifies this is true? Let's call it a lie. A lie about what? Gradualism. It is disputed that people lied about gradualism, but let's just go with it for the moment. Does this show that evolution is disproved?No. What is your evidence that Darwin was troubled because he realised it showed the opposite of evolution? The quote was talking about gradualism, not evolution. Where have you got this idea from? Really? But you haven't provided any evidence that the science is wrong. Because we've been doing this for years, and the same quotes are used to imply people are saying things they are not. To the point where at least one of the authors quoted spoke publically against the practice.You are implying what they say is a problem for evolution. Yet it is not.You also plagiarised these people, which is the among the worst intellectual crimes you can commit in debate and thesis building, and then didn't aplogize when you were caught. So yeah, we're going gore you for these kinds of things. You haven't provided any facts of life, just quotes from people. You've studiously avoided talking about the actual physical facts of the universe - instead chosen to talk about your interpretation of authors and how they lie to keep their jobs whenever they say something that disagrees with your thesis.Let's talk about the facts of life shall we?Does the fossil record show that life on earth has changed as time as progressed?Or does the fossil record show that the life in lowest and therefore oldest strata is identical in composition to extant modern life (with some allowances for 'change within a baramin')?Don't let that red haze stop you! Confront this fact of life. Ah - so there it is. We're the immoral animalistic primitives. Got it.
Actually I don't believe we can do whatever we feel like, without reckoning. If I murdered someone there is a decent chance that the Higher Authority would cause me to lose friends, family and my liberty.That Higher Authority is society, the social contract, the justice system etc.It doesn't claim perfection, but does have the advantage of being something I can provide evidence for, were I to be arguing in favour of it in a debate.Can you demonstrate that the fossil record CONCLUSIVELY disproves evolution? OR can you only show that quotes can be disputably interpreted to question the motives of scientists and look like evolution faces a problem?

From Message 137: False, they do not say that the fossil record does not show any evolution, they are talking about a specific evolutionary idea: gradualism.They are talking about gradualism in particular, and not evolution in general.They are saying that the fossil record does not show gradualism (evolution), but instead shows punctuated equilibrium (also evolution).Again, this was settled 40 years ago. Why is this so hard for you to understand?Basically, you're saying that because someone prefers chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream, then that means that they do not like ice cream at all. That's stupid. Who cares? If someone said that grass is purple, and I show you a picture that shows that grass is green, then why does it matter if someone said that grass is purple?Why would you keep clinging to what that other person said when you can see the grass for yourself?We all know why: You're so desperate to find a chink in the evolutionary armor, that you'd rather focus on old outdated quotations, than actually look at the evidence yourself, because you know that the evidence proves evolution. What? How is ignoring something a distraction? Ya dingus! Are you fucking retarded? How could context not alter the meaning of quotes?

quote:

---

Psalm 14:1

​

..."There is no god"...

---

The real meaning of those quotes, and how your isolation from context changes them, has been explained to you ad nauseam. That impossible, because what I said was true.And this is coming from the guy who is cherry picking 40 year old quote mines. The same guy who blatantly plagarized in Message 67:

quote:

---

I'll say something about them:

​

The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change.

​

In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.

​

The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record.

​

The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form.

​

Gaps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large.

​

The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record.

​

The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed.

​

Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.

​

If you want me to say more about the fossiles, just let me know. Glad to oblige.

---

Pathetic.