Re: Transition


"Richard Forrest" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1125859330.472880.137350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Glenn wrote:
> >
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/overcome_problems/evolution-disproved-002.htm
> >
> > "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic
evolution
> > accomplishing a major morphologic transition" Evolutionist, Dr. Steven M.
Stanley
> >
> > Richard claims "Once again, it is part of a larger discussion presented out of
> > context" and cites the full quote:
> >
> > "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic
evolution
> > accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that
the
> > gradualistic model can be valid."
> >
> > He cites http://www.skepticfiles.org/misctext/stanley.htm
> > which includes the argument:
> > "The passage is merely stating what palaeontologists *HAVE KNOWN
> > FOR DECADES*, that a purely gradualistic approach the evolution is invalid."
> >
> > Well, "purely" or not, Stanley reported "The known fossil record fails to
document
> > a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic
> > transition" *and* "and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model
can be
> > valid." Read that last part again. Stanley claims that there is *no* evidence
for
> > the gradualistic model, not that evolution is not "purely" gradualistic.
> >
> > It seems more reasonable to characterize, or emphasize what "paleontologists
have
> > known for years", as "The known fossil record fails to document a single
example
> > of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition" rather
than
> > "that a purely gradualistic approach the evolution is invalid."
> >
> > Who is misrepresenting who here?
>
> The author of the web site who presented it as evidence supporting his
> assertion that the fossil record does not support evolution.

Really? And assuming that, not you and your source? LOL! Nice try ignoring the
obvious.
>
> Here's the full text of the link, Glenn: You really *must* learn to
> read for comprehension. Incidentally, you should find out what 'pyletic
> evolution' means. Perhaps you will then understand that it can only be
> a very rare event, and the lack of a fossil record for such an event is
> hardly a huge gap in evolutionary theory. Then you can perhaps
> investigate the nature of phylogenetic rankings, and realise that they
> are a pretty arbitrary set of labels used pragmatically.

I'm actually *reading* the words, something that you appear to want to overlook.
And posting what anyone can and should have already read does not make any kind of
case at all. It shows your ignorance and inability to reason. I could give a rats
ass what you think "can only be a rare event", and what you think makes not one
whit of difference to what Stanley said.
>
> "This is a classic example of the standard literalist creationist ploy
> of
> 'quoting out of context'. Sounds pretty damning right? Well it is
> suppost
> to. The one thing you are not supposed to do is actually look up the
> reference (creationists say "well look, we provided the reference", but
> how
> many good ol' boys and girls would rush down to their local library to
> check?). If you do, however, you will see that the quote is not the
> damning
> statement it appears to be. Mr. Beile, whether willfully or through
> ignorance is misleading you. Let's take a look at this quote.
>
> Firstly you may think 'what is Stanley up to?' A palaeontologist,
> writing a
> book called "Macroevolution - Pattern and Process" and claiming that
> there
> is no support for evolution in the fossil record!
> However a glance at the actual book will show the basic dishonesty that
> is
> literal creationism.
> The quote comes from the introduction to chapter 3 "Diverse Lines of
> Evidence" - hmm, strange title, perhaps it should have read "Diverse
> Lines
> of Non-evidence"?
> Well, not really. Lets put the quote back into context. The begining of
> the
> paragraph starts:
>
> "Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very recent
> past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation
> is a
> real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great
> importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of
> the
> punctuational model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1) . . .
> (5)
> The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic
> evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers
> no
> evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." (p39)
>
> Now, compare (5) above with Mr. Beile's quote. Notice the full stop
> after
> "morphologic transition" and notice that there is no full stop in the
> actual quote. Here Mr. Beile is being dishonest, since there is no full
> stop in tha actual quote and there are 11 words missing. Whether Mr.
> Beile
> is being willfully dishonest or wether it is through ignorance (i.e.
> plaigerizing the quote from a secondary source) I do not know. However,
> the
> dishonesty goes beyond that, since it is now clear that the passage is
> not
> the stinging inditement of the fossil record that Mr. Beile would have
> you
> believe. The passage is merely stating what palaeontologists *HAVE
> KNOWN
> FOR DECADES*, that a purely gradualistic approach the evolution is
> invalid.
> As Stanley says (and Mr. Beile must have somehow missed),
> "quantum speciation is a real phenomenon." And,
> "Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of
> quantum
> speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuational
> model)."
>
> What makes it even easier in this case is that palaeontologists, when
> writing about evolution, will clearly state the problems with the old
> idea
> of phyletic gradualism and why it was discarded in favour ofr an
> improved
> model. Literalist creationists leap on the statements outlining the
> problems of phyletic gradualism, ignore the context, and use them as if
> the
> palaeontologist was refuting evolution."
>
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fossil record resembles Creation, Not Large Scale Evolution
    ... One species that existed previously turned into something ... According to the Darwins theory on how evolution occurs, ... Darwin called for gradual change between generations, but this doesn't translate into slow change over millions of generations. ... Big changes can happen over a few thousand years, but that's instantaneous in terms of the fossil record. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fossil record resembles Creation, Not Large Scale Evolution
    ... One species that existed previously turned into something ... According to the Darwins theory on how evolution occurs, ... Darwin called for gradual change between generations, but this doesn't translate into slow change over millions of generations. ... Big changes can happen over a few thousand years, but that's instantaneous in terms of the fossil record. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Fossil record resembles Creation, Not Large Scale Evolution
    ... One species that existed previously turned into something ... According to the Darwins theory on how evolution occurs, ... to see it in the fossil record if such broad-scale evolution is true. ... The fossil record embarrassed Charles Darwin. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Transition
    ... >> "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic ... >> accomplishing a major morphologic transition" Evolutionist, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can any Darwinist in this Forum....
    ... are involved with evolution. ... equilibrium or the nature of the fossil record. ... IE most species appear abruptly in the ... characteristics expressed by the same genes or parallel genes is ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading