RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 345 346 347 348 349 [350] 351 352 353 354 355 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Patrick



Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,09:09   

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 10 2013,19:26)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 10 2013,18:19)
Specified Entropy — a suggested convention for discussion of ID concepts.

A new concept in bullshit "measurements" and its application to the problems of UD.

But it's an escargodova post, so don't bother.

Sal's "new" concept of specified entropy is literally Dembski's CSI with a minus sign.

Which makes it impossible to calculate, as Lizzie demonstrated here and here.  Sal's been on the Skepitcal Zone since then, so he has no excuse for continuing to push that nonsense.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,09:27   

Quote (Patrick @ Dec. 11 2013,09:09)
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 10 2013,19:26)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 10 2013,18:19)
Specified Entropy — a suggested convention for discussion of ID concepts.

A new concept in bullshit "measurements" and its application to the problems of UD.

But it's an escargodova post, so don't bother.

Sal's "new" concept of specified entropy is literally Dembski's CSI with a minus sign.

Which makes it impossible to calculate, as Lizzie demonstrated here and here.  Sal's been on the Skepitcal Zone since then, so he has no excuse for continuing to push that nonsense.

Creationism isn't about being right or being honest, its about selling a story.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,13:38   

Had to stop by the library for other reasons, but apparently, Barry was right. The quote he used to pillory people with was not mined.

It was fabricated:*

Quote
Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.

Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.


DOES not appear on pages 45-46. Not with ellipses. The words are just not there. There appears to be 1 and only 1 edition of the book.

*Or comes from some other source/place in this book. I don't have time to read the whole book right now, or go on a wild-goose-chase through the literature on Barry's behalf. And considering he references it as Myth_....

The other quote from the same pages:  
Quote


Darwin himself, . . . prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search . . . One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong

Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46


Is there, but quite mangled, and comes from a section titled: What are species? , where the authors discuss stability in the fossil record, within species. There is no sort of implication that there are not any transitional fossils, and the section isn't dealing with changes between species, but rather the identity and seeming stability of some species. I think Lizzie dealt with this one?

It looks like a pretty standard evolutionary biology book, perhaps with the exception that chapter 2 beats up on creationism!






Edited by stevestory on Dec. 11 2013,19:16

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,13:43   

Quote (REC @ Dec. 11 2013,13:38)
Had to stop by the library for other reasons, but apparently, Barry was right. The quote he used to pillory people with wasn't mined, it was fabricated*

Quote
Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.

Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.


DOES not appear on pages 45-46. Not with ellipses. The words are just not there. There appears to be 1 and only 1 edition of the book.

*Or comes from some other source/place in this book. I don't have time to read the whole book right now, or go on a wild-goose-chase through the literature on Barry's behalf. And considering he references it as Myth_....

The other quote from the same pages:  
Quote


Darwin himself, . . . prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search . . . One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong

Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46


Is quite mangled, and comes from a section titled: What are species? , where the authors discuss stability in the fossil record, within species. There is no sort of implication that there are not any transitional fossils, and the section isn't dealing with changes between species, but rather the identity and seeming stability of some species. I think Lizzie dealt with this one?

It looks like a pretty standard evolutionary biology book, perhaps with the exception that chapter 2 beats up on creationism!

PotW.

Let's confirm no other editions.

No wonder Barry wouldn't confirm if he'd got the quote from an original source

I may devote a TSZ post to this later. If anyone has relevant content, please post here.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,14:06   

Gah:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-2.html

Quote
Quote #37

"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)

In the passages quoted, Eldredge and Tattersall are discussing the merits of gradualism, something the quote miner has left out, as we can see:

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. Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. 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.

That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. 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. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. 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.

Note the claim that the fossil record supports evolution.

- Jon (Augray) Barber


--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,14:41   

Quote
DOES not appear on pages 45-46. Not with ellipses. The words are just not there. There appears to be 1 and only 1 edition of the book.

*Or comes from some other source/place in this book. I don't have time to read the whole book right now, or go on a wild-goose-chase through the literature on Barry's behalf.


I found one reference citing page 48 of the '82 edition.

  
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,14:46   

Quote
The other quote from the same pages:  
Quote



Darwin himself, . . . prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search . . . One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong

Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46



Is there, but quite mangled ....


That seems to be excerpted, complete with ellipses, from here, "The Ten Facts of Evolution" by Phillip Engle.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,15:05   

Quote (REC @ Dec. 11 2013,08:38)
Had to stop by the library for other reasons, but apparently, Barry was right. The quote he used to pillory people with was not mined.

It was fabricated:*

 
Quote
Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.

Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.


DOES not appear on pages 45-46. Not with ellipses. The words are just not there. There appears to be 1 and only 1 edition of the book.

*Or comes from some other source/place in this book. I don't have time to read the whole book right now, or go on a wild-goose-chase through the literature on Barry's behalf. And considering he references it as Myth_....

The other quote from the same pages:    
Quote


Darwin himself, . . . prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search . . . One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong

Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46


Is there, but quite mangled, and comes from a section titled: What are species? , where the authors discuss stability in the fossil record, within species. There is no sort of implication that there are not any transitional fossils, and the section isn't dealing with changes between species, but rather the identity and seeming stability of some species. I think Lizzie dealt with this one?

It looks like a pretty standard evolutionary biology book, perhaps with the exception that chapter 2 beats up on creationism!

Excellent work, Sir! Your efforts are much appreciated.

It was my impression, as well, on reading the first thirty or so pages Google books offered, that it was a student level text book and quite a good one, too.

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,15:34   

Quote (Learned Hand @ Dec. 11 2013,14:41)
Quote
DOES not appear on pages 45-46. Not with ellipses. The words are just not there. There appears to be 1 and only 1 edition of the book.

*Or comes from some other source/place in this book. I don't have time to read the whole book right now, or go on a wild-goose-chase through the literature on Barry's behalf.


I found one reference citing page 48 of the '82 edition.

Damn. Guess I should have checked it out instead of browsing a few pages....

More to follow.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,15:48   

Quote (REC @ Dec. 11 2013,10:34)
Quote (Learned Hand @ Dec. 11 2013,14:41)
Quote
DOES not appear on pages 45-46. Not with ellipses. The words are just not there. There appears to be 1 and only 1 edition of the book.

*Or comes from some other source/place in this book. I don't have time to read the whole book right now, or go on a wild-goose-chase through the literature on Barry's behalf.


I found one reference citing page 48 of the '82 edition.

Damn. Guess I should have checked it out instead of browsing a few pages....

More to follow.

Let us know at TSZ how you get on if you have chance.

Thanks for taking the trouble in digging out the book.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,16:09   

Don't know if this may be relevant but in all editions of Origins after the third Darwin wrote
Quote
the periods during which species have been undergoing modification, though very long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which these same species remained without undergoing any change.


--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,19:20   

Quote
Eric Anderson: The comparison you need to make is not a small amount of particles (virus) to a larger amount of particles (human), but a comparison between two sets of an identical number of particles: say, a human and a pile of sand that has the same number of particles as a human.

Sand varies a lot, but is usually composed mostly of quartz, which has a very low molar entropy. Eric could compare the entropy of a 1400 gram diamond to a 1400 gram brain.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,21:43   

Feel free to cross-post wherever.

TLDR version: the quote is in there, on another page, and to me, a VERY out of context quote-mine that uses a quote about change within a species against others about transitional fossils.

I am slightly hesitant to write this. On two accounts, It might be too charitable to Barry. First, the Barry-like thing to do would be to scan the two pages he cited, post them, and accuse him of fraud. Let him buy the book, read it, and prove it false when he gets to the citation, if he finds it.

Hell, he might learn something in the process.

I’m also more inclined to sit back and laugh at the remnants of ID than engage at this point. Barry et al. are not kind people on a search for truth. They don't try to educate themselves. It was once interesting to debate, and educate there. But they now want “gotcha” moments, spin, and frequently seem out to draw blood. A few of them literally tried to have me fired in letters to my employer. I believe Barry’s underling TsErik in this recent exchange, when he says: “But don’t worry Nickie-boy, I’ve already sent out your exchanges to quite a few hungry eyes and there are many, many more. Your side of the story will be read, though you probably shouldn’t relish that thought. Perhaps even future employers would love to see how you conduct yourself.” This behavior doesn’t draw any comment there. I do not think they know their threats are minimized by the fact that they can't actually harm Nick and me. They do mean it.

And what are we engaging with Barry about? Is it scholarly to pair a quote stripped of context, from a book written as I was learning to read (before genomics matured, before many key paleontological finds, before experimental tests of the Red Queen Hypothesis--key here) against a quote from a text that was 4 or 5 editions old before the US made it illegal for one human to own another? Replying gives him too much credit, makes it seem like we're on the same level of scholarship--the second account of charity.

As for context:
     
Quote

Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.


Is found in: Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, p. 48 in a section titled: “What are species?” where Eldredge and Tattersall aren’t considering transitional fossils. Note the words: “affecting all lineages” and “tremendous anatomical conservatism.” Makes more sense for species vs. the whole fossil record or transitional fossils? Yeah. Some species* show remarkable *apparent* conservation over time. The authors contrast this with Darwin’s expectation of universal inexorable progress, as per Victorian ideals of an expanding empire, the betterment of society, capital-P Progress.

The preceding sentences are:
     
Quote
“There is frequently more variation through the geographic spread of a species at any one time than will be accrued through a span of 5 million or 10 million years. This observation has two simple consequences, both of enormous importance to evolutionary theory.

First…..”(quoted material)Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record. (end quoted material)

“The second simple consequence is the observation that species are stable and remain discreet….. they have beginnings, histories, and ultimately ends. During their lifespans, they may or may not give rise to one of more descendant species, just as humans may or may not give rise to children during their lifespans…And it is these spatiotemporally discreet units, which are the ancestors and descendants in evolution."


That ALL lineages haven’t experienced gradual evolution in the fossil record does not establish the fossil record doesn’t, at times, show gradualism, as per Alan Fox’s suggestion that he was mocked for, and this section appears to make NO comment on the presence of absence of transitional species in the fossil record.

To establish quote-mining, let us compare Barry’s use of the quote:

Here, Barry pairs the quote (again cited as The Myth_ of Human Evolution) with a quote from Origin, Chapter 6:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....just-in
     
Quote

“He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links“


And again the same sort of pairing here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-482285

 
Quote
Origin: ”Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?”


Here Barry's own words reveal what he thinks, as he uses the quote from Myths to mock Elsberry:

 
Quote
In the article he links Elsberry says that we don’t need no steenkin’ “finely graduated organic chain.” No sir. Three transitional fossils out of 250,000 are good enough for him.


Transitional fossils and intermediates—paired with an interpretation of Darwin’s opinion on the phenotypic stability of a species. Apples and hamsters.

The book strongly supports evolution, free of Victorian, Creationist, and scientific mythologies. I’d encourage a second edition, aimed at teachers.

I’m sure this will be well-spun shortly. And a thousand other mis-quotes will replace it.

ETA: *Eldredge and Tattersall take some effort in laying out their definition of species, and consider the ability to  discern closely related species in the fossil record.

Edited by REC on Dec. 11 2013,22:56

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,21:53   

Case in point: Luskin:

Quote
Tragically, we live at a time when schools and colleges, far from being calm sanctuaries of learning and discussion, seem beset by violent, disgruntled, disturbed individuals. (I write this as the report by Connecticut's state attorney on last year's Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre has just been released.) While one certainly wishes that AC administrators had refused to capitulate to the forces of censorship -- Farren and his allies with the Texas Freedom Network and the National Center for Science Education -- taking such a stand in today's atmosphere is easier said than done.


The murder of little children, and allegations re: blocking of a ID textbook in a community college in the same breath? Sick.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,21:55   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 10 2013,19:50)
Specified entropy. Wow.

SpEnt, for short.  As in, ID is SpEnt.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
hotshoe



Posts: 42
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,23:08   

Quote (REC @ Dec. 11 2013,21:53)
Case in point: Luskin:

Quote
Tragically, we live at a time when schools and colleges, far from being calm sanctuaries of learning and discussion, seem beset by violent, disgruntled, disturbed individuals. (I write this as the report by Connecticut's state attorney on last year's Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre has just been released.) While one certainly wishes that AC administrators had refused to capitulate to the forces of censorship -- Farren and his allies with the Texas Freedom Network and the National Center for Science Education -- taking such a stand in today's atmosphere is easier said than done.


The murder of little children, and allegations re: blocking of a ID textbook in a community college in the same breath? Sick.

I'd be happy if that unspeakable creep Luskin never spoke another word in his life.

The fact that he's still dripping his poison is proof that if god exists, it is not a just god. A just god would have struck Luskin dumb decades ago.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,23:40   

Quote (hotshoe @ Dec. 11 2013,23:08)
Quote (REC @ Dec. 11 2013,21:53)
Case in point: Luskin:

 
Quote
Tragically, we live at a time when schools and colleges, far from being calm sanctuaries of learning and discussion, seem beset by violent, disgruntled, disturbed individuals. (I write this as the report by Connecticut's state attorney on last year's Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre has just been released.) While one certainly wishes that AC administrators had refused to capitulate to the forces of censorship -- Farren and his allies with the Texas Freedom Network and the National Center for Science Education -- taking such a stand in today's atmosphere is easier said than done.


The murder of little children, and allegations re: blocking of a ID textbook in a community college in the same breath? Sick.

I'd be happy if that unspeakable creep Luskin never spoke another word in his life.

The fact that he's still dripping his poison is proof that if god exists, it is not a just god. A just god would have struck Luskin dumb decades ago.

I guess Casey just writes dumb instead.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2013,03:26   

Quote (REC @ Dec. 11 2013,21:43)
Feel free to cross-post wherever.

TLDR version: the quote is in there, on another page, and to me, a VERY out of context quote-mine that uses a quote about change within a species against others about transitional fossils.

I am slightly hesitant to write this. On two accounts, It might be too charitable to Barry. First, the Barry-like thing to do would be to scan the two pages he cited, post them, and accuse him of fraud. Let him buy the book, read it, and prove it false when he gets to the citation, if he finds it.

Hell, he might learn something in the process.

I’m also more inclined to sit back and laugh at the remnants of ID than engage at this point. Barry et al. are not kind people on a search for truth. They don't try to educate themselves. It was once interesting to debate, and educate there. But they now want “gotcha” moments, spin, and frequently seem out to draw blood. A few of them literally tried to have me fired in letters to my employer. I believe Barry’s underling TsErik in this recent exchange, when he says: “But don’t worry Nickie-boy, I’ve already sent out your exchanges to quite a few hungry eyes and there are many, many more. Your side of the story will be read, though you probably shouldn’t relish that thought. Perhaps even future employers would love to see how you conduct yourself.” This behavior doesn’t draw any comment there. I do not think they know their threats are minimized by the fact that they can't actually harm Nick and me. They do mean it.

And what are we engaging with Barry about? Is it scholarly to pair a quote stripped of context, from a book written as I was learning to read (before genomics matured, before many key paleontological finds, before experimental tests of the Red Queen Hypothesis--key here) against a quote from a text that was 4 or 5 editions old before the US made it illegal for one human to own another? Replying gives him too much credit, makes it seem like we're on the same level of scholarship--the second account of charity.

As for context:
       
Quote

Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.


Is found in: Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, p. 48 in a section titled: “What are species?” where Eldredge and Tattersall aren’t considering transitional fossils. Note the words: “affecting all lineages” and “tremendous anatomical conservatism.” Makes more sense for species vs. the whole fossil record or transitional fossils? Yeah. Some species* show remarkable *apparent* conservation over time. The authors contrast this with Darwin’s expectation of universal inexorable progress, as per Victorian ideals of an expanding empire, the betterment of society, capital-P Progress.

The preceding sentences are:
       
Quote
“There is frequently more variation through the geographic spread of a species at any one time than will be accrued through a span of 5 million or 10 million years. This observation has two simple consequences, both of enormous importance to evolutionary theory.

First…..”(quoted material)Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record. (end quoted material)

“The second simple consequence is the observation that species are stable and remain discreet….. they have beginnings, histories, and ultimately ends. During their lifespans, they may or may not give rise to one of more descendant species, just as humans may or may not give rise to children during their lifespans…And it is these spatiotemporally discreet units, which are the ancestors and descendants in evolution."


That ALL lineages haven’t experienced gradual evolution in the fossil record does not establish the fossil record doesn’t, at times, show gradualism, as per Alan Fox’s suggestion that he was mocked for, and this section appears to make NO comment on the presence of absence of transitional species in the fossil record.

To establish quote-mining, let us compare Barry’s use of the quote:

Here, Barry pairs the quote (again cited as The Myth_ of Human Evolution) with a quote from Origin, Chapter 6:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....just-in
       
Quote

“He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links“


And again the same sort of pairing here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-482285

 
Quote
Origin: ”Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?”


Here Barry's own words reveal what he thinks, as he uses the quote from Myths to mock Elsberry:

 
Quote
In the article he links Elsberry says that we don’t need no steenkin’ “finely graduated organic chain.” No sir. Three transitional fossils out of 250,000 are good enough for him.


Transitional fossils and intermediates—paired with an interpretation of Darwin’s opinion on the phenotypic stability of a species. Apples and hamsters.

The book strongly supports evolution, free of Victorian, Creationist, and scientific mythologies. I’d encourage a second edition, aimed at teachers.

I’m sure this will be well-spun shortly. And a thousand other mis-quotes will replace it.

ETA: *Eldredge and Tattersall take some effort in laying out their definition of species, and consider the ability to  discern closely related species in the fossil record.

Even more betterer PoTW.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2013,06:24   

Added.

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 11 2013,21:55)
     
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 10 2013,19:50)
Specified entropy. Wow.

SpEnt, for short.  As in, ID is SpEnt.


The Tardheap of History

Quote
bCSI, Biological Complex Specified Information
BPB, Biological Probability Bound
CSI, Complex Specified Information
DFSCI, Digital Functionally Specified Complex Information
EF, Explanatory Filter
FAI, Functional Algorithmic Information
FCT, Functional Coded elemenT
FIIRDS, Functional Incredibly Improbable Random Digital Strings
Fits, Functional Bits
FSC, Functional Sequence Complexity
FSCI, Functionally Specified Complex Information
FSCO/I, Functionally Specific, Complex Organisation and associated Information
GSP, Genetic Selection Principle
ID, Intelligent Design
IDC, Intelligent Design Creationism
IR, Irreducible Complexity
LCCSI, Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information
PI, Prescriptive Information
SpEnt, Specified Entropy
TARD, The Argument Regarding Design
TE, Theistic Evolution
UPB, Universal Probability Bound
UPM, Universal Plausibility Metric

So what does it mean to be on the Tardheap of History? Certainly, it doesn't mean it is thrown away, like on the Ash Heap of History, because Tard always gets recycled with simple mutational changes rearrangements of the letters.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2013,08:05   

This seems a good time to-post (re-heat?) this:



--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2013,10:08   

For so reason the pasta CSI reminded me of this.



--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2013,12:17   

Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 12 2013,08:05)
This seems a good time to-post (re-heat?) this:


PotW.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Henry J



Posts: 5787
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2013,14:31   

Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 12 2013,07:05)
This seems a good time to-post (re-heat?) this:


Pasta la vista!

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2013,19:30   

Barry's back on the warpath; post in full:
   
Quote
Are there Any Depths to Which the Darwin Lobby Will not Sink?
December 12, 2013 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design
1 Comment


  • I have used the following quotation from Eldredge and Tatterson extensively on these pages in the last several days:

       
    Quote
       Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.


    On December 11, 2013, someone who goes by “REC” at antievolution.org posted the following:

       
    Quote
       Had to stop by the library for other reasons, but apparently, Barry was right. The quote he used to pillory people with wasn’t mined, it was fabricated


    The post was cross-posted at The Skeptical Zone.

    Then, REC posted this:

       
    Quote
       TLDR version: the quote is in there, on another page


    Dear readers, everywhere I post I do so under my real name. I have been accused in front of the entire world of fabricating a quotation. This is an extremely serious matter indeed.

    I call on both websites immediately to take down every reference to the fabrication accusation.

    Does anyone know who REC is?

  • UD link
    *The only comment there at the moment is from Neil Rickert, pointing out that Bully is not necessarily being accused of the 'fabrication'.

    --------------
    We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
    -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

      
    stevestory



    Posts: 13407
    Joined: Oct. 2005

    (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2013,19:44   

    I liked this bit from Mapou:

    Quote
    How can a scientific theory suffer such a punishing blow and still manage to survive? It’s obvious, at least to me, that there are powerful criminal factions within the government and the academic world who are supporting it. But they can’t keep this farce up forever. Sooner or later, the whole thing will come crashing down.


    crackpot index:

    Quote

    40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

       
    Occam's Aftershave



    Posts: 5287
    Joined: Feb. 2006

    (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2013,19:46   

    Quote (Ptaylor @ Dec. 12 2013,19:30)
    Barry's back on the warpath; post in full:

    *The only comment there at the moment is from Neil Rickert, pointing out that Bully is not necessarily being accused of the 'fabrication'.

    No one here or at TSZ ever suggested that Shithead Arrington was the fabricator of the quote.  What was said in both places and what has proven true is that Bully never read Eldredge but merely C&Ped the quote-mined quote from another Creationist source.  He C&Ped the wrong citation too which is why the quote couldn't be easily located.

    Blowhard Barry is still doing his usual 'act like a pompous ass' act to rally the IDiots and to disguise the fact that he is guilty of posting a quote-mined quote in the first place.

    --------------
    "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
    "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
    "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
    "Jews and Christians are Muslims."

    - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

      
    stevestory



    Posts: 13407
    Joined: Oct. 2005

    (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2013,19:51   

    Quote

    Dear readers, everywhere I post I do so under my real name.


    Hi Barry. Just curious, why does Denyse O'Leary post as 'News'. Does she think she's fooling anyone? We can recognize that horrible writing style anywhere.

       
    Richardthughes



    Posts: 11178
    Joined: Jan. 2006

    (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2013,21:18   

    Barry never did answer if he'd read the origional, to my knowledge. Tsk tsk Barry, WWJD?

    --------------
    "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
    "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
    "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
    "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
    "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

      
    REC



    Posts: 638
    Joined: Sep. 2006

    (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2013,21:20   

    Barry should note that my full post on this site contained two possibilities: that the quote was fabricated by someone, or that it came from some other source. Given the absence of the quote from the pages he cited, these seem the only possibilities.

    I then managed to track down the source of the quote, for him, and demonstrated how the quote was out of context.

    If he'd like to set the record straight, he's welcome to post or link to the full texts of my posts here at his site. I don't have a TSZ user account, and have never posted there.

    I also strongly encourage everyone to disengage with UD. They will seek to do real harm to you.

    Can I afford a lawsuit? Unlikely. Is my job at risk?  ?

    Does Barry have the resources to destroy me? ?

    Is this the level he'll sink to????

    Edited by REC on Dec. 12 2013,21:24

      
    Richardthughes



    Posts: 11178
    Joined: Jan. 2006

    (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2013,21:30   

    Barry would like to censor beyond UD, it seems.

    --------------
    "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
    "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
    "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
    "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
    "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

      
      10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    Pages: (356) < ... 345 346 347 348 349 [350] 351 352 353 354 355 ... >   


    Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

    [ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]