George
Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
| 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.
|
