Are there Any Depths to Which the Darwin Lobby Will not Sink?

_{Barry Arrington

December 12, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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

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:

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:

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?

Comments

TE & GUN: Did you take time to notice the focal issue from the Original Post? (As in, do you realise what your pull to go off topic is revealing?) Secondly, before falling into confirmation bias, I think you need to pause and note the warning the curator at the AMNH gave about the horse sequence, as you can see at 97 just above. Speculation presented as textbook truth dressed up in a lab coat and backed up by Lewontinian-Saganian a priori materialism echoes more of shadow shows confused for reality than one should be comfortable presenting as a "proof by textbook illustration." (And TE, do you not see how you have fallen into the trap of projecting a key admission against interest into an unwarranted accusation of deception on my part, then on being confronted with a correction, you have evaded your responsibility? Do you not see how that echoes the precise problem the OP highlights?) KFkairosfocus_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

KF and any other Iders have a look: http://online.santarosa.edu/homepage/cgalt/BIO10-Stuff/Ch13-Evolution/Horse-Evolution.jpg To me it's 100% evidence for evolution. I see no reason to evoke conspiracy theories.TheisticEvolutionist_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Why don’t you actually give the real problems as cited? Start with, the at most within family level classification that is not even relevant to origin of body plans by blind chance and mechanical necessity — the point where design is a relevant issue; as in, that is why the emphasis is on the Cambrian revolution where we have dozens of phyla and sub-phyla.
Because I just read, and responded, to the section you cited - about horse evolution.
Include that we have present day horses that are dog-sized, within the one acknowledged species, and apparently horses that are occasionally born with three external toes, the opposite directions of development held to be happening in North and South America, and more.
It's only "directional" if one looks at a particular starting point and a particular end point. The direction of evolution depends on the population and the environment. Species of 3-toed and 1-toed horses overlap in the fossil record, and there are even lineages where toes are gained. I couldn't make out the rest of your post.goodusername_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

GUN: Why don't you actually give the real problems as cited? Start with, the at most within family level classification that is not even relevant to origin of body plans by blind chance and mechanical necessity -- the point where design is a relevant issue; as in, that is why the emphasis is on the Cambrian revolution where we have dozens of phyla and sub-phyla. Include that we have present day horses that are dog-sized, within the one acknowledged species, and apparently horses that are occasionally born with three external toes, the opposite directions of development held to be happening in North and South America, and more. Multiply, by the admission of Eldredge as cited on presenting KNOWN speculation as textbook truth. Then, explain to us how this side track issue allows you and your ilk to slide away from the serious responsibility over the false accusation leaped to as the FIRST assumption -- remember, FABRICATION -- that then had to be withdrawn. While you are at it, kindly address the attempt to paint targets on the backs of my in laws and other family as "punishment" for daring not to toe the Darwinist line . . . and explain to me who the real brownshirts are in that light for LT since he has managed to vanish. KFkairosfocus_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

PS: Wiki as a case in point: >> . . . When scientists say "evolution is a fact" they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then "evolution" is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations. Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) [8] even though this cannot be directly observed. [["Evolution as theory and fact," Acc: Aug. 7, 2010.] >> This is abuse of language and should be admitted as such, withdrawn and abandoned.kairosfocus_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

The discussion on the site about horse evolution is certainly odd. It starts out by correctly stating:
The predicted result of the gradual chance variation and cumulative culling by environmental forces is that life forms will branch out from the initial unicellular tap-root, forming a tree-like pattern.
And then goes on to (again) correctly point out that the horse series, instead of being linear, has branches forming a tree-like pattern... as if it were a problem.goodusername_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

TE: Really, now. Apparently, it has not dawned on you that the only direct record of the actual past is the fossils, and that the claim being advanced is that through blind chance and necessity life originated and diversified across the usual tree[s] of life, leading to those fossils. So, assertions of fact need to be backed up by facts. Namely, the fossils. So, it is a highly material fact that what should be a major or the dominant aspect of the fossil record is vanishingly scarce instead. Where also, when I see assertions about macro-evolution as a "fact" my immediate question is: who was there, witnessed and reported the fact as such, in what documents. Obviously, no such documents exist so this is an outright abuse of the word, fact. For, fact does NOT and cannot mean, properly, the consensus view of the a priori materialist school of thought on origins. Whatever Orwellian double-speak/ new-speak word-games may be being played. And, it is simply irrelevant that Raup thinks evo a fact -- a big blunder -- to that he has on his actual knowledge of what IS a fact (the fossils) admitted that what should be major or dominant, isn't. And so, by citing such admissions I have not distorted meaning -- which, however you may wish to say otherwise, is tantamount to an insinuation on your part of deceit on my part -- by citing a declared admission against interest as just that. You have some serious explaining to do. KFkairosfocus_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

PS: Here was my own conclusion, in light of the overall pattern:
in light of the admitted temptation to create iconic "oversimplifications to illustrate evolutionary patterns," [--> cf. the Eldredge clip above and other clips that are cited from hostile expert witnesses as admissions against known interest] headlines and iconic illustrations or exhibits do not necessarily reflect the true balance of the facts. Also, dominant lawlike patterns of natural phenomena are often quite evident from the outset of investigation. In a sense, then, it should not be a surprise to learn that, 150 years later [--> After Darwin published Origin, including what he said in Chs 6, 9, 10 and of course Descent of Man ch 6, from c 1871] -- years in which the globe's fossil beds have been diligently explored -- with upwards of a quarter million fossil species and countless millions of fossils of all kinds in hand, the “almost unmanageably rich” fossil record still presents us with the same result: gaps, sudden appearances, stasis, disappearance. Which tells us something is likely to be very wrong. For, 150 years after Darwin, we now have billions of fossils observed in situ from a span of 3.8 or so billion years on the conventional timeline, millions collected in museum shelves, and in excess of a quarter million fossil species. We have fossils of micro-organisms, of skeletons [[ --> including the allegedly 70 MY old dinosaur bones that turned out to have blood and bone cells as well as still stretchy connective tissue touched on in Fig. G.6a in the section on chronology here on], body moulds, nests and eggs, dung, and even ephemera such as foot-prints and tunnels. So long as it is reasonable to hold that fossilisation events are un-correlated with particular body plans -- and that is obviously reasonable -- the samples are surely adequate to give us an overview of the main patterns of the history of life in the past of origins. Where, one of those major patterns is inferred to be gradual, slow, incremental development of final superior diversified forms from more primitive and generic ones all the way back to the unicellular organisms held to be the original life forms. So, it is plainly an inherently reasonable expectation that if the predominant mechanism for formation of the diverse body plans in the world of life is gradualistic diversification, transitional sequences much as the horse sequence was originally thought to be, should be at least fairly common, and even dominant. Only, that is simply not the case. (Had it been so, we would be awash in indubitable examples of the gradual formation of body plans. We obviously are not.) Worse, that goes all the way back to perhaps the worst possible case: the formation of the major multi-cellular body plans of life forms as we may see from the Cambrian fossil beds onwards. For this crucial case shows just the opposite of what Darwin hoped for: top down, not bottom-up variation; with the transitional forms leading up to the top level branches (phyla and sub-phyla) simply missing. Where, the same conventional timeline tells us that up to that point there were three billion years of life forms, with fossils preserved. And, in particular, with fossils of the soft-bodied Ediacaran life forms from the previous 100 MY or so. In short, as a predominant pattern, we are seeing evidence of separate, distinct islands of functional body plans with variation within the plans. But, we are not seeing any abundance of clear transitional body plan sequences bridging them, nor -- most importantly -- going back to the proposed original unicellular forms. Nor, do we find any empirical, observational evidence that shows that the assumed or asserted smooth gradation of functional forms from unicellular ancestral form to the vast range of body plans is any more than just that: an assumption. Similarly, as was discussed in the introductory unit, there is no observational evidence that warrants the origin of the required degree of functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information by chance and necessity. This includes, by incremental blind -- i.e. specifically unintended and unintelligent -- chance variation and differential reproductive success that creates major body plans from a unicellular universal common ancestor, step by incrementally superior and population-dominating step.
That is where I went with the cited admissions against interest and commonplace facts. Now, come back to me again and insinuate that I am distorting, or that I am fabricationg, or that I have no right to cite hostile experts where they have made key admissions against interest. Or the like. If you do so, you had better give very good grounds. KFkairosfocus_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

KF have a read: http://commondescent.net/articles/Raup_quote.htmTheisticEvolutionist_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

KF I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just saying on your website there are quotes that don't give the full context. For example you write:
Similarly, David Raup, Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, was moved to observe in 1979: Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record . . . we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, . . . some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. [["Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology" Field Museum of Natural History, vol.50, no. 1, Jan 1979, p.25]
Yet elsewhere in his article, Raup makes it clear evolution is a fact and the fossil record supports it (yet you ignore this). He's not challenging evolution, yet the way you quote him like that on your anti-evolution blog gives the false impression that he is. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_RaupTheisticEvolutionist_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

TE: I know this may easily slide off track from the case with BA, but I think you need to think about the issue of a damaging admission against interest vs the snide insinuation of lying by snipping out of context and distorting -- and I warn you that as someone who has risked much on issues of truth I take cheap, false accusations and insinuations that imply that I am a liar very seriously indeed. I actually took a bit of time to say a tad more on the Eldredge clip just now (which comes from a recorded interview):
I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth [[ --> Cf. Lewontin's notorious "Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . "] and we’ve got a problem. [ Cited, CMI from a recorded interview reportedly dated July 17, 1979, with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA (1988), p. 78; cf. CMI's critique, here. Also cf. here and here. (If you find the Bible-based creationism irritating, please discount it as a particular perspective and focus on the scientific facts, concerns and issues raised. If you are tempted to automatically reach for the rhetorical club, "quote-mining" to dismiss this statement, understand that if you call someone a liar as first resort without very good and specific evidence, that may say a lot more about you instead of your intended target.)]
Now, compare this damaging admission against interest from a dated, published interview -- and I will never accede to the smear that if a source is a Creationist we must presume him a liar every step of the way -- and the other clips with your dismissive remarks in light of the concern at the focus of this thread. It seems to me that all you have managed to do is to further substantiate BA's point about how quickly and easily objectors to design theory slip into false accusations and insinuations. Churlish. KFkairosfocus_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

PS: Horse quotes — incl. Gould, Eldredge and Raup, here.
I read the page it's filled with quotes but not given in the full context. As you all know Gould, Eldredge and Raup all believed in the fact of evolution and rejected ID. So I don't see the point in IDers quoting them. I love old books, but it gets a bit boring where creationists keep quoting these guys from 30 years ago over and over. One of the quotes you have taken from David Raup's "Conflicts between Darwin and palaeontology" you leave out his statement where says evolution is a fact and it's Darwinian natural selection that is the theory. You are confusing the fact of evolution with the theory of the mechanisms:
We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be.
He's not saying the fossil record is anti-evolution, yet the website you cite is firmly anti-evolution and pretends that is what he is saying.TheisticEvolutionist_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

PS: Horse quotes -- incl. Gould, Eldredge and Raup, here.kairosfocus_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

F/N: Those who actually need to think about the horse series and similar icons may wish to look here on for some initial thoughts. KFkairosfocus_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

AVS: You would be well advised to consider what you are inadvertently revealing about yourself and your ilk through a pattern of sophomoric, churlish accusations, unsubstantiated allegations, empty repetitions and scarce-veiled vulgarities. Especially in a thread that corrects a false accusation of quote-mining (only to meet with attempts to double down on the indefensible and/or to pose distractors). KFkairosfocus_{December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Nick Matzke, You are an unrepentant apologist for defamers, utterly shameless. This post was originally about the immoral tactics of your friends at antievolution and TSZ. Then it became about your attempts to defend those same tactics. Since I beat you like a rented mule, it has been about your attempt to change the subject. Not going to let you get away with it. I ask you for the third and final time, is it OK with you if I do to you what was done to me? If the answer is “yes,” I will go out and start doing it. If the answer is “no,” then why the hell did you try to defend it boy?Barry Arrington_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

Nick, what is the matter with you? You are saying the weirdest things today. Paul Garner, who I do not endorse, is a Christian fundamentalist. From his ‘Statement of Faith’:
I was just responding to post #65 you posted the Garner quote, soon after I posted a summary of the massive fossil evidence for perissodactyl evolution. Garner was very directly using the "oh, it's just microevolution" excuse to sweep the fossil horse data under the rug as no big deal. You didn't say anything about the quote, but the quote takes a strong position on the issue, so I assumed you endorse it. Do you endorse Garner's statement, or were you just posting it randomly or something?NickMatzke_UD_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Professor Matzke, Back to #56 and #63 . . . a second small, blue planet. By bringing up the new topic of horse evolution, you're not avoiding the question, are you? ;-) -QQuerius_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

Matzke #76: Matzke #76: You’ve admitted that new species, genera, and even new families are easy to evolve naturally, and that plenty of transitional fossils exist to show how this happen.

Box #81: Never have I said such bare nonsense, neither in writing, nor in word, nor in thought.

Matzke #83: Paul Garner, who you endorse, says this explicitly for fossil horses, which include many genera, even more species, and IIRC several subfamilies.
Nick, what is the matter with you? You are saying the weirdest things today. Paul Garner, who I do not endorse, is a Christian fundamentalist. From his ‘Statement of Faith’:
The Creation was accomplished in six consecutive natural days, each consisting of an evening and a morning. The days of Creation do not correspond to long geological ages.
Box_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Oh yeah, I heard Elizabeth Liddle was banned for presenting too many arguments that you guys couldn't BS your way out of...congrats. Why am I not surprised?AVS_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

So much interest in one quote from a scientist, so little interest in another quote from a scientist! Why the difference?
Because you've been completely dishonest with regards to a quote?TSErik_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

So much interest in one quote from a scientist, so little interest in another quote from a scientist! Why the difference?NickMatzke_UD_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Oh you remember me?? Wow that means so much! And don't worry it wasn't a "self-imposed exile" as much as it was just me having to go do real things in the real world. Also, I am still embarrassed, but only for you guys don't worry! Do you guys have any science that actually refutes evolution or backs up intelligent design? No? Oh, how sad.AVS_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

And look, it's AVS again. I thought that particular bulk of refuse was embarrassed to the point of self-imposed exile. Welcome back.TSErik_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

81 BoxDecember 14, 2013 at 4:47 pm
Matzke #76: Wow — so if the evolution of the entire Order Perrisodactyls, of horses and rhinos from a common ancestor, is just (…)
Please read again, Paul Garner is talking horse evolution only.
Well, we were talking about both rhinos and horses earlier in the thread. If Garner excludes rhinos, all that shows is that Paul Garner doesn't know enough. The evidence for rhino evolution is as good as for horse evolution, and the earliest rhinos and earliest horses are almost identical.
Matzke #76: You’ve admitted that new species, genera, and even new families are easy to evolve naturally, and that plenty of transitional fossils exist to show how this happen.
Never have I said such bare nonsense, neither in writing, nor in word, nor in thought.
Paul Garner, who you endorse, says this explicitly for fossil horses, which include many genera, even more species, and IIRC several subfamilies. And it's impossible, if you know the evidence, to accept horse evolution and deny rhino evolution, or to deny that fossils support their common ancestry.NickMatzke_UD_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

I see Matzke has succeeded in shifting the point from his dishonesty again. Don't give in. See what the original topic is, and don't allow him to shift. He can debate points in proper topics. Well, he can't, but you know what I mean.TSErik_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Matzke #76: Wow — so if the evolution of the entire Order Perrisodactyls, of horses and rhinos from a common ancestor, is just (…)
Please read again, Paul Garner is talking horse evolution only.
Matzke #76: You’ve admitted that new species, genera, and even new families are easy to evolve naturally, and that plenty of transitional fossils exist to show how this happen.
Never have I said such bare nonsense, neither in writing, nor in word, nor in thought.Box_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

The obvious question is: why would the battery of genes be coherent? It is not designed – not even by a blind watchmaker.
If you search this website there was a blog post about Gordon Rattray Taylor in 2011 entitled "Seems like yesterday: British TV presenter disowned Darwinism". It explains some of his views.
Taylor did not believe that this purposiveness—or purpose—was part of a divine plan. He thought it was implicit in the nature of life itself.
Many years ago I used to believe in intelligent design, then I converted to theistic evolution and now I'm basically a naturalistic pantheist.
Look, man. Gordon Taylor’s rationalization for stasis is just a pile of unfalsifiable pseudoscientific cr*p. The theory of evolution never predicted any of this. What Taylor is doing is being true to his religion by forcing the data to fit the theory rather than the other way around. It is obvious that living organisms have gene repair mechanisms that protect against mutations. How can random mutations and natural selection decide which genes to preserve for tens of millions of years and which genes to modify for necessary adaptation? This is silly to the extreme.
Yes it is a hypothesis, it's not even needed the majority of evolutionary scientists would say but it is more believable than intelligent design and if true would explain some anomalies. Anyway, evolution predicted stasis. Before Darwin there was an evolutionist called Patrick Matthew who predicted stasis and rapid events in the fossil record. Scottish Horticulturalist Patrick Matthew Proposed More Accurate Theory of Gradual Evolution Before Charles Darwin Did, Geologist Argues http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101109133151.htmTheisticEvolutionist_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Kudos to KF for spotting the 500 pound gorilla in the room. Nick, “Gorilla? What gorilla? Let’s talk about horsies.”Barry Arrington_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

No Box, "sudden" implies time is involved, as in over a short period of time. The word you re looking for is new, or novel. Ma, you are responding to me because you feel the need to validate your own crazy ideas. The fact that you start off with the phrase "stupid as feces" means you probably have nothing intelligent to say, but anyways I will venture into your dreamworld with you. Here's your example: the wheel to the lambourghini. Now, what we were talking about (I guess you forgot) was the sudden appearance of a new design. In your analogy, this is much more like the creation of the wheel itself, which was pretty much instantaneous. The evolution of transportation from the wheel to the lambo is analogous to the much longer time periods of evolution over millions of years. You should try to stick to the conversation we are actually having when making analogies if you hope to make sense.AVS_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply