What “Quote-Mining” Means To Darwinists

_{William Murray

January 16, 2016

Intelligent Design}

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

I used to make a joke here that quote mining, to a Darwinist, was any time an IDist or Creationist quoted a mainstream evolutionary biologist. A recent thread at TSZ has sadly revealed that my joke wasn’t a joke. That’s what they actually think.

After looking over the site petrushka (the author of the thread) referred to, I realized that the people at that site presented no evidence for quote-mining, and one of the site authors attempting to characterize why a quote was “quote-mined” said this:

So we see that Gould et al. don’t reject evolution, but claim that phyletic evolution takes a second seat to speciation.

Did anyone actually try to paint Gould as “rejecting evolution”? That hardly seems reasonable. It seems that simply using the Gould’s quote to establish agreement on both sides about the fact of “few transitional fossils” in a pro-creationist argument is the same as trying to paint him as “rejecting evolution”. I found this baffling and made what I thought was a rather sarcastic comment on the thread:

It seems that anti-ID/creationists think that if one quotes a Darwinist to make an anti-Darwinism point, it must be quote-mining simply because the Darwinist rejects creationism/ID.

Sadly, my comment turned out not to be sarcastic at all. Petrushka actually responded:

Well, yes, it’s true that quoting a mainstream biologist to support a creationist argument is quote mining.

You might think that the “intellectually honest” members of TSZ would have corrected him immediately. I mean, seriously, surely not even those at TSZ would try to defend such an ignorant, erroneous, laughable idea. Well, then again, you might not.

Flint agreed with petrushka with this bit of nonsense:

Yes, absolutely this is quote mining. Those who reject creationism DO NOT make statements supporting creationist arguments.

Faded_Glory chimes in:

Say there is a quote from a known and knowledgeable anti-creationist. How can such a quote, when seen in context, ever support creationism?

Amazed at the how far they would go to defend a blatant error and attack the person who pointed it out, I re-posted petrushkas statement and asked:

Anyone willing to agree that Petrushka is simply flat-out wrong about this? If not, you’re just as wrong as he is.

Only GlenDavidson came forth with a rather timid response:

Yeah, I don’t agree with that, and it seems not out of context (I’ll check).

But later, GlenDavidson said (and others agreed) that the list of quotes at the Idea Center was itself a case of “quote-mining” – even though it has a disclaimer at the top that not all the quotes had been verified and that the quotes were intended as a resource for research. They were not contextualized in any way on the site, nor was the original meaning of the quotes characterized (much less mis-characterized).

Glen Davidson said:

Here is an interesting example of a collection of creationist quotemines on the fossil record.

Robin agreed:

Actually it is a source of quote-mines William.

Surely someone at that site realizes that petrushka et al are utterly, laughably wrong about what constitutes a quote-mine, but as of yet none have chosen not to correct them. Which makes one wonder, if they can’t even bring themselves to go against one of their own making such a blatant, laughable error about something that isn’t really even all that important to serious debates, how can anyone find them remotely credible when defending their compatriots views on actual, meaty matters in the ID/Darwinism debate?

UPDATE: Glen Davidson won’t even call petrushka wrong, and offers a long apologetic argument that Gould probably, in most cases, is not “properly” quoted by creationists, noting near the end:

So while I do think that it’s possible for IDists/creationists to use Gould quotes appropriately, I can’t think of any instance where I could say that they have.

UPDATE: GlenDavidson has stated that him “differing” from petrushka is, in fact, him disagreeing with petrushka. Also, Reciprocating Bill has agreed that petrushka is wrong. I appreciate them coming forth to correct this misapprehension about what “quote-mining” means.

Comments

Understanding the origin of animal body plans has been a longstanding issue in evolutionary biology, ever since Darwin struggled to reconcile his theory with the early fossil record of animals.
Another creationist quote-mine? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/01/are_tardigrades102542.htmlMung_{January 24, 2016
January
01
Jan
24
24
2016
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: it is quite clear that the gaps are real and the links are inferred. That's immaterial to whether Gould's views were properly represented by the quote-mine. Mung: What do you claim is being quote-mined? @15Zachriel_{January 23, 2016
January
01
Jan
23
23
2016
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

The "new" clip: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-quote-mining-means-to-darwinists/#comment-595701kairosfocus_{January 23, 2016
January
01
Jan
23
23
2016
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, I have pretty much every book Gould ever wrote. What do you claim is being quote-mined?Mung_{January 22, 2016
January
01
Jan
22
22
2016
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Z, it is quite clear that the gaps are real and the links are inferred. More centrally, there is no observationally established blind watchmaker mechanism adequate to provide origin of body plans. Beyond, punctuated equilibria as your just cited gives, is a theory of speciational invisibility (already a telling result) and so it tends to underscore the issue of observational gaps at species level and up. Gould plainly infers adequate mechanisms exist, as I have cited. But where are they and what observational warrant shows sufficient capability to account for body plans. KFkairosfocus_{January 22, 2016
January
01
Jan
22
22
2016
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus: kindly take a moment to read the clip above on the famous trade secret of paleontology remark. Done. Now when you read it in context, it's clear he is talking about change at the species level as observed in the fossil record. From the same chapter by Gould:
Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record. All major theories of speciation maintain that splitting takes place rapidly in very small isolated populations... What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossil are the remains of the large central population. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendant species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved.
So when someone implies that Gould did not recognize fossil intermediates between larger groups, that is simply not a correct reading of Gould's position.Zachriel_{January 22, 2016
January
01
Jan
22
22
2016
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Z, kindly take a moment to read the clip above on the famous trade secret of paleontology remark. That, too is part of the wider context in which SJG was trying to found his punctuated equilibria, and in that case he was probably most direct regarding the tree of life as a whole. SJG has not been misrepresented, he has been cited as making a key admission against interest, which has force all of its own -- a force, BTW backed by the observational evidence, most notably the Cambrian life revolution, which is where one of the main levels of branching is. I am sure that the onlooker will notice that instead of trotting out reams of cases in point, you are disputing nuances of meanings of cites and contexts. That too is revealing. And, as the above shows, he did so on record repeatedly. Indeed, in the last instance, as part of his farewell legacy. KFkairosfocus_{January 22, 2016
January
01
Jan
22
22
2016
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: The relevant context is there Not according to the author of the statement. Nor is the quote-mine consistent with the proposed theory of punctuated equilibrium. The quote-mine misrepresents the author's argument so is a "rhetorical gambit of red herrings led to strawman caricatures".Zachriel_{January 22, 2016
January
01
Jan
22
22
2016
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Z, No The relevant context is there, and it is there in a context that continues for 25 years. Indeed if anyone is leaving out material context of a key admission against general interest it is you. Indeed the force of an admission against interest pivots on it being by someone who would have no interest to admit such apart from it being seen by him as true. The further clip I put up today, shows just how wide ranging his admission is in its wider context at the time. As for he oh its just species, the ToL is supposedly made up from chains of species branching out to yield the range of biodiversity. Only there is a big and characteristic problem of the chains lacking interconnexions. beyond, to say in effect on similarity and differences we can construct a tree diagram, has very little import. Especially when the molecular trees -- a former great hope -- ran into mutual inconsistencies. KFkairosfocus_{January 22, 2016
January
01
Jan
22
22
2016
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: i did not say that Gould is not an evolutionist No. The claim is that the snip from Gould concerning “few transitional fossils” misrepresents his views by leaving out important context. If there were any doubt, Gould directly repudiated the quote-mine by explicitly stating that transitional fossils are ample above the species level. Now, you may disagree with Gould, but that was his view.Zachriel_{January 22, 2016
January
01
Jan
22
22
2016
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Z, sorry I am not playing your game complete with suggestive struck out words. i did not say that Gould is not an evolutionist, just that as I just explicitly cited, he is pointing out where there is evidence and where there are gaps covered by inferences and the need to acknowledge that they are just that inferences not observed facts. Where I do come in is that I am saying that there is need to ground a blind watchmaker mechanism starting in Darwin's pond etc, and going through the Cambrian up to the origin of the many body plans around us. So far as I see the only observed mechanism if it can be called that capable of the required FSCO/I is design, i.e. intelligently directed configuration. Reliably and consistently observed, on trillions of cases in point backed by the million monkeys blind needle in haystack search challenge. KFkairosfocus_{January 22, 2016
January
01
Jan
22
22
2016
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: Species are the gateway to higher levels, and if there are gaps at species level, these mean gaps at higher levels no mind the confident manner assurances otherwise. Again, that is not Gould's view, so you continue to ~~misrepresent~~ misunderstand his view — even after Gould repeatedly repudiated your interpretation. Gould says there are ample transitionals above the species level, and that fossil gaps at the species level are artifacts of the evolutionary process.Zachriel_{January 22, 2016
January
01
Jan
22
22
2016
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

PS: I clip more from Gould:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. [--> that on fair comment goes well beyond species level to the grand tree of life narrative and icon] Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
[here, I -- KF -- flesh out Gould's allusion to Darwin:] I [Darwin]have attempted to show that the geological record is extremely imperfect [--> c. 1859]; that only a small portion of the globe [--> Europe and North America] has been geologically explored with care; that only certain classes of organic beings have been largely preserved in a fossil state; that the number both of specimens and of species, preserved in our museums, is absolutely as nothing compared with the incalculable number of generations which must have passed away even during a single formation . . . these [and other listed] causes taken conjointly, must have tended to make the geological record extremely imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation . . . [Cf. Origin, Ch 10, "Summary of the preceding and present Chapters," also see similar remarks in Chs 6 and 9. note, the circumstances today with 1/4 million plus fossil species, millions of fossils in museums and billions seen in the ground now make the collected record "almost unmanageably rich" but with the same basic pattern.]
[Gould again:] Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks. Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see [--> note the language used here] the very process we profess to study." [Stephen Jay Gould 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI95), May 1977, p.14. ]
--> Let me add: where is the clear and convincing, empirically grounded observationally rooted dynamic framework that allows us to infer that blind watchmaker mechanisms are adequate to create the 10 - 100+ Mbits of genetic information required for the cells, tissues, organs and networks to create a new body plan? To move from Darwin's pond to first living code using, reproducing metabolising encapsulated cells?kairosfocus_{January 22, 2016
January
01
Jan
22
22
2016
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Z, sorry but you are into blue smoke and mirrors territory now. I showed that 25 years later, Gould's view was STILL the same, 2 months before he died. There is no dishonest distortion of claim, there is no snipping out of context that changes the substantial meaning of the point. Gould made an admission against interest that the gaps Darwin tried to address and hoped would go away are still there after 1/4 million fossil species identified and billions seen in the ground. he tried to compose a new theory to explain the evidentiary silence, the missing links, the gaps in the record as relative to expectations, a theory that has not really worked out. Species are the gateway to higher levels, and if there are gaps at species level, these mean gaps at higher levels no mind the confident manner assurances otherwise. Key admission against interest on facts that show the balance on the merits. And, sustained 25 years later. It looks like rhetorical talking point barbed accusatory skewers is all you lot seem to have on this and on others. I am confident that if you had the goods per fossils showing the claimed framework and backed up by demonstrated blind watchmaker thesis mechanisms, you would instead have been trumpeting these. Where are the overwhelming numbers of precambrian fossils showing the basis of the cambrian life revolution? The key trains of fossils showing the rise of major features subsequently? The chance variation and differential reproduction mechanism shown to give rise to actual body plan level innovations, not things like finch beaks and colour changes or insecticide and antibiotic resistance or circumpolar gulls grossly extrapolated on assumptions of methodological naturalism? That silence is telling. KFkairosfocus_{January 22, 2016
January
01
Jan
22
22
2016
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: the gaps are still there So you've given up on defending the quote-mine. Fair enough.Zachriel_{January 22, 2016
January
01
Jan
22
22
2016
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Z, the gaps are still there, the stasis is there, the "sudden appearance" is still there, i.e. the record of fossils as interpreted on the typically given timelines, does not demonstrate a dominant pattern of gradualistic incremental development of forms at body plan level. This after well past 1/4 mn fossil species as catalogued and billions of observations in the ground (which would have been pounced on as breakthroughs if they had told the gradualistic message). We are left with Darwin's attempts to explain away gaps in both Origin and Descent [in this case making some chilling predictions in Ch 6] and with things like the Cambrian fossil revolution there from his day till ours. Gould's work and statements, across a 1/4 century, clearly document that pattern, but of course they have to be hammered into shape to fit the narrative and those who point out otherwise must be locked out at all costs -- including in one case accusing of misquoting without doing the basic HW of a Google search that would instantly confirm the cite as Gould . . . it looks like in 2002 he republished remarks, something I notice with his writings, he published much the same stuff in multiple venues. Gould made it crystal clear that as he left behind what was consciously a legacy he retained the same views he had put forth 25 years before in setting out punctuated equilibria . . . the suddenness, stasis and resulting gaps are there in the record. Where, I add that as species are the gateway to higher levels of taxonomy, it is contradictory (though convenient) to suggest gradualism at higher levels when the "characteristic" pattern at species level is not gradualism. Such statements are little more than saying homologies in absence of adequate empirically grounded blind watchmaker mechanisms can be fit into the dominant narrative. This thread leaves a very sour taste in my mouth, as it reflects the Overton Window lockout effect all too well. KFkairosfocus_{January 22, 2016
January
01
Jan
22
22
2016
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT}

Except that Darwin’s theory included an explanation for the lack of fine gradations, including the fact that most of evolutionary history is characterized by stasis.
No, his theory most certainly did not. Have you ever read "Origin of Species"? The fossil record was an objection to his theory, not part of it. His so-called "explanations" you keep referring to are attempts to dismiss the objections to his theory.
Of course it’s incomplete, otherwise there could be no new discoveries in the fossil record!
Don't get cute. I've already answered both angles of your poorly-defined claim of incompleteness.
Darwin provided several explanations for the granularity of the fossil record. Waving your hands doesn’t constitute addressing those explanations.
Wow, doesn't get much more rich than that. Here Darwin and the other gradualists are, frantically waiving their hands to try to explain away the fact that the fossil record doesn't confirm their theory. And then when someone points out that their explanations are lacking and all-too convenient, the skeptic is accused of hand waving. Anyway, not much point in discussing further. You are so completely entrenched in battling everything tooth and nail that your arguments are all over the place. Every true-believing evolutionist from Darwin to Gould and in between has been on board with the grand, cohesive, coherent, non-contradictory narrative that supports the party line. And any contradictions are swept away, ignored, subjected to revisionist history, or decried as quote mines. Sure. Whatever.Eric Anderson_{January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

Eric Anderson,
Punctuated equilibrium was proposed in large part to help explain stasis and the lack of gradual transitionals between forms.
Punk Eek is a description of the fossil record more than an explanation of it. What they proposed is that the punctuated equilibrium seen in the fossil record is what we would expect if Mayr’s allopatric speciation is how speciation typically occurs.
Here is a capable paleontologist who recognized that Darwin’s accumulation of slight, successive changes wasn’t going to cut it. He also recognized that the fossil record was real and couldn’t be written off with the “bad data” card.

That is part of the whole issue: does the fossil record give us a generally reliable account of the history of life on Earth, or is it unreliable? Gould argued that it is generally reliable and should be taken seriously.
Well, under Punk Eek, in one sense the fossil record is taken more at face value – but in another sense they claim that the fossil record is even worse than imagined. Under Punk Eek, fossilization of intermediates are even rarer since they occur in smaller populations, covering less area, and exist for a shorter duration of time. And so they aren’t saying that there aren’t intermediates – it’s just that they are just even harder to find than if fossilization occurred via phyletic gradualism. But in another sense they do view the fossil record as more reliable than generally believed. Let’s say that paleontologists are digging at a particular location and they find species “A” and species “B” but no intermediates. A proponent of phyletic gradualism might say that B evolved here and gradually replaced A, but the fossil record is too poor to show the intermediates. But a proponent of punk eek might say “the fossil record isn’t the problem – B probably evolved somewhere else and then came here and replaced A. Thus what we’re seeing in the fossil record is an accurate portrayal of what happened at this location. We need to dig elsewhere to find the intermediates.”goodusername_{January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

What Zachriel doesn't realize that is the special pleading just means we cannot form any inference from the fossil record pertaining to common descent. Tetrapods could have very well lived before fish but the environment they lived in wasn't conducive to fossilization.Virgil Cain_{January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Eric Anderson: If by “incompleteness” you just mean not a preserver of 100% of every species that has ever lived, sure. Fossilization is a very happenstance process. Eric Anderson: The problem is that the fossil record is diametrically opposed to Darwin’s “fine gradations.” Except that Darwin's theory included an explanation for the lack of fine gradations, including the fact that most of evolutionary history is characterized by stasis. Eric Anderson: And, contrary to your claim, whether the fossil record is “incomplete,” as a general matter, is indeed very much in dispute. Of course it's incomplete, otherwise there could be no new discoveries in the fossil record! Eric Anderson: does the fossil record give us a generally reliable account of the history of life on Earth, or is it unreliable? It gives a very incomplete picture. However, statistics is helping to resolve observational artifacts from the underlying pattern. Eric Anderson: Gradualists, like Darwin, continue to focus on the unreliability of the record — Darwin provided several explanations for the granularity of the fossil record. Waving your hands doesn't constitute addressing those explanations.Zachriel_{January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

The incompleteness of the fossil record i[s] inarguable.
If by "incompleteness" you just mean not a preserver of 100% of every species that has ever lived, sure. But that is not the problem, is it? The problem is not that we're missing a couple of transitional forms round the edges. The problem is that the fossil record is diametrically opposed to Darwin's "fine gradations." Thus all the effort to explain away the fossil record by both Darwin and his followers. And, contrary to your claim, whether the fossil record is "incomplete," as a general matter, is indeed very much in dispute. That is part of the whole issue: does the fossil record give us a generally reliable account of the history of life on Earth, or is it unreliable? Gould argued that it is generally reliable and should be taken seriously. Gradualists, like Darwin, continue to focus on the unreliability of the record -- precisely to explain away the inconsistency with their theory, a theory in search of data.Eric Anderson_{January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus: it is quite clear tha the gaps are there That's not the question in the thread. The question isn't whether Gould is right or not, but whether Gould's views are properly represented by the quote-mine. They're not. Eric Anderson: In that sense it is important because it seeks to deal with an actual, real feature of the fossil record — unlike Darwin, who when viewing the fossil record pled the “poor data” card to salvage his “slight, successive variations” hypothesis. The incompleteness of the fossil record in inarguable. In any case, Darwin provided several reasons why the fossil record wouldn’t encapsulate “infinitely many fine gradations”: 1. exploration will always be incomplete; 2. many classes of organism rarely fossilize; 3. fossilization is rare; 4. stasis is more typical than change, so change will be less likely to be preserved; 5. new species will often form in small sub-populations on the periphery that then overtake the parent population, and are therefore unlikely to leave fossils. http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1869/1869-551-c-1872.html Eric Anderson: So if someone looks at the fossil record (and accepts it for what it is, rather than poor data) they will certainly see that punctuated equilibrium matches the record better. Not always. Granularity in the fossil record varies depending on taxa and period. Eric Anderson: The lack of physical evidence in the fossil record is precisely what my theory predicts! We can test theories of allopatric and parapatric speciation by carefully observing extant nature. Eric Anderson: In other words, it is a theory that is based on a lack of physical evidence. That is incorrect, because it also predicts all the other evidence in the fossil record, such as the succession of fossils and the nested hierarchy. Compare to the lack of entailments from Intelligent Design. Eric Anderson: Finally, let’s be clear, there is still no good explanation for how punctuated equilibrium is supposed to operate — on the ground, at the physical level. No. That is not correct. Speciation is posited to occur in small isolated or peripheral populations. Fixation can occur rapidly in such situations, and if there are significant adaptive changes, can then overtake the parent population. This is consistent with population genetics, and with observations of the process of speciation. Eric Anderson: "Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean." That's generally true, but like all such quote-mines, you are leaving out the rest of Gould's findings, which indicate that lineages can and do sometimes change progressively over time.Zachriel_{January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

We don’t have physical evidence for these transitions — and that is precisely what my theory predicts! Punctuated design!Mung_{January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

At some level you have to feel for Gould. Here is a capable paleontologist who recognized that Darwin's accumulation of slight, successive changes wasn't going to cut it. He also recognized that the fossil record was real and couldn't be written off with the "bad data" card. Yet he was committed to a purely naturalistic story. So what is a guy supposed to do? Well, you stay committed to the naturalistic storyline and affirm that evolution happens -- it just happens too rarely, or too quickly, or in too much isolation to leave significant traces in the fossil record. One might be forgiven for noticing that this theory is based largely on a lack of data. But, hey, it is the best you can do if the data are missing and you are committed to a naturalistic storyline. So rather than proposing that the fossil record constitutes bad data because it failed to preserve myriad slight, successive changes, Gould essentially proposed that there was nothing to preserve. Said in other terms, rather than the fossil record failing to preserve the data, the data are of the kind that don't get preserved.Eric Anderson_{January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Punctuated equilibrium was proposed in large part to help explain stasis and the lack of gradual transitionals between forms. In that sense it is important because it seeks to deal with an actual, real feature of the fossil record -- unlike Darwin, who when viewing the fossil record pled the "poor data" card to salvage his "slight, successive variations" hypothesis. So if someone looks at the fossil record (and accepts it for what it is, rather than poor data) they will certainly see that punctuated equilibrium matches the record better. The rubber hits the road when we try to pin down evidence for what punctuated equilibrium proposes as a mechanism to account for the fossil record: to quote our old friend Wikipedia, punctuated equilibrium posits "rare and geologically rapid events." We can point to a few hints here or an occasional piece of circumstantial evidence there, but when trying to find solid evidence for these rare and geologically rapid events, we are often left with an exchange something like this: Q: I've looked at the fossil record and I'm not seeing many transitionals from one species to another. Are we sure that such transitions actually take place? A: Of course they take place. Evolution is true and so there must be transitions. Q: Where are they? They don't seem to show up in the fossil record. A: We don't expect to see them in the fossil record. My theory is that changes take place rarely and in geographically-rapid events, so we wouldn't expect to see much physical evidence in the fossil record. Q: Wait a minute. So you're saying that we shouldn't see much physical evidence of these changes nor should we expect to ever find much physical evidence of them? A: Exactly! The lack of physical evidence in the fossil record is precisely what my theory predicts! ----- The ironic thing about punctuated equilibrium is that, while it is more consistent with the fossil record, as far as actual transition is concerned, it is not seeking to explain transitions so much as it is seeking to explain the lack of transitions. In other words, it is a theory that is based on a lack of physical evidence. We don't have physical evidence for these transitions -- and that is precisely what my theory predicts! Finally, let's be clear, there is still no good explanation for how punctuated equilibrium is supposed to operate -- on the ground, at the physical level. Punctuated equilibrium just posits that the evolutionary change somehow, somewhere happens. ----- Apologies for yet another Wikipedia quote, but this caught my eye [emphasis added]:
According to Gould, "stasis may emerge as the theory's most important contribution to evolutionary science."[36] Philosopher Kim Sterelny adds, "In claiming that species typically undergo no further evolutionary change once speciation is complete, they are not claiming that there is no change at all between one generation and the next. Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch describes this very process.
Indeed, this is all that has ever been observed, whether we are talking about finch beaks, insects and insecticide, fruit fly experiments, or peppered moths. What we learn is not that "slight, successive changes" can accumulate and add up to large-scale changes over time. No, the great takeaway from all the observations and experiments is this: Populations tend to be stable over the long-term, oscillating around a norm and undergoing small, temporary adaptive changes without undergoing significant long-term change.Eric Anderson_{January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Z, it is quite clear tha the gaps are there, both as can be seen from the fact that you are not able to triumphantly list the many headlined cases, and from the word games being played. The species is the reproducing unit. If there are serious problems of the dynamics to get species level and above adaptations and particularly body plan level evolution on blind chance and mechanical necessity, it is no surprise that the dominant pattern is of species. Yes, I suspect the taxonomic definitions and adaptations are such that we likely get variability up to about the level of the family but the origin of major body plan features is seriously missing in action. Similarity without mechanism is meaningless as the molecular evidence clearly shows. KF PS: No one is seriously discussing single generation body plan level saltations, by the way. PPS: It seems Gould had a habit of republishing essentially the same text in various works.kairosfocus_{January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: If species are not connected neither is anything beyond that level, as in smooth gradations are not there. That doesn't salvage the quote-mine. Not only does Gould say there are ample transitional fossils above the species level, he does not say there are no species transitions, but that the transitions occur in small, isolated populations that are unlikely to leave fossils. Indeed, from your own citation, Gould also says,
the conflation of punctuated equilibrium (speciation in geological moments) with true saltation (speciation in a single generation, or moment of human perception) persists as the greatest of all scaling errors. I am discouraged by this error for three basic reasons: (1) It has been exposed and explained so many time, both by the authors of punctuated equilibrium and by many others; so continued propagation can only record carelessness. (2) Saltation at any appreciable relative frequency surely represents a false theory, so punctuated equilibrium becomes tied to a patently erroneous idea; whereas misapplication of punctuated equilibrium to higher levels may at least misassociate the name with a true phenomenon (like catastrophic mass extinction). (3) This particular error of scaling embodies our worst mental habit of interpreting other ranges of size, or other domains of time, in our own limited terms.
Even if anyone were confused on Gould's position before, they should not be confused now. It's clear that the original quote above is lacking the necessary context.Zachriel_{January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Z, again species is the gateway to everything above If species are not connected neither is anything beyond that level, as in smooth gradations are not there. KFkairosfocus_{January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Roy, you go get a copy of the book and confirm before making baseless accusations. You have already had almost a year to check and confirm, save that I corrected what looks like a typo. Troll, as proves last February. KFkairosfocus_{January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Also, let me cite from Gould’s last book, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002), ... That is the context for his comment in the same book...
Were these two snippets actually taken from Gould's book, or are you once propagating text copied from dubious on-line contextless "quote" sites? Did you learn anything from the last time you were caught trying to pass off an umpteenth-hand misquote as being from the primary source?Roy_{January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply