Misquoted creationist misquotes

"Before Gould and Eldridge came along, paleontolgists explained the choppy nature of the fossil record by saying it was incomplete. In other words, they haven't found enough fossils to increase the resolution. The point of PE is not to say what the fossil record looks like but why."

I really don't understand how you think everyone isn't aware of this in terms of critics of evolution. There is no misconception. Basically, no matter how you spin it, Gould and Eldridge said look here, this is data, and it isn't just incomplete, and here is why. They used the fossil record to support their theory of evolution. It's not that difficult of an idea.

Originally posted by randman
Well, God told me personally He created the world. I would place his integrity and honesty above Eldridge's anyday.

Click to expand...

Well the Lady of the Lake told me that She pretended to be your God and told you lies about Her creation. How do your comments have anything to do with Gould’s and Elbridge’s motivations for presentation PE?

Rufos [sic], where did you go to school.

Click to expand...

University of Georgia.
BS Genetics, cum laude with honors
BA Latin, cum laude with honors
Currently enrolled there as a doctoral student in population genetics.
I can send you a CV and transcript if you want.

Now, randman, tell us a little about yourself and education.

Think about what you are saying. There is no popular misconception about PE.

Click to expand...

Uhuh. So says the man who has probably never read much more than the popular misconceptions.

As you admit right here, PE is an application of data from the fossil record to fit into an evolutionary model. Try to think. The model is man's interpretation. The fossils are not. It doesn't matter who comes up with the model. I think Gould certainly argues that he and Eldridge came up with it, but who cares. The fact is the data to suport the model is the fossil record, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

I urge you to read my statements again. Better than that, read some of the primary literature by Eldridge and Gould about PE. It is primarily the application of data gathered from the evolution of extant populations to explain the nature of the fossil record. Not the other way around.

Maybe it is because evolutionists misuse interpretation as data so much that you are unable to distinquish, and maybe Eldridge too, that the data here are the fossils, and that this is applying the data of the fossils to evolutionary theory, not the other way around since theory is not data.

Click to expand...

And maybe you actually know less about science than you think you do.

"It is primarily the application of data gathered from the evolution of extant populations to explain the nature of the fossil record. Not the other way around."

Let's back up, and maybe we can arrive at some agreement. However PE came about, the relevant point here is understanding what it is, and here we agree. It is an application of the fossil record, correct?
Now, if that came about originally due to an application of other areas of researcg, that is fine, and doesn't change anything. The key here is that I posted about what PE says about the fossil record, and nothing you are saying contradicts that.
Agreed?

In the future, let's focus on reality. If you want to state that PE was for paleontologists, at least acknowledge that this has no bearing at all on what I am stating about PE.

PE is still an application of the fossil record to evolutionary theory. If it came about by using ideas in evolutionary theory already to come up with a way to incorporate the fossil record, that doesn't negate what PE is.

It does strengthen a point I have had all along about evolutionary theorists in general. They basically, as you admit, disregarded the fossil record as too incomplete because it didn't fit into the old models of evolutionary theory, but when evolutionary theory could somehow be shown to explain the fossil record, at least in part, all of the sudden they had an audience. What this tells me is that they do not consider any data that would contradict the basic assumptions of evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by randman
"It is primarily the application of data gathered from the evolution of extant populations to explain the nature of the fossil record. Not the other way around."

However PE came about, the relevant point here is understanding what it is, and here we agree. It is an application of the fossil record, correct?

Click to expand...

Nope. Puncuated Equilibrium clarifies the nature of the fossil record and explains it by population level effects and the sampling nature of fossilization. It is not an application of the fossil record to the study of evolution. It did popularize the notion that species in the fossil record tended to experience relative morphological stasis, but, in reality, that was the less significant part of Gould and Eldridge's work.

Now, if that came about originally due to an application of other areas of researcg, that is fine, and doesn't change anything. The key here is that I posted about what PE says about the fossil record, and nothing you are saying contradicts that.
Agreed?

Click to expand...

The fossil record shows stasis, but you have misrepresented the type of stasis and the significance of it. The species-level stasis in the fossil record does not contradict evolution, but rather supports modern models of speciation and evolution. Gould and Eldridge relied heavily on the work of evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr to show why the fossil record doesn't reflect many fine-grained species transitions.

In the future, let's focus on reality. If you want to state that PE was for paleontologists, at least acknowledge that this has no bearing at all on what I am stating about PE.

Click to expand...

It has lots of bearing since you are using PE to claim that biologists are ignorant of the fossil record and that PE disproves evolution. You are confused about the nature of PE and what motivated it. Thus your "critiques" of evolution are not well formed.

PE is still an application of the fossil record to evolutionary theory.

Click to expand...

Wrong. It's the other way around.

It does strengthen a point I have had all along about evolutionary theorists in general. They basically, as you admit, disregarded the fossil record as too incomplete because it didn't fit into the old models of evolutionary theory, but when evolutionary theory could somehow be shown to explain the fossil record, at least in part, all of the sudden they had an audience.

Click to expand...

Go back and read what I said. The fossil record is incomplete and it will always be. Paleonologists, not evolutionary theorists, tended to claim that it was choppy because it was incomplete. Gould and Eldridge investigated this claim and determined that the fossil record was choppy because of the nature of evolution. The fossil record supports evolution, but the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory was developed by studying extant populations of organisms.

What this tells me is that they do not consider any data that would contradict the basic assumptions of evolutionary theory.

Click to expand...

Randman, this statement doesn't make any sense, considering that the opposite follows from what you are saying. How does the scientific world adopting a new theory show that it is not willing to change?

Originally posted by randman
Btw, Duck is cited here on TalkOrigins. It is in the usual Talkorigins format, with a link on Issak's FAQ. It thus appears as part of TalkOrigins. How you can follow this link and call me "seedy" is pretty amazing.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Click to expand...

Duck's essay is NOT part of The Talk.Origins Archive. By the reasoning given above, one must conclude that Answers in Genesis, True.Origin, the ICR and many other creationists websites are part of The Talk.Origins Archive since they cited in the same way as Mr. Duck's essay is.

Originally posted by myself

Originally posted by randman
Well, I havemade dozens of quotes fully in cotext in debate with evolutionists, [...]

Click to expand...

Are you claiming that you have personally looked up the quotes in the original?


I tell you I have done this many times and many times have found them to be out of context. Sometimes subtly; often very blantantly. And them there is uses of out-of-date quotes, quoting only things that support their case, quoting extreme minority views without indicating that they are extreme minority views, quoting people who are not "authorities" on the subject by a long stretch, etc.

Click to expand...

Unless I missed it (and correct me if I am wrong), Randman has not replied to this. Thus I think it can be fairly safe to say that Randman has not personally checked the context in the original.

Hense his claim that the any of the quotes in question are in context is totally without merit.

Originally posted by chickenman
An appeal to authority, however, must accurately reflect the expressed opinion of the authority that is appealed to: else it is dishonest.

what the hell is wrong with that? If I say Darwin believed that the moon was made of cheese, its a misrepresentation. If you are going to argue from authority, you have a duty to accurately represent the authorities actual opinion. Sure, you can disagree with their opinion, but you must make it clear what that opinion actually is. Creationists often use selective quotation to make arguments based on authority which misrepresent the actual authorities opinions. You can't possibly claim they don't

Click to expand...

What did Darwin believe?

Now what can you prove?

What do you believe?

What can you prove?

Do you see the pattern? You believe in something either it is magic rocks or it is God make a choice so I know how to pray.