Misquoted creationist misquotes

[RufusAtticus]

Randman,

Can you tell us what is the purpose of Archaeopteryx in God's plan?

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by randman
"It was the creationists who made out Feduccia to be such a great authority whose say-so about Archaeopteryx must be true."
No, that is basically not true. Their point was to make it clear that the TalkOrigins guy was overstating his case, and quoting someone teaching at a respectable university as evidence that there is dissent is fine, and in no way deceitful. It is patently obvious that the creationists disagree in a major way with every evolutionist they quote.

The article in question does not even bring up T.O.
This is the complete text in the web site in question's use of Dr. Feduccia -- the text "Quotes and Misquotes" quotes:

Was Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur? Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."

That is an argument from authority.

What you are stating then is that it is wrong to quote evolutionists to highlight some of the views and debates within that camp, and to show how certain "facts" according to TalkOrigins are not facts at all, but theories about things.

No one on the science side is in anyway denying differences of opinion exist out there. The objection is to creationists distorting these disagreements. Randman, it is wrong to give false impressions and it is wrong to quote out of context.

"Intellectual seediness? Like when you claim that Mr. Duck's article is part of The Talk.Origins Archive when it is not."

I suggest you follow the links there. If that isn't part of TalkOrigins, the guy is doing everything he can to make it appear it is. It certainly has the same format and links to TalkOrigins, but hey, if I made an honest mistake, that is hardly seedy.

Randman has been caught in a lie. In no way shape or form does Mr. Duck's page even as much as resemble in the least bit the format of The Talk.Origins Archive. There is no resemblance whatsoever.

"Furthermore, one would never expect "major morphological change" in a species to species transition."

If that's the case, then why so upset with creationists' quoting something to point out this fact noone expects? I mean what's the big deal? Seems to me there are a lot of evolutionists who get very angry when creationists point out that transitional doesn't mean what a layman might think it means.

The objection is very simple. Creationists are using quotes about the shortage of transitional forms between extremely similar species (what creationists usually call "microevolution" BTW) to imply that there are no transitional froms between the larger taxa to the lay public who do not know the distinction.

"That is false. Isaak does not make the claim you say he does. He makes not claim that there are no problems with transitional fossils. He states that the common claim that there are none is false."

He claims thousands of them, and he does appear to try and leave a false impression by overstating his case.

And he is right. There are THOUSANDS of them. This is not in doubt whatsoever amoung paleontologists. They make clear that it is hard to find transitions between very closely related species but that we have many examples of transitions between higher taxa.

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie addressing randman


"The author, an ardent evolutionist, as pointed out by Wallace, of course feels evolution is true..."

So you yourself admit that the authority believes evolution is true. Isn't it therefore dishonest to selectively quote the same authority to make it sound like he doesn't believe evolution is true?

To be fair you are making a false accusation against the creationists. No one, to my knowledge is claiming that the evolutionists are creationists. What the creationists are doing instead is quoting the evolutionists in such a way as to make their acceptance of evolution seem absurd. The absurdity disappears when the quotes are restored to full context.

 

[ardipithecus]

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

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.

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by randman
Archy is a mosaic. That doesn't mean he is transitional. The idea that he is transitional is at best an inference, and at worst a fallacious assumption. I pick on him because he is perhaps the most famous so-called transitional fossil ou there.

Notice Randman is trying to define transitional in such a way that there is no way we could call anything a transitional even if evolution was true. This is hardly an honest approach; it is more like stacking the deck.

The simple fact is that Archy is about a perfect transitional form as one could imagine. If it not to be considered transitional, I could not imagine anything that could be considered transitional.

 

[randman]

The simple fact is evolutionists define transitional in a manner that would basically include all fossils.

The way evolution had been taught is that species should slowly evolve as traits that conferred selective advantage would live, and the members of the species who did not have that trait would die out. Thus, over a long period of time, if you found examples say of species over a 2 million year period, according to evolutionist dating, then there should be evidence of gradual change, even into new species, but the exact opposite was found.

Evolutionist proponents fail to see that this was an incredibly major failuse in ther predictions, and that "stasis" rather than this gradual change is seen in the fossil record. This is what put me over the edge so to speak in rejecting evolution, and it is still a powerful indictment against evolutionary models though PE has tried to solve the problem.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
The simple fact is evolutionists define transitional in a manner that would basically include all fossils.

Evolutionists define "transitional" in a testable way. The fact that many fosils meet this definition is simply confirmation of the theory. If there had been very few transitional found, however, evolutionary theory would be less tenable.
You can't complain about the definition of transitional solely because you don't like how much data fits that definition.

The way evolution had been taught is that species should slowly evolve as traits that conferred selective advantage would live, and the members of the species who did not have that trait would die out. Thus, over a long period of time, if you found examples say of species over a 2 million year period, according to evolutionist dating, then there should be evidence of gradual change, even into new species, but the exact opposite was found.

Are you complaining about evolution itself, or "the way evolution had been taught?" Let's look at what Darwin said:

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly...nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form reamins for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.

Evolutionist proponents fail to see that this was an incredibly major failuse in ther predictions, and that "stasis" rather than this gradual change is seen in the fossil record.

Unfortunately, randman, Darwin's remarks show that this is exactly what evolutionary theory has predicted all along. Popularizations of evolution may have glossed over this detail, but science never did.

 

[Jerry Smith]

The way evolution had been taught is that species should slowly evolve as traits that conferred selective advantage would live, and the members of the species who did not have that trait would die out. Thus, over a long period of time, if you found examples say of species over a 2 million year period, according to evolutionist dating, then there should be evidence of gradual change,

Maybe your school had a poor science teacher. This is almost a cartoon version of what I have been taught. I really mean that I think your teacher may have been a nut - I really thought scenarios like that were ONLY cooked up by creationists as straw men. I am inclined to believe that you may have been taught it by someone, and I have seen some pretty lame teachers in my day...

As a disclaimer when I was in High School Gould had already begun his work, and P.E. was mentioned as a contending model, but I was taught that the standard model was gradualism, though not of the kind you describe here. There was in-depth discussion of genetic drift, isolating mechanisms, and population genetics was touched on.

I was taught that organisms that were well-fit to their niche of the environment would remain mostly static indefinitely - until there was some new environmental pressure.

 

[randman]

"Randman has been caught in a lie. In no way shape or form does Mr. Duck's page even as much as resemble in the least bit the format of The Talk.Origins Archive. There is no resemblance whatsoever."

Wrong, Talkorigins in Isaak's article includes a link to Duck's rebuttal in the exact place where normally one would find a Talkorigns rebuttal. It is integral since it is the rebuttal TalkOrigins uses and it is indeed in the same format. You are just bald-faced lying.

 

[randman]

"If there had been very few transitional found, however, evolutionary theory would be less tenable."

That is such twisted crap. First of all, very few under the evolutionist have been found. Only the wackos claim thousands from what I can tell, people like yourself.

Secondly, evolutionists insisted they were right when no transitional fossils according to their own definitions were found.

Try answering the fact of stasis and how evolutionary theory did not predict it.

 

[randman]

"I was taught that organisms that were well-fit to their niche of the environment would remain mostly static indefinitely - until there was some new environmental pressure."

That was an innovation brought about once the implications of what PE advocates were saying made it clear that what evolutionists had been teaching was flat out bogus. Evolutionary theory was proven false, and that is a fact. Maybe there is merit in one of the newer modified theories, but it is absolutely mind-boggling how evolutionists beleive that their theory predicted DNA, and stasis, etc,..It is evident that the way it is taught is that when a modification is made to the theory, they try to leave the impression that evolutionary theory predicted it all along.

It's a religion, and a false one at that.

 

[Jerry Smith]

That is such twisted crap. First of all, very few under the evolutionist have been found. Only the wackos claim thousands from what I can tell, people like yourself.

I must be a wacko too. I don't know about thousands, but I would lean more toward that estimation than toward "very few".

Secondly, evolutionists insisted they were right when no transitional fossils according to their own definitions were found.

When was this?

His statement was that evolution would be LESS tenable, not untenable without transitionals. That is correct. Transitionals are only one part of many evidences for evolution, and their absence would be merely silence - it would only be testimony that evolution is false if the fossil record showed signs of being close to complete.

Try answering the fact of stasis and how evolutionary theory did not predict it.

Natural selection not only predicts stasis at the species level of organisms well adapted to their environment, but it also predicts change on any higher taxonomic level under selective pressure. It is the second that is good evidence for evolution, because its absence would contravene the major tenant of evolutionary theory: change.

 

[Jerry Smith]

A clarification on stasis. Natural selection does predict stasis for forms optimally configured for reproductive success in their environment, however, there are rarely any long periods of time when the optimal configuration doesn't change somewhat due to change in the environment. The stasis that evolution predicts over the long term at the species level is not complete stasis, but RELATIVE stasis - meaning only minor, "microevolutionary" change - the kind of change we cannot expect to be visible in the fossil record.

 

[randman]

"What the creationists are doing instead is quoting the evolutionists in such a way as to make their acceptance of evolution seem absurd. The absurdity disappears when the quotes are restored to full context."

You are right in that we are pointing out the absurdity of evolution, but it doesn't disappear when the full quotes are examined.

My fill-in-the-blanks thing did the same thing. Think about it. Everyone in America is taught evolution. So according to you, the fill-in-the-blanks question ought not to be embarrasing, or make evolution seem absurd since presumably everyone knows you can't actualy find the transitions since they have all been taught it, but the reality is evolutionists toss out absurd overstatements to such a degree that they mislead people into thinking they have proved evolution. When someone comes along and demonstrates the reality of the evidence, that you can't actually even say who the immediate preceding ancestors and following species are for Archy the most famous one, evolutionists get very angry.

Why?

Their lie has been exposed, plain and simple.

 

[Jerry Smith]

So according to you, the fill-in-the-blanks question ought not to be embarrasing, or make evolution seem absurd since presumably everyone knows you can't actualy find the transitions since they have all been taught it, but the reality is evolutionists toss out absurd overstatements to such a degree that they mislead people into thinking they have proved evolution.

and

Their lie has been exposed, plain and simple.

The lie is not the evolutionists. Very few people in this country get more than a high school overview of evolution. The lie that your example points to is the straw man that has been constructed by Creationists: the lie is that proof that every transitional fossil must be accompanied by proof of a species-to-species lineage from earlier forms to later forms. The lie is that without these details, no other evidence can suffice to prove evolution.

That is the lie that makes us angry. You created your example because you believed the lie, or because you wished to propagate it without believing it. I choose to think that you honestly believed it.

 

[randman]

I learned what I learned from evolutionists. I did not attend a religious school, and you can see it here. Evolutionists rely on misinformation and propoganda. Otherwise, how else do you account for people being upset by my fill-in-the-blanks post? They obviously want people to think there is this species to species documentation that doesn't exist, or they are glad that people have this misunderstanding.

Otherwise, they would make the same post I did, and take great care to make it clear what the evidence does and does not consist of. The true scientist, and the science advocate, doesn't care nearly as much whether their theory is believed by students as whether satudents understand it and the underlying data. It is clear just from these threads thatb there is basic dishonesty in the evolutionist camp.

If there wasn't, they would be the first ones to point oput the evidence doesn't consist of species to species transitions between major forms.

 

[Jerry Smith]

They obviously want people to think there is this species to species documentation that doesn't exist, or they are glad that people have this misunderstanding.

If we obviously want people to have this misunderstanding, then why does it make us angry when people like you perpetuate the misunderstanding and criticize evolution on the basis of it? We spend most of our time on boards deconstructing this straw man, or others just as prevalent. Of course it makes us angry. It makes us especially so, when someone we know has already had the misconception corrected continues to perpetrate it.

If your purpose was to expose the (embarrasing?) fact that archaeopteryx and many other transitional fossils are not members of very fine, gradualistic, species-to-species transitions where the exact relationships are known, then you need only to have stated as much, and asked whether the evolutionists agreed or disagreed with your statement. I think all would have agreed, and then gone on to discuss the real and actual importance of archaeopteryx.

 

[randman]

It's not the very "fine-grained", but rather simply the fossils showing it evolved at all do not exist.

This lack of evidence when coupled with some species not changing for millions of years does not appear like volution to me, but rather God creating distinct species one after another like an artist.

Perhaps He did it via evolution, but perhaps not. There is certainly no proof, or conclusive evidence that evolutionary models are correct. They are built in conjecture. They didn't predict stasis, and I am not sure they do so now in an accurate manner. Are we to think there was no selective pressure for sometimes as much as 2 million years?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
It's not the very "fine-grained", but rather simply the fossils showing it evolved at all do not exist.

This is a misunderstanding: The fossil itself shows that it evolved from therapods. It has the therapod body plan. It has teeth, a reptilian skull, a reptilian tail, etc. etc. The only other fossils that show it evolved are certain very archaeopteryx-like therapod dinosaurs. Here, I use the term "evolved" to mean "evolved from". No, there are no fossils that show that Archaeopteryx was ancestral to later bird forms. Its line may very well have died out.

This lack of evidence when coupled with some species not changing for millions of years does not appear like volution to me, but rather God creating distinct species one after another like an artist.

Perhaps He did it via evolution, but perhaps not. There is certainly no proof, or conclusive evidence that evolutionary models are correct. They are built in conjecture. They didn't predict stasis, and I am not sure they do so now in an accurate manner. Are we to think there was no selective pressure for sometimes as much as 2 million years?

There was not enough selective pressure for sometimes as much as 2 million years to make any changes detectable in fossil remains. It is doubtful that 2 million years went by without any modification whatsoever, but some particularly hardy species may have been adequately enough suited that their skeletal features may not have had to change detectably in that much time. If we had their soft body parts too, we might be able to detect the ubiquitous microevolution that we see in all species that we have enough data on.

You are jumping to conclusions if you tink that there is not conclusive evidence that evolutionary models are correct. Hang around... I bet you change your mind.

By the way the "built on conjecture" remark - I will let that slide. I think the people here can judge for themselves, and that you can too. I think maybe you haven't seen all of the evidence.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman


That was an innovation brought about once the implications of what PE advocates were saying made it clear that what evolutionists had been teaching was flat out bogus. Evolutionary theory was proven false, and that is a fact. Maybe there is merit in one of the newer modified theories, but it is absolutely mind-boggling how evolutionists beleive that their theory predicted DNA, and stasis, etc,..It is evident that the way it is taught is that when a modification is made to the theory, they try to leave the impression that evolutionary theory predicted it all along.

Randman, PE was the application of modern views of evolution to paleontology, not the other way arround. Because of this misconception, your entire above paragraph is seriously flawed.

It's a religion, and a false one at that.

Ahh yes, a paradigm shift by creationists. They have stopped promoting creation as a science akin to evolution and instead are promoting evolution as a religious belief akin to special creation. Why should we buy their current lie anymore than their former one?