The Colin Patterson quote: No Intermediate Fossils

[gungasnake]

For any who might not have noticed or for any late-comers here, the OP included a link to a very thorough analysis of the Patterson quote and the question of whether or not any sort of a reasonable claim of "quote mining(TM)" was there to be had. Once again:

That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils

For some of these guys to have simply ignored that and go on repeating these childish claims of "quote mining" is basically chutzvah.

Another little tidbit from that link:

....Note what Patterson said in his response to the anticreationist in question:

‘I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. … I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist’s duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.’1

He seems to be saying that it’s OK to doubt as long as we don’t let the creationists know.

Being a world-renowned fossil expert, Patterson’s frank admissions were embarrassing to adherents of the ‘religion of evolution’—including himself, it would appear. But there were even more devastating revelations to come from Dr Patterson.

During a public lecture presented at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, he dropped a bombshell among his peers that evening, who became very angry and emotional. Here are some extracts from what he said:

‘ … I’m speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it’s true to say that I know nothing whatever about either … One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let’s call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realisation.

‘One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’—the late Dr Colin Patterson, formerly senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History

‘… One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’

He added:

‘That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long … I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”.’6

Although these are only excerpts from Patterson’s very frank and startling lecture that evening (the full text is even more revealing), it is plain to see the doubts he was having. It also shows that creationist usage of such quotes by Patterson does not amount to ‘creationist foul play’....

 

[Loudmouth]

The thing which drove ME away from evolution was evidence and logic. I was, after all, a math major, and if something can't survive a close inspection for logic, it doesn't really work.

Let's inspect what you call logic. You claim that all of the experts say that there are no transitional fossils. I have quoted expert after expert in numerous peer reviewed scientific papers saying that there are transitional fossils. Your reply? There is no evidence for evolution nor are there any transitional fossils.

Can you please tell us how that logic of yours is working?

 

[Loudmouth]

For any who might not have noticed or for any late-comers here, the OP included a link to a very thorough analysis of the Patterson quote and the question of whether or not any sort of a reasonable claim of "quote mining(TM)" was there to be had.

Patterson himself says that it was quote mined and was being misused by creationists.


Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

You also claimed that all experts say that there are no transitional fossils. I have quoted expert after expert saying that there are transitional fossils. Are you going to retract your claim or not?

 

[Loudmouth]

sure there is "mountains" of evidence for Evolution.

Finally, you admit that there is ample evidence for evolution. Thank you.

 

[gungasnake]

As Darwin points out in his famous book, there should be "innumerable" intermediate links in each stratum. But upon millions and millions of fossils that have been found there is zero intermediate links. Zero.

.

It's worse than that. As Alexander Mebane (Tampa Bay Skeptics) notes ("Darwin's Creation Myth"), even the newer Gould/Eldredge/Myer flavor of evolution (punc-eek) should have left a fairly large assortment of intermediate fossils:

.... But it may be questioned, on obvious probability grounds, whether
this way of accounting for the observed absence of intermediates
will really wash. Admitting that every intermediate stage "must
have" a small population, we may nevertheless observe that there
must have been a far greater number of them than of the stable, "
finished" species known to us, since (according to the Darwinist
picture) every species-transition must necessarily pass through
several intermediate stages. That greater number would increase
the likelihood that some intermediate forms, here and there, would
chance to be preserved as fossils. ....

 

[Loudmouth]

As Darwin points out in his famous book, there should be "innumerable" intermediate links in each stratum.

Actually, Darwin discussed why there shouldn't be innumerable intermediate links.

"For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

He spent an entire chapter discussing why there shouldn't be innumerable transitional fossils.

The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

But upon millions and millions of fossils that have been found there is zero intermediate links. Zero.

I already cited several examples of transitional fossils. Are there only 9 commandments in your bible?

 

[gungasnake]

Patterson himself says that it was quote mined and was being misused by creationists.

Chutzpah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Loudmouth]

It's worse than that. As Alexander Mebane (Tampa Bay Skeptics) notes ("Darwin's Creation Myth"), even the newer Gould/Eldredge/Myer flavor of evolution (punc-eek) should have left a fairly large assortment of intermediate fossils:

I have cited numerous experts who say that there are transitional fossils. Are you retracting your claim yet?

 

[Loudmouth]

Chutzpah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you continue to twist the words of others? Isn't that called "bearing false witness" within your faith?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet another expert describing transitional fossils. This time, the author is discussing the evolution of the mammalian middle ear which included an increase in complexity. He points to several transitional reptile-like mammals.

"The origins of complex and novel structures, such as the mammalian jaw and middle ear, can be deciphered by mapping their transformation in the fossil record and phylogeny (Figure 1) and by characterizing their developmental morphogenesis. Recent discoveries of new fossils in the cynodont-mammal transition have revealed major convergences and reversals, also known as homoplasies, in the jaw and middle ear structure among Mesozoic mammaliaform clades."
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

How is this not evidence for evolution?

 

[gungasnake]

Why do you continue to twist the words of others? Isn't that called "bearing false witness" within your faith?

You're basically a propagandist and you're trying to simply drown out other voices by hogging bandwidth.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're basically a propagandist and you're trying to simply drown out other voices by hogging bandwidth.

Are you going to retract your claim that all experts say that there are no transitionals?

 

[bhsmte]

You're basically a propagandist and you're trying to simply drown out other voices by hogging bandwidth.

Thats a good one!

Your ability to block out reality, is virtually unmatched, but some come very close.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Chutzpah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you are admitting that you broke the Ninth Commandment?

At least that is a step in the right direction.

Now that you know that you have been using ling sites will you continue to use them?

 

[46AND2]

.

 

[gungasnake]

That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils

 

[Loudmouth]

That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils

Are you going to retract your claim that all experts say that there are no transitionals?

 

[HitchSlap]

In this case, that would amount to you and your ilk thinking yourselves to know more about paleontology than somebody like Patterson, wouldn't it?

In this case, and every case in which a creationist quotes a real scientist, I take it with a grain of salt, as creationists always quote mine. Always.

I have read what real biologists and paleontologists have to say about the matter, and none of them, not one, say what you would have us believe.

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess we need to quote more experts . . .

"AN unusually rich fossil record documents in great detail the evolution of synapsids (mammal-like reptiles and their descendants the mammals). This fossil record extends over 320 million years and provides extensive evidence of the transition between primitive amniotes and mammals. The superior quality of the synapsid fossil record has even enabled scientists to use it to illustrate the concept of evolution and to test evolutionary models."--Michel Laurin & Robert R. Reisz, "Tetraceratops is the oldest known therapsid", Nature 345, 249 - 250 (17 May 1990)

 

[Loudmouth]

Since gungasnake considers Stephen Jay Gould to be an expert, surely he has never claimed that there are transitional fossils, right?

"The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994