Loosening Darwin's Grip

Citizen Magazine ^ | March 2003 | Clem Boyd

[Dataman]

Three or more ultimate, indivisible units?

Your answer confirmed my suspicion.

[Junior]

Ah, the cryptic creo reply. No meat; no substance; just a off-hand jab meant to make folks think you are a deeper thinker than you really are. Now, if you'd care to expound upon your statement, that might make things different.

[VadeRetro]

How did this happen? Simply by redefining what a transitional fossil is.

Darwin predicted the finding of Precambrian life. He was eventually right. Nobody had to redefine anything. He predicted the finding of whale ancestors that weren't full obligate marine mammals. It happened 100 years after his death. Nobody had to redefine anything. He predicted the finding of ape-to-human transitionals. (There were a few Neanderthal skulls known in his day, no other hint of transition.) Dart found Australopithecus in the 1920s, the Leakey's started digging in East Africa in the late 50s ... Darwin was right again. Nobody had to redefine anything. It was just necessary to look in the right places.

Did Darwin have a crystal ball? Was he lucky? How did he know something between man and ape would turn up but not something between bird and bat? How did he know not to predict something (no short, direct link, anyway) between fish and whale?

More such here.

The archaeopteryx is not the oldest bird. Why, then, should I trust your link?

Protoavis is not widely accepted as a bird, or even the remains of a single organism. It will stay controversial unless and until a specimen in better shape turns up.

Even if the author of the AMNH web page made a mistake--there is an unnecessary comma in one place--you don't make a superbly preserved specimen like that disappear by pointing out a mistake in the accompanying text. Not even a nice try, just squirming against the handcuffs.

[Ichneumon]

Here's an interesting link: http://www.mcremo.com/ Michael Cremo wrote a book some years ago - Forbidden Archeology or the Hidden History of the Human Race. Goes into much detail proving to reasonable minds some of the fallacies of Darwinism's claim of recent human evolution.

Been there, read that, laughed my butt off. Cremo is a wild-eyed crank, who can find one chipped rock in a vast gravel pit and call it a "stone tool" which "proves" that mankind lived at the same age as the gravel pit.

He's also fond of such sloppy techniques as insisting that a skull found somewhere in the vicinity of a mine which excavates an ancient strata must be the same age as the strata.

Etc. etc.

He's either an incompetent, or a charlatan who writes whatever sensationlistic thing he knows will sell his books and get him booked on lecture tours.

[VadeRetro]

Given your response to that link, I don't guess you care for the cover on the current issue of Scientific American on newstands now, huh? An ever-growing list of dromaeosaurs had feathers.

Why does it get hard to tell certain kinds of dinosaurs from birds? How could some creationists say Archaeopteryx is "A dinosaur, just a dinosaur!" and some say it's "A bird! Just a bird?" Wouldn't something like that be obvious? How hard is it to tell any modern reptile from any modern bird?

[Ichneumon]

I remember when someone tried to tell me that if the earth was really older than ~5000 years or whatever that the remains of dinosaurs would be stacked through the atmosphere. I reminded him of the concept known as decomposition and he quickly quieted down.

In fact, young-earth creationists have the opposite problem. There are so many shark teeth in the seabed sediments that if the Earth were only 6000 years old, there would have had to have been wall-to-wall sharks in the oceans to have produced that many teeth in that short a time period.

In fact, the vast number of shark teeth is one of the clues that first led people back in the 1800's to realize that the Earth had to be very old -- long before Darwin (contrary to the creationists' blather about how the "only" reason the Earth is believed to be old is in a "dishonest" attempt to "support" evolution.)

The same problem arises with the vast number of other artifacts from dead creatures, like the enormous numbers of small shelled sea creatures which make up limestone beds hundreds of feet thick, etc.

[Ichneumon]

All you descendants of primates have to do is overwhelm us with all of your proof.

There's already an overwhelming amount of proof. That point was passed decades ago. Only those who dogmatically reject any evidence that challenges their cherished beliefs are left huddled together with their eyes closed, reassuring themselves by reflexively repeating, "evidence, what evidence, I don't see any evidence"...

[Remedy]

>>>Simply by redefining what a transitional fossil is. If evolution is true, there is no such thing as a non-transitional fossil since all things are evolving and all are in transition.<<<

There has been an over extension of faith and credit invested in macroevolution. Now that it is beginning to come crashing down, it is not suprising to witness ever increasing absurdities from those who have significanly invested in macroevolution.

There may be a parallel with the Crash of '29. There will be a flurry of absurdities, followed by depression and then some suicides, as the foggy fantasy of macroevolution evaporates from increasing exposure to the light of creation and is displaced by the gentle breeze of intelligent design.

[Dataman]

Now, if you'd care to expound upon your statement, that might make things different. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You gave yourself away as well. It just kills me that you guys get caught in your own ignorance and then pretend that I'm just being cryptic.

Regardless, it doesn't matter what my definition of life is any more than it matters what your definition of transitional is.

[Ichneumon]

So what are the evos doing on a conservative forum?

*boggle*

The very fact that you think this is an intelligent question says volumes about you.

[f.Christian]

Liberalism (( abortion )) evolves ...

nothing substantial changes in conservatism (( 'perfection' )) !

[MattAMiller]

The only difference in the conservative-anti-science crowd and the liberal-anti-science crowd is the labeling. One is called Creationist and the other Post-Modern-Deconstructionist. They share the same philosophy and goals: the replacement of scientific inquiry by "feelings" about things.

Precisely. And they both groups seem totally unaware of of how similar their arguments are to one another.

[Remedy]

>>>A dinosaur, just a dinosaur!" and some say it's "A bird! Just a bird?"<<<

It's a bird, it's a plane. No, it's SUPERLINK, to the rescue.

Faster than a speeding Aeon. More powerful than Miller-Urey Elixir. Able to make a macroevolutionist take TALL LEAPS O FAITH over a single bone fragment.

[Dataman]

There may be a parallel with the Crash of '29. There will be a flurry of absurdities, followed by depression and then some suicides, as the foggy fantasy of macroevolution evaporates from increasing exposure to the light of creation and is displaced by the gentle breeze of intelligent design.

I wish it were true. I can imagine a very slow untangling of the snarled mess but darwinism has become a political entity that seeks to keep itself alive by squelching thinking and suppressing dissension by raw political force rather than truth or reason. Without any new political clubs for it to employ, darwinism will slowly lose ground and, perhaps, be relegated to history as the biggest urban legend ever.

[Ichneumon]

Somebody forgot to tell the late SJ Gould and the rest of the evos who keep inventing creative ways to explain the lack of transitionals.

CREATIONIST MISREPRESENTATION ALERT

Gould said no such thing, as I'm sure you well know.

This is the old creationist "quote Gould grossly out of context" misrepresentation. Let's hear what Gould himself had to say about that, shall we?

Kirtley Mather, who died last year at age ninety, was a pillar of both science and Christian religion in America and one of my dearest friends. The difference of a half-century in our ages evaporated before our common interests. The most curious thing we shared was a battle we each fought at the same age. For Kirtley had gone to Tennessee with Clarence Darrow to testify for evolution at the Scopes trial of 1925. When I think that we are enmeshed again in the same struggle for one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of science, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[...]

Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is—and how else can I say it?—most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information might be explained in surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.

[...]

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. [...] 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? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.

[...]

A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane. Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

-- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981

Note that this was written in 1981. Since then, countless more transitional fossils, both between species and between larger groups, have been found.

Come back when you've got something to "support" your side which isn't just a dishonest twisting of someone's actual position.

One way to judge the validity of the creationists is by how often they lie about things. Misquoting people for deceitful "support" is so common among creationists that there are now countless webpages devoted to correcting their lies. For example:

Online resources documenting antievolutionist misquotations

The Fossil Hominid FAQ of The Talk.Origins Archive has several pages on creationist misquotations on human evolution:

• Creationist Arguments: Misquotes (Many specific examples are provided.)
• Duane Gish quote about ER 1470
• Creationist Arguments: The Monkey Quote
• Rear view of Sinanthropus

Here are some other pages of The Talk.Origins Archive that are about creationist misquotes:

• The Revised Quote Book: Looking at how Creationists Quote Evolutionists
• Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'
• Clarence Darrow: Misquoted by Creationists
• Missing Supernova Remnants as Evidence of a Young Universe?: A Case of Fabrication
• Muller and Mutations

The following articles from The Talk.Origins Archive that that, in part, address creationist misquotations:

• Lucy's Knee Joint: A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors
• Creationist Whoppers
• Geochronology kata John Woodmorappe
• Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQs
• Thrust Faults
• 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: A Response to Ashby Camp's "Critique"
• January 2003 Feedback: Ilya Prigogine Quote

Here are some pages on the web that address creationist misquotations:

• Hiding the Numbers to Defame Radiometric Dating: A Few Examples of the Many Misused References in Woodmorappe (1999)
• More Classic Misquotations in Woodmorappe (1999)
• Chopping a Title Hides the Truth
• Quote-Mining...The Tradition Continues - ICR Representative Frank Sherwin Visits Eureka College
• Creationist Misquotations
• Quotes About Evolution
• Gee Responds to Discovery Institute Use of Quotations
• Discovery Institute Quotes Clark Out of Context
• Gilbert Rebukes Discovery Institute for Use of Quote
• Coyne Exposes Discovery Institute's "old tricks"
• Doubting Darwinism through Creative License
• Intelligent Design Bibliography Misleading
• Misquotations in the Creation Book
• George Gaylord Simpson Said There Are No Transitional Fossils?
• Tom Kemp Said that the Mammal-like Reptiles Are Not Transitions Between Mammals and Reptiles?
• "Dawn Horse" Is a Good "Ancestor" For Rhinos Discredits Horse Evolution?
• Simpson Rejected the Transformation From "Dawn Horse" to Modern Horse?
• Niles Eldredge Says that the Geologic Column is Circular Reasoning?
• D.M.S. Watson Admitted Evolutionists Dogmatically Rejected Creation?
• Creation Science is Garbage (This article has an example of a creationist citing a negative review as if it were an endorsement.)
• Criticism of moth study no challenge to evolution
• Charges of fraud misleading
• Famous Quotes found in books
• Just what DO they say Dr. Morris?
• Does Dr Jonathan Sarfati Have Any Integrity?
• Creationist "Out of Context" Quotes
• Creation Book: a critical analysis
• Re: Disowing Darwin
• Ted Holden's "intermediate fossil" quotes from Walter ReMine's "Biotic Message"
• Another Creationist Misquote (News report in Science two decades ago screwed-up and the creationists continue the error.)
• Lie Ho! Lie Ho! It's off to the quote mine we go...
• Michael Ruse on the misuse of his religion comments

A searchable archive on creationist quotes can be found at Antievolution Quotes and Misquotes: The Archive.

[Ichneumon]

I like science. Evolution ain't science.

Of course it is. Your dogmatic denial only shows that you don't understand science.

[Junior]

I gave myself away? I've never hidden anything from anyone (except my real name, but that's just being smart). I never give back cryptic remarks (i.e., "You gave yourself away"). If I think you're a moron, I'll tell you why I think you're a moron.

[Ichneumon]

[If you had an infinite amount of money for travel expenses, and started now, and spent the entire rest of your life, you could probably travel from university to university, museum to museum, to look at every transitional fossil, and you'd be lucky to see 10% of them before you died.]

So if a person can only see 10% of the evidence, how can they be sure that the other 90% doesn't contradict the 10%?

Because even though no one person could see all the evidence in one lifetime, other people *have* examined that evidence and verified that there's no contradiction.

If you think about your statement for a moment, you'll realize that you're making the data fit the theory, not proving the theory from the data.

Actually, if *you'll* "think about his statement for a moment", you'll realize that you're missing the point.

[VadeRetro]

Ooh! Look what you linked! George Gaylord Simpson's 1953 quote.

It isn't just out of date, it's dishonest! Now, guess which Luddite posted it on this thread in number 90 and guess who slapped high-fives with the poster for doing so?

[Ichneumon]

I'm adding a couple of rooms to my house. They just delivered the sand, mortar and blocks. I wonder, if I placed 4 items (blocks, mortar, sand and water) next to my house footings, how long would it take for those 4 simple items to mix themselves up and arrange themselves into a concrete block wall? I'll even let earthquakes, sun, wind, rain, ice and any other naturally occuring force come into play. BTW, we would also have to include erosion and decay. Wonder how long it would take?

It wouldn't happen no matter how long you waited, of course, but then your example is an incredibly poor analogy for the forces which act on living things. The only question was whether your grossly inappropriate analogy was based on ignorance of why living things are not like bricks, or on a dishonest attempt to misrepresent how evolution works. You might just as well ask about the feasibility of brick breeding programs, or whether it would be useful to vaccinate your bricks against weathering...

If your mistake is based on simple ignorance, the following would be a useful education for you: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology