Many Evolutionsts think that by quoting Researchers who find little or no evidence to support the existence of transitional forms, the ones who publish these quotes may be taking at least some of those quotes out of context.
For instance, Stephen Jay Gould wrote,
“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt,”
In reading his publication, what are we to make of this ?
Are we to take it to mean that when he wrote this Gould meant some professionals OTHER THAN that paleontologists know the fossil record contains little in the way of intermediate forms and that transitions between major groups are abrupt?
Am I to understand that taken in context, Gould’s real position is TOTALLY CONTRASTING to what he wrote ?
If the answer to these questions is “yes,” I need explanation. And remember this --- A bare assertion that a quote is taken out of context means little. Back it up.
Don't get me wrong, I THINK that Gould believes in Evolution. It may also be true that he still believed to the end of his day that the fossil record GENERALLY supports evolution.
However, I have to say that INSPITE OF HIS STATED BELIEFS, it DOES NOT NEGATE the observation he and others like him made in their quotations.
Scroll down to Quote #41 and read the rest of it.
So your quote mines are "fake but accurate?" Is that you, Dan?
I think that Gould is of the belief that Darwin's theory (of many small minor changes over time) is not correct. But that evolution does occur in much larger jumps. I seem to recall something about his "hopefull monster" theory that somehow a very different type of critter ("monster") hatches and that is how/why we see such big changes in the fossil record.
Yes he did. But he also was blunt in characterizing the fossil record as "discontinuous" as opposed to Darwin's claim of "continuous". That left Darwin's theory wide open to attack. Which Gould regretted.