 |
|
|
 |
|
Posted on 01/26/2002 1:14:46 PM PST by Paul Ross
The Cross vs. the Swastika
|
|
|
|
|
The Cross vs. the Swastika |
I vividly remember a high school conversation with a friend I’d known since we were eight. I’d pointed out that Hitler was essentially a pagan, not a Christian, but my friend absolutely refused to believe it. No matter how much evidence I presented, he kept insisting that Nazi Germany was an extension of Christianity, acting out its age-old vendetta against the Jews. Not that he spoke from any personal study of the subject; he just knew. He’d heard it so many times it’d become an article of faith — one of those things “everyone knows.”
Flash forward 25 years. A few weeks ago my last column (http://www.boundless.org/2001/regulars/kaufman/a0000528.html) refuted a number of familiar charges against Christianity, including the Christianity-created-Nazism shibboleth. Even though I only skimmed the subject, I thought the evidence I cited would’ve been hard to ignore; I quoted, for example, Hitler’s fond prediction that he would “destroy Christianity” and replace it with “a [pagan] religion rooted in nature and blood.” But sure enough, I still heard from people who couldn’t buy that.
Well, sometimes myths die hard. But this one took a hit in early January, at the hands of one Julie Seltzer Mandel, a Jewish law student at Rutgers whose grandmother survived internment at Auschwitz.
A couple of years ago Mandel read through 148 bound volumes of papers gathered by the American OSS (the World War II-era predecessor of the CIA) to build the case against Nazi leaders on trial at Nuremberg. Now she and some fellow students are publishing what they found in the journal Law and Religion(www.lawandreligion.com), which Mandel edits. The upshot: a ton of evidence that Hitler sought to wipe out Christianity just as surely as he sought to wipe out the Jews.
The first installment (the papers are being published in stages) includes a 108-page OSS outline, “The Persecution of the Christian Churches.” It’s not easy reading, but it’s an enlightening tale of how the Nazis — faced with a country where the overwhelming majority considered themselves Christians — built their power while plotting to undermine and eradicate the churches, and the people’s faith.
Before the Nazis came to power, the churches did hold some views that overlapped with the National Socialists — e.g., they opposed communism and resented the Versailles treaty that ended World War I by placing heavy burdens on defeated Germany. But, the OSS noted, the churches “could not be reconciled with the principle of racism, with a foreign policy of unlimited aggressive warfare, or with a domestic policy involving the complete subservience of Church to State.” Thus, “conflict was inevitable.”
From the start of the Nazi movement, “the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement,” said Baldur von Scvhirach, leader of the group that would come to be known as Hitler youth. But “explicitly” only within partly ranks: as the OSS stated, “considerations of expedience made it impossible” for the movement to make this public until it consolidated power.
So the Nazis lied to the churches, posing as a group with modest and agreeable goals like the restoration of social discipline in a country that was growing permissive. But as they gained power, they took advantage of the fact that many of the Protestant churches in the largest body (the German Evangelical Church) were government-financed and administered. This, the OSS reported, advanced the Nazi plan “to capture and use church organization for their own purposes” and “to secure the elimination of Christian influences in the German church by legal or quasi legal means.”
The Roman Catholic Church was another story; its administration came from Rome, not within German borders, and its relationship with the Nazis in the 1920s had been bitter. So Hitler lied again, offering a treaty pledging total freedom for the Catholic church, asking only that the church pledge loyalty to the civil government and emphasize citizens’ patriotic duties — principles which sounded a lot like what the church already promoted. Rome signed the treaty in 1933.
Only later, when Hitler assumed dictatorial powers, did his true policy toward both Catholics and Protestants become apparent. By 1937, Pope Pius XI denounced the Nazis for waging “a war of extermination” against the church, and dissidents like the Lutheran clergyman Martin Niemoller openly denounced state control of Protestant churches. The fiction of peaceful coexistence was rapidly fading: In the words of The New York Times (summarizing OSS conclusions), “Nazi street mobs, often in the company of the Gestapo, routinely stormed offices in Protestant and Catholic churches where clergymen were seen as lax in their support of the regime.”
The Nazis still paid enough attention to public perception to paint its church critics as traitors: the church “shall have not martyrs, but criminals,” an official said. But the campaign was increasingly unrestrained. Catholic priests found police snatching sermons out of their hands, often in mid-reading. Protestant churches issued a manifesto opposing Nazi practices, and in response 700 Protestant pastors were arrested. And so it went.
Not that Christians took this lying down; the OSS noted that despite this state terrorism, believers often acted with remarkable courage. The report tells, for example, of how massive public demonstrations protested the arrests of Lutheran pastors, and how individuals like pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer (hanged just days before the war ended) and Catholic lay official Josef Mueller joined German military intelligence because that group sought to undermine the Nazis from within.
There is, of course, plenty of room for legitimate criticism of church leaders and laymen alike for getting suckered early on, and for failing to put up enough of a fight later. Yet we should approach such judgments with due humility. As Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett write in their book Christianity on Trial (to repeat a quote used in my last column), “It is easy for those who do not live under a totalitarian regime to expect heroism from those who do, but it is an expectation that will often be disappointed. . . . it should be less surprising that the mass of Christians were silent than that some believed strongly enough to pay for their faith with their lives.”
At any rate, my point is hardly to defend every action (or inaction) on the part of German churches. In fact, I think their failures bring us valuable lessons, not least about the dangers of government involvement in — and thus power over — any churches.
But the notion that the church either gave birth to Hitler or walked hand-in-hand with him as a partner is, simply, slander. Hitler himself knew better. “One is either a Christian or a German,” he said. “You can’t be both.”
This is something to bear in mind when some folk on the left trot out their well-worn accusation that conservative Christians are “Nazis” or “fascists.” It’s also relevant to answering the charge made by the likes of liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd: “History teaches that when religion is injected into politics — the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo — disaster follows.”
But it’s not Christianity that’s injected evil into the world. In fact, the worst massacres in history have been committed by atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) and virtual pagans (Hitler). Christians have amassed their share of sins over the past 2,000 years, but the great murderers have been the church’s enemies, especially in the past century. It’s long past time to set the historical record straight. 
The complete text of this article is available at http://www.boundless.org/2001/regulars/kaufman/a0000541.html
This is your answer to what has been presented on whale evolution. You simply repeat what the evidence refutes.
Fine! I just wanted the lurkers to see what's going on here. Gladwin nailed you solidly in post 142.
I see Chuck Darwin has corrupted your mind with the nonsense that some individuals are fitter than others. Back to PC school for you! Don't you know everybody is special in his or her own way, even Osama Bin Laden?
You have a scoop. Your Nobel awaits you when you prove that all the world except you, Dembski, Behe, et. al. have it wrong. Except, even there, did you know your buddy Behe claims to believe in something he calls "descent with modification?"
Don't you know, evolution boy, that the Nobel trustees are all corrupt and part of the eee-vouu-luuuu-shun conspiracy. They will not listen to reason. They keep their phoney lies and fairy tales going. A good, bible-pounding, snake-handling man can't get a descent hearing even when he's got the TRUTH!!!
< /end creationism mode >
I believe it's true, as many have speculated, that some of the very worst of the creationists are liberal plants, who come over here and post their insanity in order to discredit the conservative movement. Then they go back to their marxist websites and point to the threads they've posted to, and they gleefully exclaim: "Those republicans are all a bunch of religious whack-jobs!"
Are you going to be the evolutionist with the guts to call Bob Enyart at 1-800-8Enyart between 9 and 10 p.m. ET.? Patrick Henry and Jenny P haven't got the guts. Do you? Funny, when Bob debated one of the top experts on evolution, Eugenie Scott, she never brought up the transitional fossil involving the alleged evolution of whales. In fact, she was forced to admit there was no fossils that showed macro evolution. But, if you have the fossil, get you fingers punching in the numbers so we can here you at www.kgov.com.
by Dr. Duane T. Gish *
"Vital Articles on Science/Creation" April 1994
Copyright © 1994 All Rights Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionists are desperate in their search to find transitional or intermediate forms to validate their theory of evolution. If, as they believe, millions of species of plants and animals have evolved during hundreds of millions of years, many billions times billions of transitional forms would have lived and died during those hundreds of millions of years, and thus there should be no difficulty in finding fossils of a very large number of these transitional forms. In fact, our museums, among the 250,000 different fossil species in their collections, should have tens of thousands of transitional forms. One would not have to be an expert paleontologist and anatomist to recognize, for example, a structure halfway between a forelimb and a wing, or something halfway between an ordinary jaw of a reptile and the bill of a duck-billed dinosaur. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, however, when it comes to these coveted transitional forms, they must do much with little or nothing.
This situation is strikingly true concerning the origin of whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals.
In one of Romer's concluding statements in his discussion of the sub-ungulates (conies, elephants, sea cows), he says, "conies, proboscideans, and sirenians were already distinct groups at the time when they first appear in the fossil record."[1] Olson states that if we seek the ancestries of the marine mammals we run into a blank wall as far as intermediate stages between land and sea are concerned. [2] His remark included the seals, dolphins, and whales.
peaking of whales, Colbert said, "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone." [3]
In their eagerness to produce evidence to bridge this enormous gap, and in doing so not only to verify their expectations but also to enhance their reputations and their careers, we do not question the honesty of evolutionists. We do question their objectivity and their conclusions, based on scanty and questionable evidence. In 1983, headlines in newspapers all over the world, based on an article published by Gingerich and coworkers, [4] trumpeted the discovery of a so-called primitive whale which established a link between whales and their hypothetical land-mammal ancestor, the hoofed mammalian carnivore, Mesonyx. The fossil material consisted solely of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper- and lower-cheek teeth. The creature was given the name Pakicetus inachus.
This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus are dominated by land mammals. Non-mammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental, rather than a marine environment, as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature. It is highly significant that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal, rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directly under water, nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving. The authors stated that the teeth resemble those of the mesonychids, which possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter. On the basis of this evidence, the idea was challenged that Pakicetus was anything other than a land mammal, with no relationship to marine mammals.[5]
The latest claim concerning the possible discovery of a link between land mammals and marine mammals was contained in an article published in January 1994, in Science.[6] The article served as a basis, once again, for newspaper headlines throughout the U.S. For example, the Cleveland Plain Dealer featured the report in an article published in that paper January 16, 1994, with the bold headline, "Fossil Thought to Belong to Walking Whale—Creature May Be Missing Link." Since whales don't walk on land, skeptics would immediately question the basis for designating this creature a whale, whatever it may have been. As a matter of fact, in a commentary published in the same issue of Science as the original scientific report, the writer states, "The authors provide some evidence for the seemingly preposterous conclusion that archaic whales were capable of walking on land."[7] The investigators gave their find the name Ambulocetus natans, from ambulate (to walk), cetus (whale), and natans (swimming). They thus believe that this creature both walked on land and swam in the water. In their report, the authors state: "Unlike modern cetaceans, Ambulocetus certainly was able to walk on land, probably in a way similar to modern sea lions or fur seals. In water, it combined aspects of the locomotion of modern seals, otters, and cetaceans.... As such, Ambulocetus represents a critical intermediate between land mammals and marine cetaceans."[8]
It is reported that Hans Thewissen, an assistant professor of anatomy at Northeastern Ohio Medical School; Tasseer Hussain, professor of anatomy at Harvard University; and M. Arif, a geologist of the Geological Survey of Pakistan, happened upon the fossil during a 1992 dig in hills west of Islamabad, Pakistan. The Plain Dealer, along with its article, has a good picture of the fossil. When some of the ICR staff looked at the picture with the knowledge that Thewissen and fellow workers called this creature a whale, they laughed. Evolutionists may claim that this was because of ignorance of subtle distinctions of anatomy; on the other hand, associating the word "whale" with a creature with large and powerful front and hind legs does seem a bit ludicrous to skeptics. In their Science article,[6] Thewissen and coworkers state that Ambulocetus was about the size of a male sea lion, weighing about 650 lbs. and had a robust radius and ulna (the two bones in the upper forearm). They report that the structure of the forearm would have allowed powerful elbow extension by triceps, and that, unlike modem cetaceans, elbow, wrist, and digital joints were flexible and synovial (lubricated). The hand was long and broad, with five digits. The femur was short and stout, and the feet were enormous. The toes were terminated by a short phalanx carrying a convex hoof. They suggest that unlike modern cetaceans, Ambulocetus had a long tail, and that it probably did not possess flukes.
The authors state, "Unlike modern cetaceans, Ambulocetus certainly was able to walk on land, probably in a way similar to modern sea lions or fur seals. In water, it combined aspects of the locomotion of modern seals, otters, and cetaceans: Like modern cetaceans, it swam by moving its spine up and down; but like seals, the main propulsive surface was provided by its feet."[8] One wonders what in the world a whale was doing with hind limbs that terminated in a foot with hooves, or with any kind of powerful forelimbs and hind limbs at all.
It is reported that the fossil of Ambulocetus was found in a silt and mud-stone bed which contained impressions of leaves and abundant Turritella, a marine gastropod.[6] This would suggest that it lived near the seashore, feeding possibly on land animals and/or plants, and perhaps foraging into shallow seas to feed on gastropods and molluscs. They report that the fossil beds are lower-to-middle Eocene beds, and about 120 meters (approximately 390 feet) higher than those in which Pakucetus was found. Berta, in her comments on the paper by Thewissen, et al . , gives an age of 52 million years for the sediments in Pakistan where Ambulocetus was found. Thewissen and his coworkers in their paper mention an age of 52 million years for the age of Pakicetus, which they refer to as the "oldest cetacean." Ambulocetus, bearing large forelimbs and hooved hind limbs, was found in strata nearly 400 feet higher than Pakicetus. It therefore cannot be older. Pakicetus is called the oldest cetacean. Yet it is said that Ambulocetus documents transitional modes of locomotion in the evolution of whales. Confused? So are we. It is reported that the teeth resemble those of other archeocetes, which evolutionists believe were either archaic whales or ancestral to whales. The teeth of archeocetes are, however, so similar to mesonychid ungulates, believed to be wolf-like carnivorous mammals, that two of the archeocetes, Gandakasia and Ichthykstes, known only from teeth, were originally classified as mesonychids.[7]
G. A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales, while maintaining that Archeoceti occupy an intermediate position between terrestrial mammals and typical Cetacea, states that the problem of the phylogenedc relationship between Archeoceti and modern Cetacea is a highly controversial issue. He reports that a number of authors consider that the Archeoceti are a completely isolated group having nothing in common with typical Cetacean.[9] If this opinion is correct, then the archeocetes, supposedly archaic whales, were not whales at all and did not give rise to whales (cetaceans).
A search of texts on mammals for fossils of creatures resembling Ambulocetus failed to produce one closely resembling Ambulocetus, although Allodesmus, an extinct aquatic carnivore believed to have preceded walruses, bears some resemblance.[10]
Perhaps we should not be surprised that Thewissen and coworkers would dare to call Ambulocetus a "whale" when we note the fact that Robert Carroll, in his voluminous tome, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, made the incredible statement that "Despite the extreme difference in habitue, it is logical from the standpoint of phylogenetic classification to include the mesonychids among the Cetaceans."[11] Incredible, indeed! The mesonychids were wolf-like, hoofed carnivores that, as far as anyone knows, never went near the water. Carroll states, "Mesonyx was the size and proportions of a wolf and, perhaps, had a similar way of life."[12] Carroll and others believe that the skull shape and the dentition of what they think were early whales resembled mesonychids. They therefore have adopted the mesonychids as the land mammal from which whales evolved. Now Carroll suggests we place the mesonychids in the Cetacea. Presto! These wolf-like animals are now whales! Who says evolutionists have no transitional forms?
Conclusion
What may we conclude from all of this? Most evolutionists, certain that whales and other aquatic mammals must have evolved from land mammals, would stretch their imagination to whatever extent necessary to declare that Ambulocetus, a creature with powerful forelimbs and hind limbs (the latter bearing hooves), unable to dive to any significant depth or to hear directionally under water, was nevertheless, a whale. On the other hand, not biased by any such presupposition, we conclude that, first of all, it is ridiculous to call the creature a whale, and secondly, that it was certainly not an intermediate between a land mammal and a whale, but was more likely a near-shore carnivore whose exact behavior and habitue is as yet a topic only for speculation.
When we consider these profound proclamations by evolutionists we should bear in mind that they were equally convinced when they suggested human evolutionary ancestors, such as Ramapithecus, now recognized to be essentially the same as a modern orangutan; Piltdown Man, a fraud that was nothing more than the jawbone of a modern ape and a human skull; Nebraska Man, that turned out to be a pig's tooth; and Neanderthal Man, a supposed primitive subhuman that is now recognized by most paleoanthropologists as fully human, Homo sapiens, who suffered from pathological conditions, such as arthritis and rickets, a vitamin D deficiency. If evolutionists can get an evolutionary ancestor of man from nothing more than a pig's tooth, it should be no challenge to get a whale from a creature that walked on land.
REFERENCES
[1] A. S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd. Edition, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1966, p. 254. [2] E. C. Olson, The Evolution of Life, the New American Library, New York, 1965, p. 178. [3] E. H. Colbert, Evolution of the Vertebrates, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1955, p. 303. [4] P. D. Gingerich, N.A. Wells, D. E. Russell, and S. M. Ibrahim Shah, Science 220:403-406 (1983). [5] D. T. Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Master Books, Colorado Springs, 1985, pp. 79-81. [6] J. G. M. Thewissen, S. T. Hussian, and M. Arif, Science, 263:210-212 (1994). [7] Annalisa Berta, Science 263:180(1994). [8] J. G. M. Thewissan, et al, ibid., p. 212. [9] G. A. Mchedlidze, General Features of the Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea (translated from the Russian), A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1986, p. 91. [10] R. L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1988, p. 483. [11] R. L. Carroll, ibid., p. 521. [12] R. L. Carroll, ibid., p. 520. * Dr. Gish is Senior Vice President of the Institute for Creation Research
"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641.)
>"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nods of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record." (Gould, Stephen J. "The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181)
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information..." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50, 1979, p. 25.)
"The fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineages is very poor. If evolution is true, species originate through changes of ancestral species: one might expect to be able to see this in the fossil record. In fact it can rarely be seen. In 1859 Darwin could not cite a single example." (Ridley, Mark, The Problems of Evolution, 1985, p. 11)
Evolutionist Michael Denton described the problem of such a fantastic transition by saying: ". . . we must suppose the existence of innumerable collateral branches leading to many unknown types . . . one is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales . . . we are forced to admit with Darwin that in terms of gradual evolution, considering all the collateral branches that must have existed in the crossing of such gaps, the number of transitional species must have been inconceivably great.4 M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 174.
1) All organisms alive today are descended from earlier organisms stretching back through time to an original organism. To support this we have a fossil record showing that certain critters existed at certain times and that these critters bear a resemblance to critters which came before and after them in the fossil record. Additionally, we have observed speciation both in nature and the laboratory, so we know new species arise from older species [see the Speciation links I posted earlier]. We can infer this process has been going on for quite some time and accounts for the changes in the fossil record and for the diversity of life we see around us.
2) Some dude pops in occassionally to zap new species into existence out of nothing. To support this we have to twist an interpretation of an ancient religious text (the Bible says all those critters were created pretty much at once, something not supported by their resting places in the fossil record). There is no physical evidence for this and most believers will tell you it has to be taken on faith.
Now, which one seems more rational?
Those societies didn't last long, did they? The "Thouand Year Reich" last about a dozen years, and the Soviet Union tottered to an end after only 70. The Chinese one-child policy (which does not discriminate on the basis of sex -- that's the parents' decision) is a relatively recent attempt to check overpopulation. It is not terribly popular with the masses and China is already showing internal problems.
CREATIONIST QUOTE MINING
with our host, ThinkPlease, and the crevo_list band! Who's our lucky contestant today?
Our contestant today is the lovely and talented Ol' Sparky, and he has several quotes that he has mined from obscure and ancient creationist pamphlets. Our task is to find out where the quote real mined from obscure and ancient creationist pamphlets. Our task is to find out where the quote really came from, and whether or not the quotes were snipped out of context!
Lets take a gander at the first quote, shall we?
"I agree ...that ancestral-descendant relationships cannot be objectively recognized in the fossil record." (Schoch, R.M., "Evolution Debate," Science, April 22, 1983, p. 360.)
Our first contestant comes from a 19 year old Science magazine, without a volume number, just a date and a page number. That's ok, though. Luckily, we have a subscription to jstor, otherwise we'd have to let this one go by. This particular quote looks like it is from a letter to the editor, and judging by it's content, it goes back to those debates between Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism. Here's the first few senctences of the letter, to get a gist of the content.
"I agree with Richard E. Grant (Letters, 11 Mar., p 1170) that ancestor-descendant relationships cannot be objectively recognized in the fossil record. I suggest, however, that the debate over phyletic gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium be viewed as a debate over the distribution of the rates of evolution; that is, over the tempo of evolution, not the mode of evolution, as Grant suggests. Viewed in this light, there are at least three separate and distinct questions to be investigated: (i) whether the punctuational tempo is prevalent in the fossil record, as Gould and Eldredge suggest;(ii) whether punctuations are roughly equivalent to speciation eventsl and (iii) given that punctuations mark speciation events, whether speciation is the dominant mode of evolutionary change. Thus, the punctuational model of the tempo of evolution is distinct from, although perhaps related to, the previous models of differing modes of speciation cited by Grant. Furthermore, the choice between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium need not "always...devolve to a matter of personal preference". Even if ancestor-descendant relationships cannot be objectively recognized, data obtained from the fossil record, such as origination and extinction rate of species, species duration s, and aggregated changes in entire faunas(see S.J. Gould, Science 219, p 439 (1983)) can be analyzed and may shed light on the question of the predominance of punctuationalism or gradualism. Likewise, study of the possible, and even most probable of common, mechanisms of evolution and speciation (for example, the genetics, molecular biology, and behavioural biology of the extant organisms) may shed light on the question of the most common tempo of evolution
Boy that sure didn't say what he thought it said, eh? I find it interesting that the most creationist quote mining comes from the Punck Eeq/Gradualism arguments of the 70s and 80s. I just haven't seen the creationists get as many quotes from then as any other time period in science.
Our next quote comes from: "The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641.)
This is obviously another Punck Eeq vs Gradualism quote. Funny how that works, isn't it? Gould is a big fan of PE, at least in the 80s, therefore he pushes his own theory above any others he might have. Of course, the current theory had changed in 21 years to accomodate 21 years of evidence into the distinct possiblity that there is a blending of both theories. Sadly, I can't find a reference online that quotes around the original quote, but knowing the authors goes a long way toward understanding what is going on.
Our third contestant comes from Gould again (Let me guess, PE?). Here's the full quote: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:"
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. "Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks." "Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
Stop the presses! What is this all about? Well, depends. Gould has also said this:
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. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups. SJ Gould, 1984, Evolution as fact and theory, In: Science And Creationism, A Montagu (ed.), Oxford University Press, pp. 123-124.
Pretty interesting, eh? Gotta love those quote miners.
Here's another one, from a VERY obscure source. I had to work to find a reference to this one.(Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50, 1979, p. 25.). I mean, who GETS The Bulletins of the Field Museum of Natural History, anyway?
Entertainingly enough, its fun sufting the net for references to these quotes, because 9 out of 10 hits are creationist websites that invariably have copied someone elses quotes without actually looking them up to verify their veracity.
In this case, heres a fuller explanation by someone who has read the paper ( from http://ly came from, and whether or not the quotes were snipped out of context!
Lets take a gander at the first quote, shall we?
"I agree ...that ancestral-descendant relationships cannot be objectively recognized in the fossil record." (Schoch, R.M., "Evolution Debate," Science, April 22, 1983, p. 360.)
Our first contestant comes from a 19 year old Science magazine, without a volume number, just a date and a page number. That's ok, though. Luckily, we have a subscription to jstor, otherwise we'd have to let this one go by. This particular quote looks like it is from a letter to the editor, and judging by it's content, it goes back to those debates between Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism. Here's the first few senctences of the letter, to get a gist of the content.
"I agree with Richard E. Grant (Letters, 11 Mar., p 1170) that ancestor-descendant relationships cannot be objectively recognized in the fossil record. I suggest, however, that the debate over phyletic gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium be viewed as a debate over the distribution of the rates of evolution; that is, over the tempo of evolution, not the mode of evolution, as Grant suggests. Viewed in this light, there are at least three separate and distinct questions to be investigated: (i) whether the punctuational tempo is prevalent in the fossil record, as Gould and Eldredge suggest;(ii) whether punctuations are roughly equivalent to speciation eventsl and (iii) given that punctuations mark speciation events, whether speciation is the dominant mode of evolutionary change. Thus, the punctuational model of the tempo of evolution is distinct from, although perhaps related to, the previous models of differing modes of speciation cited by Grant. Furthermore, the choice between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium need not "always...devolve to a matter of personal preference". Even if ancestor-descendant relationships cannot be objectively recognized, data obtained from the fossil record, such as origination and extinction rate of species, species duration s, and aggregated changes in entire faunas(see S.J. Gould, Science 219, p 439 (1983)) can be analyzed and may shed light on the question of the predominance of punctuationalism or gradualism. Likewise, study of the possible, and even most probable of common, mechanisms of evolution and speciation (for example, the genetics, molecular biology, and behavioural biology of the extant organisms) may shed light on the question of the most common tempo of evolution
Boy that sure didn't say what he thought it said, eh? I find it interesting that the most creationist quote mining comes from the Punck Eeq/Gradualism arguments of the 70s and 80s. I just haven't seen the creationists get as many quotes from then as any other time period in science.
Our next quote comes from: "The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641.)
This is obviously another Punck Eeq vs Gradualism quote. Funny how that works, isn't it? Gould is a big fan of PE, at least in the 80s, therefore he pushes his own theory above any others he might have. Of course, the current theory had changed in 21 years to accomodate 21 years of evidence into the distinct possiblity that there is a blending of both theories. Sadly, I can't find a reference online that quotes around the original quote, but knowing the authors goes a long way toward understanding what is going on.
Our third contestant comes from Gould again (Let me guess, PE?). Here's the full quote: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:"
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. "Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks." "Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
Stop the presses! What is this all about? Well, depends. Gould has also said this:
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. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups. SJ Gould, 1984, Evolution as fact and theory, In: Science And Creationism, A Montagu (ed.), Oxford University Press, pp. 123-124.
Pretty interesting, eh? Gotta love those quote miners.
Here's another one, from a VERY obscure source. I had to work to find a reference to this one.(Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50, 1979, p. 25.). I mean, who GETS The Bulletins of the Field Museum of Natural History, anyway?
Entertainingly enough, its fun sufting the net for references to these quotes, because 9 out of 10 hits are creationist websites that invariably have copied someone elses quotes without actually looking them up to verify their veracity.
In this case, here is a more robust quote (from http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jun01.html, about halfway down): "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."(p. 25)
It turns out that this is also a paper about the mechanism of evolution (yes, another PE vs. gradualism paper). From the beginning:
"Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be." (p. 22)
He also says:
"There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another. . ."(p 23)
If you want to know Raup's views on Creationism: check out: "Geology and Creationism", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Mar. 1983, Vol. 54 No. 3 pp. 16-25). And I'm sure you can look this one up, since you have a subscription, right, Ol'Sparky?
There's more there, but I've already rambled on much too long. To first order, quote mining is a deceitful tactic, and really is the last resort of a dying theory, because they don't have anything of their own to present, and thus they will distort other peoples work. Sad, isn't it?
Okay, we have two competing views: 1) All organisms alive today are descended from earlier organisms stretching back through time to an original organism. To support this we have a fossil record showing that certain critters existed at certain times and that these critters bear a resemblance to critters which came before and after them in the fossil record.Additionally, we have observed speciation both in nature and the laboratory, so we know new species arise from older species [see the Speciation links I posted earlier]. We can infer this process has been going on for quite some time and accounts for the changes in the fossil record and for the diversity of life we see around us.
2) Some dude pops in occassionally to zap new species into existence out of nothing. To support this we have to twist an interpretation of an ancient religious text (the Bible says all those critters were created pretty much at once, something not supported by their resting places in the fossil record). There is no physical evidence for this and most believers will tell you it has to be taken on faith.
Now, which one seems more rational?
Let's change a few words and see what we get ...
Okay, we have two competing views:
1) All computers working today are descended from earlier computers stretching back through time to an original computer. To support this we have a fossil record showing that certain computers existed at certain times and that these computers bear a resemblance to computers which came before and after them in the fossil record.
Additionally, we have observed speciation both in nature and the laboratory (or, at least, some of us claim we have), so we know new species arise from older species (or, at least, some of us claim that they do). Some of us, then, infer that this process has been going on for quite some time and accounts for the changes in the fossil record and for the diversity of computers we see around us.
2) Somebody manages occassionally to design a new computer out of the available resources.
NOW, which one seems more rational?
For the lurkers, an intro to what the PE vs gradualism debates are about:
Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium. It is the fallout from the debate between this (still perfectly Darwinian) model and more gradual "neo-Darwinist" models that forms the bulk of creationist quotes.
Gould, the creationists favorite quotee, was lamenting this when he said, "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."
PE ("punk-eek") has won recognition as being an important part of what has happened. The link above provides several examples in which the fossil record documents punk-eek scenarios.
Computers are not living organisms competing for ecological niches or for mates; they are not subject to mutation and selection.
Correct.
However, ...
Computers are functioning entities which compete for market share and customer loyalty. They are, as well, subject to upgrades and consumer demand.
There are several pictures of actual fossils on the links you've been given already. If you wish to allege fraud in the pages of Scientific American and biology/paleontology generally in the reconstruction of extinct life forms, you should present your evidence.
Are you going to be the evolutionist with the guts to call Bob Enyart at 1-800-8Enyart between 9 and 10 p.m. ET.? Patrick Henry and Jenny P haven't got the guts. Do you? Funny, when Bob debated one of the top experts on evolution, Eugenie Scott, she never brought up the transitional fossil involving the alleged evolution of whales. In fact, she was forced to admit there was no fossils that showed macro evolution. But, if you have the fossil, get you fingers punching in the numbers so we can here you at www.kgov.com.
I like web debating because the creationist "drive-by shooting barrage" tactic doesn't work. (The creationist simply uses his/her half of the time to spout more nonsense than can be refuted in the time allowed.) You should have your buddy Bob log on to FR and present any evidence he has, if he has it.
The web is nice because the refutation of creationist claims is a Yahoo! away. I'll do your silly Gish article just to show you. (And thank you for posting that Young-Earth nut to reveal what sort of nonsense you're trying to make the world safe for.)
A staple of creationist lawyering is the strawman parody of mainstream science it sets up to attack. Dr. Gish and other creationists are perfectly aware of Gould and Punctuated Equilibrium. (They've ecstatically read every publication by Gould, looking for attacks on "neo-Darwinism.") Yet here we see Gish pretending that scientists are still wondering why the fossil record isn't a jumble with no recognizeable sharp divisions at all. Simple, deliberate, studied dishonesty.
What you see in the geologic column in any particular layer is a sample of the species that were well-established (and easily fossilized) in that region when those sediments were being deposited. Now, almost by definition a well-established and widespread species is under very little pressure to change and won't change until things are different.
That things eventually do become different is clear if you step back and look at the larger column. There are lots of skinny little layers, and each one is a separate and distinct period of deposition. In between are periods of no deposition, perhaps even erosion in which some of the record has been eaten away.
I could go on, but read the Punk Eek Page. That is the model Gish most needs to address and which he would rather avoid.
Don't worry, we're just getting started on Dr. Gish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.