"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)
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?