But, even if your point is true, (and I am judging by some earlier post a little back on this thread by SJ Gould I think), that he was upset at the quote being used, but the point of the quote the creationist used, the quote is not what was the objection, it was the inference made by creationists through the quote that "AHA! Evolutionists condemn themselves!"
I will read that thread you posted, but I am willing to bet that most of these evolutionists do believe the basic point of the quote used, they just didn't say it to reveal their disbelief in evolution, they said it as a statement of fact concerning evolution, while still defending evolution with the rest of the context of their paragraph where the quote was taken from.
...(off to the link...)
The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. 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? 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?From Evolution as Fact and Theory.. . .
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."