Certainly. The best example is the one I pointed out about Stephen Gould. Interestingly enough, most of Gould's posts that get misquoted are from the early to mid 1980's. Coincidentally, that is when one of the larger paradigm shifts in evolution was going on, with the debates between Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium(PE) going on in full swing. Gould, was on the side of PE, and was promoting his theory above gradualism. So taking in to account this knowledge, we can look at Gould's statement (along with my prior quote):
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
And there's the whole thing:
2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. In 1871 St. george Mivart, Darwins most congent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of 'the incipient stages of useful structures' - of what possible benifit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, perferred by Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaption, is the principle of preadaption: the intermediary stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, preadapted to a new role they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned 'for' insulation and later 'for' the traping of insect prey, a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaption [note: Gould later replaces this term with 'exadaption' -cn], but the other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, distain or even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed. i do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs, complete in all their complex and intergrated features - a fantasy that would be truely anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating old models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptions. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form prot-jaws? Such a change would scarcely establish the _Bauplan_ of the gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction of agnathan design - the building of a true shoulder girdle with boney, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated modifications. Yet Darwin, conflating gradualism with natural selection as he did so often, wrongly proclaimed that any such discontinuity, even for organs (much less taxa) would destroy his theory: . . .
During the past 30 years, such proposals have generally been treated as a fantasy signifying surrender - an invocation of hopeful monsters rather than a square facing of a difficult issue. But our renewed interest in development, the only discipline of biology that might unify molecular and evolutionary approaches into a coherent science, suggests that such ideas are neither fantastic, utterly contrary to genetic principles, nor untestable.
Goldschmidt conflated two proposals as causes for hopeful monsters - 'systematic mutations' involving the entire genome 9a spinoff from his fallacious belief that the entire genome acted as a single unit), and small mutations with large impact upon adult phenotypes because they work upon the early stages of ontogeny and lead to cascading effects throughout embryology. We reject his first proposal, but the second, eminently plausible, theme might unite a Darwinian insistence upon continuity of genetic change with a macroevolutionary suspicion of phenetic discontinuity. It is, after all, a major focus in the study of heterochrony (effects, often profound, of small changes in developmental rate upon adult phenotypes); it is also implied in the emphasis now being placed upon regulatory genes in the genesis of macroevolutionary change- for regulation is fundamentally about timing in the complex orchestration of development." (Gould, S.J. (1982) Is a new and general theroy of evolution emerging? In:Maynard Smith, J. (ed.), Evolution now A century after Darwin. 129-145. Macmillan Press, London. 239 pp. [Note: First published (1980) Paleobiology, 6: 119-130] p. 140-141).
He's saying that Gradualism is having problems finding intermediary forms within species to explain the smooth transitions between species. Note that this statement does not count out PE, which says that transitionals happen in short bursts, notably when species expand to fill new habitats, which is what Gould is talking about.
So did you dishonestly miscast Gould's quote (and many of the other quotes) to make it look like they were bashing evolution? It sure looks like it to me, although you don't really explain what you are trying to get at with the statement: Some quotes for you... As you can see, most are from scientists. It sounds like you are trying to promote creationism over evolution to me...
Either way, your academic honesty has taken a hit today.
You are proving my point with this. Gould clearly said the absence of transitional forms is a problem. Just because he goes on with an explanation for these missing forms does not make the first point incorrect: GOULD HIMSELF STATES THAT THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS IS A PROBLEM for evolutionists!!
This quote is completely in context, it is the evolutionists that are in a tizzy here, they are upset that the Creationists don't believe the self given answer by Gould as final, instead, they AGREE with Gould, as YOU POSTED WHAT HE SAID, Creationists AGREE with Gould: Transitional forms are missing, and it proves a problem for evolutinists; Just because Gould posts another theory to defend the lack of fossils does not remove his own admission there is a lack of transitional forms!!
THE QUOTE IS ACCURATE!!
I know that. If I remember correctly, Gould supports PE, does he not? Again (for the 3rd time) I never said that he was a creationist or even an anti-evolutionist. I posted the quote because IMO (and in the opinion of others) there is very little evidence of transitional forms... and that is a problem if you want to prove evolution.