Formation Of New Species Proves Gradual, Not Sudden

UniSci.com ^ | 28 May 2002

[VadeRetro]

Looks like it's Netscape for Bonzo.

Looks like it's Netscape for Bonzo.

[medved]

Consider:

"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."

    Stephen Jay Gould,  Prof of Geology and
    Paleontology, Harvard University
    "Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?"
    Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127

"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when
they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line,
there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight
argument."

    Dr.  Colin Patterson,  Senior Paleontologist,
    British Museum of Natural History, London
    As quoted by:  L. D. Sunderland
    Darwin's Enigma:  Fossils and Other Problems
    4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89

########################################################################

I claim that for those kinds of statements, context is irrelevant. If Gould and patterson didn't want creationists quoting those statements, they should not have made them, period. What the statements bear witness to, is that there are no legitimate intermediate fossils on this Earth, that there is no evidence for macroevolution on this Earth, that most of what you read in the talk.origins FAQ/FGU system is a bunch of BS propaganda, particularly Kathleen Hunt's "Intermediate Fossil FAQ", and that punctuated equilibria is a last ditch desparate attempt to devise a variant of evolutionism which is supported by the lack of evidence which the real world fossil record provides, rather than by evidence.

Oh, by the way... No comments on any of the more recent Gould quotes?? e.g.

Man, the heat in this ###ing place is OPPRESSIVE... anybody ever thoughta tryin to set up an AIRCONDITIONER or anything like that???

[VadeRetro]

"Thus, it becomes apparent from the full context that Patterson was referring to the impossibility of establishing direct lines of descent from fossils, a position fully in keeping with his cladistic outlook. Patterson was not saying there were no fossil transitions, and Sunderland’s medved's attempt to claim otherwise can only be viewed as an effort at deception."

Modified from that Hopkins article.

Note the difference between believing that a tree of common descent exists and knowing for absolute sure where to place a fossil on the tree, given that other fossils are still out there undiscovered.

[steve-b]

Haven't these quotes of yours been shown to be either A) outdated or B) out of context?

Yep.

[medved]

"Thus, it becomes apparent from the full context that Patterson was referring to the impossibility of establishing direct lines of descent from fossils, a position fully in keeping with his cladistic outlook. Patterson was not saying there were no fossil transitions, and Sunderland's medved's attempt to claim otherwise can only be viewed as an effort at deception."

I'll stand on the two quote I noted. The situation is obvious enough; Gould's statement was made at a time when he was less worried about creationists misquoting him and more worried about not being able to publish or discuss results in paleontology because of the dead hand of the evolutionists. Later, having neatly eliminated the problem with the evos by devising his idiotic punk-eek theory, he attempted to show good will towards the evos by lending his hand to damage-control efforts, devising creative ways in which to claim that creationists quoting his earlier statements were liars and miscriants. The normal term for that sort of thing is "double game"...

[jokar]

Bump to mark

[Junior]

It appears Mr. Saturn has abandoned this thread now that his dishonesty has been exposed.

[scripter]

"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London As quoted by: L. D. Sunderland Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems 4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89

I heard about this in early 1993, perhaps earlier. It sounded incredible so I purchased Sunderland's book and sure enough the Patterson quote above was in there. Believing it could be a forgery or a misrepresentation, I looked up a copy of the original.

To do that I went to the library and looked it up using ERIC Document Reproduction Service microfiche, with reference numbers: ED 228 056" and "SE 040 933". Sure enough, there was the complete letter from Patterson with his signature.

The letter was indeed genuine. I don't believe medved is quoting an excerpt from the letter out of context. I printed my own copy but have lost it while moving twice since then. I'll scan it in when I find it.

[VadeRetro]

This is what you need to make go away:

However, when one researcher wrote to Patterson to ask about the much-repeated quote, Patterson responded with yet another example of creationist selective editing: "The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues ‘... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.’ " (Lionel Theunissen, "Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites', 1997) Thus, it becomes apparent from the full context that Patterson was referring to the impossibility of establishing direct lines of descent from fossils, a position fully in keeping with his cladistic outlook. Patterson was not saying there were no fossil transitions, and Sunderland’s attempt to claim otherwise can only be viewed as an effort at deception.

Unless you can show that the text of the letter is other than what Patterson later added to what was publicized already, don't expect much for the letter.

[medved]

Patterson was not saying there were no fossil transitions...

Right. And the pope isn't a catholic and wild bears don't go to the bathroom in the woods.

Here's the statement again:

"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

I say again, for that kind of statement, context is irrelevant. If you don't want to be quoted making a statement like that, you don't make it. The English language is not that big a mystery, and this guy apparently comes from England, where the language was invented. There's nothing complicated about what the man said. He said that there aer no intermediate fossils on this Earth, that there is nothing in the fossil record to support evolution, that Kathleen Hunt is a stupid, brainwashed propagandist, and that anybody who believes Kathleen Hunt's BS and/or any of the other BS on the talk.origins FAQ/FGU system is basically ignorant.

The good news is that ignorance is curable, but only up to a certain age; anybody wishing to get cured needs to get with it...

[VadeRetro]

I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

How do you know if a given fossil had offspring? How do you know a seeming ancestor of birds didn't have a contemporary cousin which was the real ancestor, making the fossil you have a closely related offshoot? You never really know.

But saying that doesn't mean you don't believe in the evolutionary history at all. The history is real. You're saying the fossil record can't tell the story of it perfectly.

Lurkers, if you understand what I just said, watch what medved does on the next thread about a science article.

[scripter]

This is what you need to make go away:

However, when one researcher wrote to Patterson to ask about the much-repeated quote, Patterson responded with yet another example of creationist selective editing: "The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues ‘... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.’ " (Lionel Theunissen, "Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites', 1997) Thus, it becomes apparent from the full context that Patterson was referring to the impossibility of establishing direct lines of descent from fossils, a position fully in keeping with his cladistic outlook. Patterson was not saying there were no fossil transitions, and Sunderland’s attempt to claim otherwise can only be viewed as an effort at deception. Unless you can show that the text of the letter is other than what Patterson later added to what was publicized already, don't expect much for the letter.

I see where you're coming from. I'm not saying this disproves evolution, either, There's even more to the letter that, to me, seems pretty damning. Actually it *appears* your above quotes are out of context compared to the rest of the letter, which I FOUND ON DISK!!!... Here's the letter that I typed myself from a printout. Any typos are mine from a decade ago:

Thanks for your letter of 5th March, and your kind words about the Museum and my book. I held off answering you for a couple of weeks, in case the artwork you mention in your letter should turn up, but it hasn't.

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps not: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job.

Thanks again for writing.

Yours sincerely,

Colin Patterson

Besides that, if Patterson didn't really mean what seems obvious do me, why would Philip Kitcher state the following in a television debate on March 3, 1984:

Dr. Patterson, when he wrote that letter in 1979, he wrote that letter in complete ignorance of the political situation in the USA. He thought that he was writing a letter to a fellow professional scientist.

Obviously Kitcher got the same thing out of the letter I did. The fact that he mentions a "political situation" speaks volumes in bias, and I don't find that objective in the least. In fact it bothers me beyond words, which is one of the reasons I don't believe much of what I hear in regards to evolution. There will always be that "political situation" term floating around in my head.

BTW, I've stated previously to PatrickHenry that if evolution is true a perfect fossil record is not required. Still, comments like the above from Patterson along with reactions like those of Kitcher tell me more than any amount of backpeddleing will tell me.

[VadeRetro]

The tone of that letter, while preserving the sense I expected, is rather more of a concession than I thought. You're right there.

I nevertheless wonder if he would have written the same letter these days, after the Chinese feathered dinos and Pakistani walking/amphibious whales have turned up.

[scripter]

I nevertheless wonder if he would have written the same letter these days, after the Chinese feathered dinos and Pakistani walking/amphibious whales have turned up.

I wish I could answer that...

[Dumb_Ox]

What definition of species is at work here? If we stick to Darwin's redefinition of the word as "a population of individuals" then we have a new species when all such individuals are replaced: every few generations or so. There seems to be a different definition of species in this article. Are we just Platonist-Aristotelians but unwilling to elucidate it?

[SunkenCiv]

---

· Catastrophism ping list · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark ·

---

[SunkenCiv]

A Blast from the Past.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)