By: LARRY SITES Re: Don Ward plagerizes DON WARD to MARTY LEIPZIG on 02-10-95 20:36 re: AN

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

By: LARRY SITES Re: Don Ward plagerizes DON WARD to MARTY LEIPZIG on 02-10-95 20:36 re: ANOTHER EXCUSE DW> While most evolutionists still insist that there are at least a few DW>examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, a growing number DW>question whether the fossil record provides any real evidence of the DW>transformation of one organism into another. Evolutionist Steven M. DW>Stanley concluded that: "The known fossil record fails to document a DW>single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic DW>transition." (_Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, 1979 p. 39) Did he PERSONALLY do the research work to find this quote? Why has he not given his real source credit? Why does he not follow the bibles rules about stealing? He's not the first to follow this pattern of stealing lies and passing them off as his own: Area # 256 ORIGINS *(Talk) 10-08-94 10:26 Message # 678 From : CHRIS NEDIN To : ALL Subj : RE: THE COMPLEAT CREATIO Originally_From: cnedin@geology.adelaide.edu.au Arthur Beile wrote: [about the absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record] > AB> "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic > AB> evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition." Steven > AB> Stanley, `Macroevolution: Pattern and Process' p. 39, W.M. Freeman and > AB> Company, 1979. This is a classic example of the standard literalist creationist ploy of 'quoting out of context'. Sounds pretty damning right? Well it is suppost to. The one thing you are not supposed to do is actually look up the reference (creationists say "well look, we provided the reference", but how many good ol' boys and girls would rush down to their local library to check?). If you do, however, you will see that the quote is not the damning statement it appears to be. Mr. Beile, whether willfully or through ignorance is misleading you. Let's take a look at this quote. Firstly you may think 'what is Stanley up to?' A palaeontologist, writing a book called "Macroevolution - Pattern and Process" and claiming that there is no support for evolution in the fossil record! However a glance at the actual book will show the basic dishonesty that is literal creationism. The quote comes from the introduction to chapter 3 "Diverse Lines of Evidence" - hmm, strange title, perhaps it should have read "Diverse Lines of Non-evidence"? Well, not really. Lets put the quote back into context. The begining of the paragraph starts: "Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very recent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuational model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1) . . . (5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." (p39) Now, compare (5) above with Mr. Beile's quote. Notice the full stop after "morphologic transition" and notice that there is no full stop in the actual quote. Here Mr. Beile is being dishonest, since there is no full stop in tha actual quote and there are 11 words missing. Whether Mr. Beile is being willfully dishonest or wether it is through ignorance (i.e. plaigerizing the quote from a secondary source) I do not know. However, the dishonesty goes beyond that, since it is now clear that the passage is not the stinging inditement of the fossil record that Mr. Beile would have you believe. The passage is merely stating what palaeontologists *HAVE KNOWN FOR DECADES*, that a purely gradualistic approach the evolution is invalid. As Stanley says (and Mr. Beile must have somehow missed), "quantum speciation is a real phenomenon." And, "Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuational model)." What makes it even easier in this case is that palaeontologists, when writing about evolution, will clearly state the problems with the old idea of phyletic gradualism and why it was discarded in favour ofr an improved model. Literalist creationists leap on the statements outlining the problems of phyletic gradualism, ignore the context, and use them as if the palaeontologist was refuting evolution. Chris Larry Sites JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 ___

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank