hercules rockefellar

[leopold]

you sir are a coward.
i gave yoju the chance to prove your allegations against me and all you did was move the request to a locked thread and run for the dark recesses like the cockroach you are.

if i were james i would force you to provide the requested material.

 

[Balerion]

1) Who is Yoju?

2) I doubt James would do that.

 

[James R]

Shouldn't this be a PM?

 

[leopold]

Shouldn't this be a PM?

why?
hercules rockefellar had no qualms about posting the following on the open board:

No, leopold. YOU are the one who has brought up Gould in your usual quote-mining disingenuous out-of-context intellectually dishonest fashion.

hercules knows that if he posts the requested material it will prove he is FULL OF SHIT.
it will prove the ban was indeed unjust.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Ahhh, abuse, and with capital letters, no less. That’s a clever strategy that is sure to work for you. :bravo:

1) Sorbonne said:

It is extraordinary that in the 150 years since Darwin conceived natural selection , every single fossil has confirmed his theory.

2) You said:

not according to steve gould.
you DO know who he is, right?
he, himself, has admitted the fossil record is poor evidence.

3) spidergoat asked you to provide the quotation:

Please supply a quote so I can explain your misunderstanding.

4) You ignored the request.


5) billvon then provided ample examples of how Gould’s quotations are routinely taken out-of-context by creationists.


6) Your response was to obfuscate and put the onus back on billvon to supply information relating to Gould’s interpretations.


7) You then said:

he said the record is poor.
the record he was referring to was the fossil record.

8) James R asked you to provide a reference for the supposed quotation you were referring to.


9) For the second time in a dozen posts you ignored a request for substantiation of a quotation.


10) You then confirmed that you did not know what Gould was thinking even though you were willing to use his quotations (which you wouldn’t substantiate) in your arguments.

leopold:

i have no idea what gould was thinking.

11) At that point I banned you for trolling.
-------------------------

I don’t need to provide any evidence for your disingenuous and intellectually dishonest debating tactics, and your outright trolling. They are demonstrable in every thread in which you troll your evolution denialism. You’ve been doing it for years and, as I said, you’re no longer going to get away with it in my jurisdictions.

 

[leopold]

prove it was taken out of context hercules by posting the article in its entirety.
we'll see just how "intellectually dishonest" i am.

 

[Arioch]

You admitted that you were being intellectually dishonest yourself when you admitted that you have no idea what Gould was thinking.

 

[leopold]

You admitted that you were being intellectually dishonest yourself when you admitted that you have no idea what Gould was thinking.

correct, i do not know what gould was thinking, no one does.
they can assume they know, that's it.
i know what was said in the article in question.

 

[adoucette]

correct, i do not know what gould was thinking, no one does.
they can assume they know, that's it.
i know what was said in the article in question.

That's funny because Jay Gould was a very PROLIFIC writer.

And he is well known for being a STRONG supporter of Natural Selection as the basis for evolution.

And he is well known for not agreeing with Darwin's view that Evolution was a primarily a series of very gradual changes over long periods of time.

Instead he supported a theory of change in Evolution that he called "Punctuated Equilibrium", and when he discussed the fossil record his comments above were likely based on the fact that while the Fossil record doesn't support Darwin's idea of Evolution primarily based on small gradual changes, they do in fact support Evolution via Natural Selection.

In this regard, Gould stated, "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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

 

[leopold]

Instead he supported a theory of change in Evolution that he called "Punctuated Equilibrium", and when he discussed the fossil record his comments above were likely based on the fact that while the Fossil record doesn't support Darwin's idea of Evolution primarily based on small gradual changes, they do in fact support Evolution via Natural Selection.

carefull, i was banned for stating the fossil record doesn't support evolution as it was taught to me.
and THAT was the reason i made the reference to gould, he AGREES it doesn't.

 

[James R]

leopold:

prove it was taken out of context hercules by posting the article in its entirety.
we'll see just how "intellectually dishonest" i am.

You still have not provided a link to the article in question that is supposedly the source of the quotation from Gould that you rely upon.

You introduced the idea of this "article". How about you post the link the article?

Why are you incapable of producing the quotation you rely upon, in its original context?

Seeing as you have chosen to continue to make an issue of this, now I, as a moderator, will continue to make an issue of it.

Provide a link to the article in question. Your next post will be just fine for that.

Thankyou.

 

[AlexG]

Talkorigins.org has a Stephen Gould The Quote Mine Project Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
It's not hard to find.

Here, let me make it easier.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html

 

[adoucette]

carefull, i was banned for stating the fossil record doesn't support evolution as it was taught to me.
and THAT was the reason i made the reference to gould, he AGREES it doesn't.

That's not what Gould said.

He said it doesn't support the concept of gradual changes, but of an Evolutionary concept he called "Punctuated Equilibrium" (see previous link).

So the issue he brought up is not the mechanism of evolutionary change as both Darwin and Gould say it is by Natural Selection.

So you are 100% wrong when you claim that Gould said that the fossil record doesn't support evolution.

 

[Bells]

carefull, i was banned for stating the fossil record doesn't support evolution as it was taught to me.
and THAT was the reason i made the reference to gould, he AGREES it doesn't.

You again fail to grasp what he actually said. From what Arthur quoted:

In this regard, Gould stated, "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."

Your other reference to Gould was a quote mine that was was taken completely out of context by creationists who quote mine and think that science supports their claim. As Gould also comments in the quote above, he finds it infuriating when creationings quote him either on purpose or out of their own stupidity to support what you seem to believe. He actually does not believe as you believe. Quite the contrary.

His statement is clear. Fossil records are "abundant between larger groups". That is the part you missed when you responded to Arthur.

My advice to you, Leo, is to not quote mine and then expect to be taken seriously, especially when what you quote mined was so out of context and at times, complete misrepresentations of what the author actually said. It is completely dishonest and you should know better.

 

[James R]

From the talkorgins quote mine project:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

t is worth observing too that not only were these quotes taken carefully out of context, but that they must have been deliberately done so. After [unearthing the context] I could not find there is [any] way these could have been taken accidentally or in ignorance out of the context.

Several of them turn out to be railing against creationists. More than a few turn out to be making the exact opposite point [than the bare words seem to indicate] and at least one was reporting secondarily on the ideas of others in order to rebut them. Once is a mistake, twice is carelessness, three times could be stupidity, but the sheer volume of these is a deliberately planned campaign of disinformation.​

Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, while neither bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources.

Please check the talkorigins page before posting any more mined quotes from creationist sources, leopold.

In fact, stop relying on creationist sources and try some legitimate science sites instead.

 

[leopold]

You introduced the idea of this "article". How about you post the link the article?

i do not have access to it anymore.
the free web version has went south, apparently permanently.

hercules can provide the requested info for both of us, or is he too intellectually dishonest to do so.

i CAN provide the source, it's from "science", the article title "evolution under fire".

 

[leopold]

His statement is clear. Fossil records are "abundant between larger groups". That is the part you missed when you responded to Arthur.

not according to what was published in "science".

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

From the article:

No one questions that, overall, the record reflects a steady increase in the diversity and complexity of species, with the origin of new species and the extinction of established ones punctuating the passage of time. But the crucial issue is that, for the most part, the fossils do not document a smooth transition from old morphologies to new ones. "For millions of years species remain unchanged in the fossil record," said Stephen Jay Gould, of Harvard, "and they then abruptly disappear, to be replaced by something that is substantially different but clearly related."

The absence of transitional forms between established species has traditionally been explained as a fault of an imperfect record, an argument first advanced by Charles Darwin. The accumulation of sediments and the entrapment and fossilization of animal bones is, at best, a capricious process: as a result, geologists are familiar with the difficulties of reconstructing past events. According to the traditional position, therefore, if sedimentation and fossilization did indeed encapsulate a complete record of prehistory, then it would reveal the postulated transitional organisms. But it isn't and it doesn't.

This ancient lament was intoned by some at the Chicago meeting: "I take a dim view of the fossil record as a source of data," observed Everett Olson, the paleontologist from UCLA. But such views were challenged as being defeatest [sic]. "I'm tired of hearing about the imperfections of the fossil record," said John Sepkoski of the University of Chicago; "I'm more interested in hearing about the imperfections of our questions about the record." "The record is not so woefully incomplete," offered Steven Stanley of Johns Hopkins University; "you can reconstruct long sections by combining data from several areas." Olson confessed himself to be "cheered by such optimism about the fossil record," and he listened receptively to Gould's suggestion that the gaps in the record are more real than apparent. "Certainly the record is poor," admitted Gould, "but the jerkiness you see is not the result of gaps, it is the consequence of the jerky mode of evolutionary change."

[...]

Evolutionary Theory Under Fire - by Roger Lewin


I personally believe that when the average creationist makes such quotes of scientists "admitting there's no evidence for evolution", they haven't really read the original articles, but have just been fooled by dishonest editing/quote-mining from creationist authors.

 

[Bells]

not according to what was published in "science".

Which you cannot provide the actual source to. You are able to provide a quote, completely taken out of context and misinterpreted and you are claiming this as fact.

I repeat:

"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."​

Are you now claiming he is wrong because something you quote-mined tells you so?

Can you provide the link to the source where you quote-mined it?

 

[leopold]

From the article:



Evolutionary Theory Under Fire - by Roger Lewin


I personally believe that when the average creationist makes such quotes of scientists "admitting there's no evidence for evolution", they haven't really read the original articles, but have just been fooled by dishonest editing/quote-mining from creationist authors.

the article goes on to say that goulds statement about "punctuated equilibrium" is mostly his opinion, not supported by any evidence.

also keep in mind that the fossil record is/ was so poor that it REQUIRED a revision such as gould proposed.