Are creationists purposely misquoting evolutionists?

Bob,

I do think that this hurts your case. Patterson's remarks were (he said specifically) concerned with systematics. To generalize and say that even this evolutionist doesn't hold evolution in high regard is to take the statement out of context. In response Patterson in as much alluded to the fact that he was misrepresented - although he was honest enough to admit to the remark and to admit to the given degree of uncertainty which surrounds all scientific theory.

If one does not believe evolution the fine. Just rest on the authority of the Bible.

But these "apologist" methods which include misrepresenting quotes and generating nonsense explanation dressed up in scientific words are not good!!!

 

My argument is that this should be the PERFECT example of the test case that explodes my own position to bits.

UTEOTW brings this up as the perfect example - I have even started a thread JUST dealing with this one golden example that should by all rights be the perfect poster child for UTEOTW's point -- if she can not make it here - she shows the true transparent failing of her methods.

Is that supposed to suffice as if it is a "quote from me"?? If not - who are you quoting that is saying "Evolutionists do not hold evolution in high regard".

Remember "making stuff up" is not a form of "data" no matter how much evolutionists "prefer" that model of integrity.

And if EVER there was a time when the case can be made for just how those stinking christians do that very thing it MUST be with this case and the Patterson Quote where UTEOTW zeros in saying that THIS case here is the one applying directly to me and my quote of Patterson!

What more perfect scenario could you ask to make that case?? I ask that the case "now be MADE" instead of continually "asserting" that the case WAS made without actually providing DETAILS -- so I even provide a thread dedicated to it!

Comon friends of evolutionism - step up to the plate SURELY this is one place you can step up, be counted and make your case "in details" not just vagaries. :thumbs:

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well, we now have Bob on record as saying that the meaning of a quote should not change when you look at the larger context. So let's go back and take a look at some of his favorite material. This will require several posts, so I apolgize in advance for the string of posts.

Let's first get into the record just what Bob has posted since he earlier complainded that I was just repeating the quotes without his comments on them.

We saw begin this back on the 7th page of the thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=784214&postcount=66

And in the next post

Later we hear Bob speak of "the fraudulent, failed, debunked horse series that now stands fully and blatantly discredited EVEN by Atheist darwinists that CONTINUE to believe in evolutionism."

And

and

 

Now it is time to start filling in the details to show how Bob has misunderstood and misrepresented the Simpson quote.

But first we need a few more quotes. The first, Bob himself was kind enough to give us on a different thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=437725&postcount=1

And of course we need the whole quote itself.

 

As already stated - on the previous page - UTEOTW would do well to make good on this accusation befor engaging in further "bait and switch".

I have therefore provided an entire Thread for UTEOW to "finally show SUBSTANCE" on at least one of the railing accusations she has attempted so far.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Now, we have enough information to judge the varacity of the quote as presented.

It is a fairly simple manner to read through Bob's comments of the quote to see what it is that he claims about the quote.

(From my perspective, I find that Bob's opinions of the quote seem to have changed through the years. At one time, it seemed to me that he presented the quote as being a straight "admission" that horses did not evolve. Lately, he has tried a more subtle approach where he instead says that the quote is an admission that the original horse series "never happened.")

Bob basically asserts that before the time of Simpson, that there there was a fraudulent horse series passed off as true. Look at some of the words that he specifically uses. In the first post, Bob asks "did someon [sic] ARRANGE a set of fossils and then SHOW THEM to the worldAS IF such a smooth orthogenic transitional sequence had actually been found IN the fossil record just as was fraudulently presented!"

Bob shortly thereafter says

"Answer - it was ARRANGED in fossil order sequence and then published AS IF that arrangement had actually been found IN THAT SEQUENCE in the fossil record! When in fact - it had not!"

So what Bob is claiming is that fossils were fraudulently put into an order in which they did not occur in the fossil record, that this was done on purpose, and that Simpson is admitting as much.

That simply is not so.

Now if Simpson has said that "The transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus never happened in nature," Bob might have had a case to be made if the rest of the context still supported such a statement. But there are two key words in there.

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus ... never happened in nature."

Those words, "uniform" and "continuous," are the key to understanding the passage.

Bob's assertion that the fossils that comprised the early series were not found in the order in which they are presented is patently false. Stratiography strongly supports the horse series as it was arranged then and today.

Here is an image, from a creationist site no less, that shows the modern tree and when and where the specimens lived. It shows that assertions that are often made, such as the fossils were not found in the right order or that the actual line was from fossils from the world over (one that Bob has also made in the past), just are not true.

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/images/MacFadden.gif

The fossil horse from before Simpson's time were in the correct order, just there were few of them. The limited number of fossils led to an incorrect assumption of monophyletic evolution. Also called orthogenetic. This is where evolution happens in a straight line, with little or no branching, and at a fairly stead pace.

By Simpsons time, enough fossils had been discovered to show that the actual pattern was phyletic, or highly branching. Hence the quote from Simpson that "[h]orse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations." And the statement that the "line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution"

All of these together show us that Simpson was pointing out that horse evolution was not "uniform" and "continuous" as had been previously thought. He was not at all suggesting that there was somehting fundementally wrong with the old horse series. Just that the mode and tempo of change was misunderstood because the record was not complete at the time.

The starting and endpoints were correct even in the original series. The known fossils in the original series were even in the right order, contrary to Bob's claims. They just didn't have all of the data. And as that data came in, nothing about the horse series changed except the pace of change and the depth of knowledge.

Now these are my assertions about the quote. Look at the full quote in context to see if it fits.

Look at the sentence immediately preceding Bob's quote. "The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic." Sound familiar?

Look at the sentences immediately after Bob's quote. "Increases in size, for instance, did not occur at all during the first third of the whole history of the family. Then it occurred quite irregularly, at different rates and to different degrees in a number of different lines of descent. Even after a trend toward larger size had started it was reversed in several groups of horses which became smaller instead of larger." Notice that Simpson is not saying anything about fraud or about the fossils being in the wrong order or about mistakes that were made. He instead is discussing how the horse fossil record was anything but a "uniform continmuous transformation."

He uses the reduction of the toes as an example of another jerky transition in the horses.

He then says. "In the history of the horse family there is no known trend that affected the whole family. Moreover, in any one of the numerous different lines of descent there is no known trend that continued uniformly in the same direction and at the same rate throughout. Trends do not really have to act that way: there are not really orthogenetic."

Again, we see that it is the pace of change that Simpson is addressing. There is nothing of the sort that Bob alledges.

Simpson finally concludes that the evolution of the horse "is still a classic example of evolution in action."

Now, I have made a well reasoned case that the message that Bob presents about the quote is not one that is grounded in either fact nor in the context of the quote.

If Bob really thinks that he is presenting the quote accurately, then he should be able to show that I am mistating that quotes that I use to support my assertions. He should be able to show from the wider context that his interpretation is the more reasonable. And he should be able to show that the facts of nature agree with his assertions. (For example, he could show documented evidence that the horse fossils were really found way out of order.)

 

And for his other favorite quote on this thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=784217&postcount=67

Bob refers to this quote later.

and again

and again

 

Once again, I think that this quote requires a little more quoting to be understood properly.

First, the Gould quote I have been presenting in response in a longer form.

Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

And the full quote.

 

you are correct "NOW it is time to SHOW how Bob has misrepresented the Simpson quote" Since Bob gave that quote EXACTLY and since NO CONTEXT expansion so far has been able to show Bob's quote to be a misquote in the least!

And then of course - there is the Patterson quote still waiting for you to support your wild accusations.

It is time to

 

So let's get on with it.

I think that it is important from the very beginning to look at the title from which Bob's quote comes. "Life's Erratic Pace."

This becomes important as you start to look at what Gould was discussing. A whole paragraph from Gould is telling.

And this, too.

So Gould is discussing "life's erratic pace." Look at the quotes again. Gould talks about how "evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Now let's think about this.

In biology, speciation is generally defined as the branching where a new species is born. Look at what Gould says. We have data from the "nodes of the branches." He also says that we have data from the "tips." The tips would be extant species, or at least known species. Put it together and what do you get?

Gould is discussing how it is that we have the larger transitions but are genrally lacking the smaller transitions. If he says that we have down to the "nodes of the branches, " that we have the tips and that we must "infere" what is in between, what does he mean? He means that genrally we are lacking the information about how an individual species changes with time and changes between species. He is saying that we genrally have good data for larger changes. To repeat in GOuld's own words, "[t]ransitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

The quote that Bob lifted is from a writing describing just this phenomenon. Gould and Eldredge proposed punctuate equilibrium to explain just why this should be the case. In their theoru, most evolutionary change happens in relatively small populations over geologically short periods of time.

Now a common distortion of adherents of YEism is to say that PE was proposed to explain a lack of data. Nothing could be less true. If you go back to the early 1970's when they first proposed the theory, their paper outlined specific examples of where such change can be seen in the fossil record.

So what Gould was saying is seen in the fossil record with "extreme rarity" is transitions within species or between two species. Gould says that transitional forms are "abundant between larger groups."

It is important to note that most adherents of YEism will only allow "microevolution." This is exactly the kind of change that Gould notes is "extremely [rare]." The change giving rise to new genera, families, classes, orders, kingdoms and phyla, which YEers would deny as possible, Gould says is "abundant."

So, similar to what we saw with Simpson, GOuld is arguing against the idea of gradual change only. He says that "n fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record." Contrary to the expectations of YEers.

Again, I have laid out a good case that shows that Gould was speaking only of changes withing species, between the "nodes" and the "tips," when he says that the fossil record is rare. I have used quotes from the wider context and from other GOuld writings. If Bob wants to insist that he was right when he asserted that Gould was saying that transitionals in general are rare, then he should be able to show where I am mistating the opinion of Gould in my larger quoting. He should be able to show, using a broader context, where Gould actually thinks as Bob has asserted. And he should be able to show from the facts where transitionals at all levels are in fact missing.

What will we get instead.

Bob will respond. No doubt about that. There will be repeats of quotes with lot's of bolding. There will be phrases with quotation marks around them. In some cases he may be actually quoting someone and in some cases he will just be randomly inserting quotation marks. Very hard to tell which is which. There will be a lot of random words in all CAPS. The word "salient" will be in there somewhere. I'd guess he will keep misstating my gender. There will be a bunch of posts in a row, as well. Some will be repeats. Some may even be nothing more than quotes of what he said in a post one or two above the one in question.

But what you will not see is a detailed accounting as I have given showing where he preserved the original intent and opinion of those he quoted. You will not see long quotes to give you all of the context. You will not see links, as I gave in one case above, to where the entire original article can be read.

And, since I have done such detailed anaylsis with Bob in the past to no avail, you will continue to see him use these quotes in the future. He has been exposed but he has deluded himself into thinking that the quotes are valid. We all know better, now.

 

That is a pretty facinating "perspective".

In the link YOU GIVE to the 2002 discussion - you will find that THERE I continue the SAME approach I have used here - stating EXPLICITLY that WHILE these atheist darwinsts are REMAINING atheist darwinists - true devotees to the cult of evolutionism - YET they can be seen to expose key blunders in the history of evolutionism - by making some of the same claims "in FACT" that you see in the salient points of the Bible believing Christians opposing the fallacious "story telling instances" of evolutionism.

Here is case where I show that I am taking this position "consitently" in that August 2002 thread that UTEOTW has posted here for reference.

Here we have one of my old Aug 2002 complaints about UTEOTW's transparent tactics used THEN just as they are here!

 

I made some predictions about the response.

Let's see.

1. Repeats of previous quotes? Check.

2. Lot's of bolding? Check.

3. Seemingly random quotation marks? Check.

4. Semmingly random use of all CAPS? Check.

5. Use of the word "salient?" Check.

6. Still misstating my gender? No mention.

7. Several posts in a row? It must have been late. I still bet we'll se them.

8. Repeats of previous posts? Check.

9. No detailed acounting of how my reasoning is wrong and how Bob was really the one who better preserved the original intent and opinion of the authors? CHECK!

The question was whether the quotes were valid.

I made a detailed response to two quotes. I used the wider context of the material where the quotes came from. I used the context of other writings by the same author. And I supported the interpretation using the general state of the science in that area.

I built a case that shows from multiple lines of reasoning that mine is the correct interpretation of the quotes.

Simpson was saying ONLY that the horse sequence was not "uniform continuous" change, that is it was not orthogenetic. He never said anything about the change not happened or the sequence being wrong or the fossils being out of order.

Gould was saying only that records of change at the level of change between or within species is rare. He, and science, says that larger changes, those denied by YEism, are "abundant."

Bob will not be able to make a strong case that I am the one misrepresenting the opinions of these two, for I represent them correctly.

Thus, by definition and default, Bob has misquoted and misrepresented the quotes he gave. He will continue to twist in the wind on this. He is the master of obfuscation. But he will never be able to make a case that he is the one who preserved the original intent and opinion of the authors rather than me.

 

Since UTEOTW seems to insist that we NOT look at her wild claims using Patterson on this thread any more -- Let's note the obvious in what she has admitted to - vs the actual facts.

Fraudulent story History: summarized –

Original myth:

Atheist Darwinists started with the ancient tree-dwelling Hyrax (similar to the current tree dwelling Hyrax closer than the way a Wolf is similar to a Shetland Sheep Dog) and end up with the modern day Horse after showing straightline smooth orthogenic transition after transition.

Hyrax – (Magic)- A-(Magic)-B-(Magic)-C-(Magic)-D-(Magic)…-Modern Horse

In the initial mythical lie presented “As if fact” each of the “magic goes here” boxes are comprised of an unknown number of generations.

(Bible Believing Christian scientists of course denied that the fossil record ever showed such transitions taking place in nature – Obviously. They claimed this was all just “story telling” within the cult of atheist Darwinist believing “faithful”)

Of this contrivance – somewhat honest atheist evolutionists now say

“Never Happened in Nature”
“Fewer examples today of evol transition than in Darwin’ day – for example (the initial) Horse series Had to be totally discarded”
“Lamentable”

Bob observes – the obvious

 

UTEOTW by contrast “clings to the failed horse series anyway” claiming that NOT only are all the individuals related – BUT they are in the exact ancestral line and order as initially contrived with the only difference being that the “magic” goes here boxes have MORE individuals and more changes IN The “magic” than first “imagined”. But of course that sad desperate fallacy of UTEOTW’s ignores the obvious fact that even in the initial failed series they did not say how many generations occur between A-and-B.

Here we see UTEOTW in what is perhaps the saddest “believe anyway” statements that any cult member could be expected to utter –

So “ALL WRONG” (as evaluated by atheist Darwinists themselves) gets transposed by UTEOTW into “Nothing fundamentally wrong with”.[/

“Had to be Discarded” (as evaluated by atheist Darwinists themselves) gets transposed by UTEOTW into “Nothing changed but the pace…”.

“Never happened” (as evaluated by atheist Darwinists themselves) gets transposed by UTEOTW into “Fossils in the right order..”.

Truly that “is Lamentable”

 

There comes the string of posts.

Remember what I did. I used the broader context of the work which you quoted and other writings by the same author to show that I was the one accurately representing his original intent and opinion. I also used the broader science around the issue to show as much.

As predicted, you are unable to do the same. Having failed to be able to use the author to show that you are the one correctly portraying his intent, you are off quoting others out of context to prop up your original misquote. We have already shown that you misquoted Gould and Simpson. Why should we believe that your other quotes trying to support your original misquotes are any more valid?

Be a man, step up to the plate and show that you correctly portrayed the original intent of those you quoted.

 

If you want to say that the fossils were in the wrong order, instead of dragging quotes out of context, why don't you tell us what order they put the fossils in originally, how that was wrong and how you know it is wrong.

Use some actual science and some actual references.

Surely you have not just been blowing smoke all these years?

 

It would be nice if you would actually read all the way through my posts before responding, too.

I have now posted three times that you are misstating my gender and yet you continue to do so.

Please read the whole posts before you respond.

 

And before you go off calling [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hyracotherium a hyrax too much more, let's return some some pictures.

Here is a Hyracotherium



And here is a hyrax



Do these look like the same animal to you? They don't to me. Yet I have posted these same images for you repeatedly.

And just like the refuted quotes that reappear, the refuted claims reappear too.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

You dig your credibility a deeper and deeper hole. Any reader can easily see the difference and would have been able to do so all the other times I have posted these images for you. Yet you ignore the inconvenient facts for your fantasy world.
[/FONT]

 

Since some would argue for taking larger chunks of Simpson’s position and dissecting them – here is one. *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

#1. The uniform continuous transformation from start to end SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence NEVER happened in nature.
#2. The Gradual reduction of side toes SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence NEVER happened.
#3. The Single line of descent (with many generations between each line node admittedly) NEVER happened.
#4. Individuals often “RETAINED their foot with NO FURTHER CHANGES” – unlike the fraudulent sequence “Story”.
#5. The TRENDS affecting the whole horse family as SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence – DO NOT HAPPEN! In fact “No known trend affected the WHOLE horse family”
#6. THE NEW improved “story” is still accepted as “an example” of evolution but the old discredited debunked story “IS NOT”!!

By contrast some devotees to the cult of evolutionism STILL CLING to the old story to this very day AT LEAST in this form –

Sad but true!

 

And after comparing the ancient tree dwelling Hyrax to the modern tree dwelling hyrax - we go on to compare the wolf skeleton to that of the modern Shetland Sheep dog!