Creationism - Why it is valid.

To: UTEOTW

Consider this information in regards to Dr. Patterson:

"Those Fossils are a problem!

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
NONE of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

'. .. 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 used to visualise 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 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 of 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 no 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 . . .'


[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]"

taken from: Those Fossils are a problem!

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
NONE of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

'. .. 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 used to visualise 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 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 of 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 no 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 . . .'


[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]"

taken from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3076.asp

 

Let's be very clear about what he is saying. He is saying that there is no way to absolutely say that a given fossil was on the direct lineage of a later species. All he is saying is that you cannot make a "watertight" argument to use his words in the full quote. To use that as as evidence against the fossil record is to do so against the meaning of the author of the quote. I do not see how you can justify cutting a quote down to make it sound something different than what he meant.

You do not have to. You have your opinion and I have mine. Agree to disagree there?

[snip Begley quote]

If you cannot give me a much larger quote, preferably the whole article, to get the context, I don't care. As shown with the other quotes, context makes all the difference and without it, I have no way of knowing what was intended by the author. We do not even know what debate is about.

No, am asserting that to take a quote, cut it down such that it means something completely different that what was intended, and then to pass off this quote as evidence of something and to not give the context is wrong, dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent,... you take your pick. You are not picking quotes and paring them down to only the parts you agree with. You are paring them down until they mean something completely different and then presenting them as honest quotes. You said that you "[are] not going to put in whole pages in my quotes." No, you have the space. You are not going to give the full quotes because it destroys your argument. Your quote mining does not stand up to scrutiny and does nothing to dispute the overwhelming evidence against you.

If Behe had something to offer and submitted it, he would get published. These guys are not published because their ideas do not stand up to scrutiny. If you have a reference to work by any of these guys that could survive peer review and has been censored, let me know. Strange that you reference Behe, since he accepts common descent and you do not.

 

To: UTEOTW

Consider this information in regards to Dr. Patterson:

"Those Fossils are a problem!

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
NONE of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

'. .. 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 used to visualise 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 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 of 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 no 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 . . .'


[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]"

taken from: Those Fossils are a problem!

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
NONE of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

'. .. 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 used to visualise 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 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 of 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 no 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 . . .'


[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]"

taken from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3076.asp

 

To UTEOTW:

Consider this information regarding Dr. Patterson who I quoted:

"Those Fossils are a problem!

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
NONE of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

'. .. 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 used to visualise 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 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 of 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 no 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 . . .'


[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]"

taken from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3076.asp

 

To UTEOTW:

Consider the following information from Dr. Patterson who I quoted earlier:

"Those Fossils are a problem!

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
NONE of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

'. .. 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 used to visualise 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 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 of 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 no 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 . . .'


[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]"

taken from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3076.asp

 

To UTEOTW:

Consider the following information from Dr. Patterson who I quoted earlier:

"Those Fossils are a problem!

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
NONE of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

'. .. 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 used to visualise 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 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 of 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 no 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 . . .'


[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]"

taken from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3076.asp

 

To All:

Consider this information in regards to Dr. Patterson who I quoted earlier:

"Those Fossils are a problem!

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
NONE of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

'. .. 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 used to visualise 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 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 of 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 no 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 . . .'


[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]"

taken from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3076.asp

 

To All:

Consider this information in regards to Dr. Patterson who I quoted earlier:

"Those Fossils are a problem!

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
NONE of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

'. .. 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 used to visualise 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 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 of 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 no 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 . . .'


[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]"

taken from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3076.asp

 

To All:

Consider this information in regards to Dr. Patterson who I quoted earlier:

"Those Fossils are a problem!

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
NONE of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

'. .. 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 used to visualise 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 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 of 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 no 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 . . .'


[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]"

taken from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3076.asp

 

To All:

Consider this information in regards to Dr. Patterson who I quoted earlier:

"Those Fossils are a problem!

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
NONE of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

'. .. 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 used to visualise 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 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 of 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 no 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 . . .'


[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]"

taken from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3076.asp

 

To All:

Consider this information in regards to Dr. Patterson who I quoted earlier:

"Those Fossils are a problem!

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
NONE of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

'. .. 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 used to visualise 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 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 of 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 no 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 . . .'


[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]"

taken from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3076.asp

 

To All:

Consider this information in regards to Dr. Patterson who I quoted earlier:

"Those Fossils are a problem!

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
NONE of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

'. .. 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 used to visualise 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 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 of 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 no 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 . . .'


[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]"

taken from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3076.asp

 

To All:

The system was not cooperating with me. Sorry. It seems to me that UTEOTW is playing the great Houdini. I have no desire to find a "airtight" argument against his evolutionary hypothesis.

The Bible declares "The heart is deceitfully wicked above all things. Who can understand it."

If he wishes to try to shoehorn atheistic dogma into Genesis and pretend its science then that is his choice but I believe it is a bad choice.

Sincerely,

Ken

 

To All:

The system was not cooperating with me. Sorry. It seems to me that UTEOTW is playing the great Houdini. I have no desire to find a "airtight" argument against his evolutionary hypothesis.

The Bible declares "The heart is deceitfully wicked above all things. Who can understand it."

If he wishes to try to shoehorn atheistic dogma into Genesis and pretend its science then that is his choice but I believe it is a bad choice.

Sincerely,

Ken

 

I got caught by the same problem. I think I have seen quite a few multiple posts floating around.

None of what you posted on Patterson changes what was meant by what he said. The statement is that you can not make a "watertight" case for any fossil to be on the direct lineage of any other fossil. If that is your definition of "transitional" then we really do not have anything that can for sure be called transitional. That is what he was saying. But look at the rest of what he said. He said that for "several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types." In that same quote he also said "There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

Nothing you have posted changes things. Patterson made a statement that we can never know for sure whether a given fossil is truely a direct ancestor of another fossil. He also said that there were many examples of fossils intermediate between two types. He choses not to call them transitionals because you cannot know for sure if they were the exact ancestor or a side branch. You selectively (well actually someone else did) edit the quote to make it sound as if there are no known fossil intermediates. That is not an accurate representation of what was being said. It is a misleading quote and should not be used. The ends do not justify the means.

 

Ken

Let me put it to you another way. Do you think that any of these three quotes I am harping about were presented by you in the manner the author intended? Do you think, as quoted, the original meaning is apparent? Do you think that for any of the three quotes, that the meaning changes when the surrounding context is put back into the quote.

If you say the meaning has not been changed, I won't believe you though the reader is free to make up his own mind.

If you say the meaning has changed, then how can you justify using the quotes?

 

TO UTEOTW:

I do not believe for one instant that the evolutionist would like me emphasizing key portions of their public testimony in order to make a point favoring the creationist position. This does not bother me. In a court of law attorneys and judges will cross examine a witness and highlight certain portions of their testimony to show inconsistency. In short, I find that the legal/historical method of discovering truth can shed additional light regarding science issues.

Lastly, I still believe you are shoehorning Darwin into Genesis and it is poor Biblical exegesis and theology. Here is a portion of your testimony that may shed light on my assertion that you are shoehorning "a size 10 foot into a size 8 shoe" so to speak:

"Now, admittedly, I do not know how it all fits together as far as rectifying what I am convinced is the truth from the world of science with what I am convinced is the Truth of the Bible."

I think the above quote from you shows you are forcing a square peg into a round hole.

I also think you deleting out the Newsweek quote (I read the Newsweek article) shows you are engaging in selective perception. You seem to want to ignore the fact that science plays an important role in showing how things happen and the evolutionist are engagaging in heavy duty squabbling amongst themselves on how life/creatures came about and they are not being intellectually honest about it. Here is the quote again:

"So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with more intellectual honesty: the used-car business."
-Sharon Begley, "Science Contra Darwin," Newsweek, April 8, 1985, p. 80.

The reason I dislike debating with evolutionist is they engage in Houdini tactics and try to squirm out of things. I will say, however, that I have not seen you do that as much but I do believe you definitely do it.

To ALL:

At this time I think I will finally and really bow out of the debate because I believe the purpose of debate should be to refine and discover the truth and I do see this debate winding down and I believe the important points have been made already (in my opinion of course).

I do thank the participants of the string I created for their input and I believe there were some excellent contributors.

 

Ken

Why don't we just agree that we don't agree. We have really different viewpoints. As you pointed out above, I do not know what all the answers are, I just know what I think I know. I am not going to convince you that there is anything wrong with the way you are using the quotes and I am not going to change your mind with any type of evidence. With the proper evidence, I think my mind could be changed, but this thread is not providing anything of the sort. I wish the evidence was there, it would make things easier to understand, I just haven't seen it. So why don't we drop it here. If it comes up again somewhere else, we can continue then. I respect you for sticking up for what you believe even if I have some issues with the details. I do wish I could have convinced you that editting quotes until they mean something different is a problem, but you see it differently, so I'll let it go here. I'll see you around the Board and I hope we have cut this off soon enough.

 

UTEOTW and all other macroevolutionists:

I think Ken, Helen, and others within this string have done a great job of offering much scientific evidence in favor of the literal 6-24 day account of creation. They have also done a great job rebutting many of the arguments for the macroevolutionary position. But what I want you all to know is that even if they had been unable to do any of this, MACROEVOLUTION EXPERIENCES FAR TO MANY EXEGETICAL AND HERMENEUTICAL PROBLEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A POSSIBLE MEANS THROUGH WHICH GOD CREATED ALL THAT IS. Because I have already been through many of these problems throughout this string (see any of my posts), I will not rehash everything I have said here, but I will hit the essential highlights that more than prove that macroevolution is an unacceptable understanding of creation if one seeks to be faithful to the Scriptures.

1. The Hebrew use of the word "yom" with numerical qualifiers throughout the creation account. Check any faithful Hebrew exposition of the creation account and it will plainly tell you that anytime the word "yom" appears with a numerical qualifier, it is ALWAYS a reference to a literal, 24 hour day. This is a crippling blow for macroevolution - the only way one could continue to hold to macroevolution in light of such sound exegesis is to ignore the Hebrew Scriptures.

2. The whole idea that dinosaurs became extinct before humans ever existed is biblically impossible. The Scriptures clearly teach that death entered creation through the sins of Adam and Eve (Rom. 5:12). This death and corruption were not confined simply to humans (as some have unsuccessfully attempted to argue on this string), but Paul clearly says that death extended to all of creation (Rom. 8:19-21). To say that dinosaurs existed and became extinct before humans is to say that the Word of God is not historically reliable (a claim which many so-called Christians are comfortable with).

3. The "imago dei" is lost if one accepts macroevolution as truth. Gen. 1:26 clearly states that men were "created" in the "image of God," but if men evolved from apes, where along the way did they pick up this image? Attempts at explaining this objection away by saying that the image of God is only spiritual will not hold water because that still does not answer the question. Even if it were only spiritual, where along the way would apes have begin to become humans "created in God's image?"

These are just three of the numerous problems that could have been mentioned, but they are more than enough evidence to prove that macroevolution simply will not stand under the scrutiny of sound exegesis and solid hermeneutics. When it all comes down, we must place our faith in the Word of God (2 Cor. 5:7). It is my prayer that biblical fidelity will reign supreme in all your lives rather than attempts at making athestic schemes your means of biblical interpretation.

 

Dear Todd:

I agree with your Bible exegesis.

I do think that my debating with the one gentleman could have been more cordial although I think I did a pretty good job of being cordial until a few of the last postings. I give myself a B overall in terms of diplomacy and considering that I used to be a D in my first forays into the internet I can say I am making progress!

I will say, however, that the Patterson quote is far too dependent of a private letter which could be challenged easily and rightfully so. With that in mind I offer the following link instead which is far more substantial in my estimation:

FIVE MUSEUM OFFICIALS SPEAK REGARDING THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS

http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/DarwinsEnigma/DarwinsEnigma_01TheProblem.htm