Bright promise of paleontology caught in the fog
 

  > "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a
  > means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty
  > difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which
  > is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution
  > requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology
  > does not provide them ..."
  >
David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology) Head Curator, Dept of Geology,
Stoval Museum Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467

Re: Bright promise of paleontology caught in the fog
 

edconrad~shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) wrote in message
news:<3da97866.49605036~news.shenhgts.net>...
     > > "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a
     > > means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty
     > > difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of
     > > which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record.
     > > Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
     > > paleontology does not provide them ..."
     > >
  > David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology) Head Curator, Dept of Geology,
  > Stoval Museum Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467

1974. Pre-Lucy. Is that how far back you have to go to
mine quotes?

Re: Bright promise of paleontology caught in the fog
 

edconrad~shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) wrote in message
news:<3da97866.49605036~news.shenhgts.net>...
     > > "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a
     > > means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty
     > > difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of
     > > which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record.
     > > Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
     > > paleontology does not provide them ..."
     > >
  > David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology) Head Curator, Dept of Geology,
  > Stoval Museum Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467

Gee, Ed, as gen2rev has pointed out many times, Raymond Dart
seemed to think otherwise.

So did Hooton. So did Krogman.

Are there gaps? Sure!

What about the fossils that we DO have?

Re: Bright promise of paleontology caught in the fog
 

edconrad~shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) wrote in message
news:<3da97866.49605036~news.shenhgts.net>...
     > > "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a
     > > means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty
     > > difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of
     > > which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record.
     > > Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
     > > paleontology does not provide them ..."
     > >
  > David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology) Head Curator, Dept of Geology,
  > Stoval Museum Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467

Another one frequently quoted by creationists, Ed.

Or did YOU read it?

What does it say after the ellipses, Ed?

Re: Bright promise of paleontology caught in the fog
 

from 2 seconds googling in talk origins, you should know
better...if you would search as thoroughly in the 'net as
you would do in your coal, you would've found this one in
an instant.

happy digging, mr. conrad.

---
Same old misrepresentations and selective quotes:

========begin quote==========
This comment by the famous Harvard evolutionist Steven J.
Gould when he testified before Judge Overton in the Arkansas
Creation-Evolution trial suggests that the countless
intermediate stages in the evolution of one organism into
another, really are visible in the fossil record as indeed
they should be IF evolution has occurred. This same Dr. Gould,
however, in one of his regular columns in Natural History
magazine (May 1977) said: "The extreme rarity of transitional
forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of
paleontology (study of fossils) -- In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation
of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed."
The paleontologist Dr. David B. Kitts agrees: "Evolution
requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology
does not provide them"(Evolution 28:476). Dr. David Raup, a
paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in
Chicago, recently pointed out that Darwin himself was:
"embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the
way he predicted it would -- different species usually appear
and disappear from the record without showing the transitions
that Darwin postulated -- we are now about 120 years after
Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly
expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species
but the situation hasn't changed much -- We have fewer
examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwins'
time. By this I mean that some some of the classic cases of
Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of
the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or
modified as a result of more detailed information" (Field
Museum Natural History Bulletin 50:22- 29). The evolutionist
Dr. Steven M. Stanley put it bluntly: "The known fossil record
fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution
accomplishing a major morphologic transition -
"(Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979, p.39). No wonder
G.K. Chesterton quipped that folks "seem to know everything
about the missing link except that it IS MISSING."
=====end quote=======

Gould is misrepresented because, as anyone who reads rather
than trolls the literature knows, Gould thinks the fossil
record shows that speciation takes rather less time than
gradualist models assume, and that species migrate into the
area of fossilisation, whicj is why one sees sudden changes in
the rocks.

Kitts is saying the same thing: paleontology is not a record
of simple single location gradual change. It is not a
rebuttal of evolution, as has been said in reply ad nauseum
without effect.

Raup is saying that evolutionary science has more information
now than 150 years ago and can make more detailed models of
evolutionary history than Darwin could - *this* is a rebuttal
of evolution?

And the Stanley quote shows every evidence of being lifted out
of the context of the surrounding discussion. It is not by
itself an admission of anything. What, for example, does
"major morphologic transition" refer to? Many good species
differ significantly only in their behaviour, or plumage, etc,
which do not fossilise. Are these major morphologic
transitions? We need to know what Stanley is actually saying.

IOW, its a furphy. Classic creationist quotes out of context.
There ARE some problems of note in evolutionary theory. This
is because it is a science, and not a revealed religion.
Science learns, adherents of revelation believe they know it
all. There is precious little evidence that revelation leads
to good science, though.
---

"Ed Conrad" <edconrad~shenhgts.net> wrote in message
news:3da97866.49605036~news.shenhgts.net...
  >
     > > "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a
     > > means of
'seeing'
     > > evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for
     > > evolutionists,
the
     > > most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the
     > > fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms
     > > between species and paleontology
does
     > > not provide them ..."
     > >
  > David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology) Head Curator, Dept of Geology,
  > Stoval Museum Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467

Re: Bright promise of paleontology caught in the fog
 

"Rob Janssen" <y1o2o3z4e5r~t1i2s3c4a5l6i.n1l2> wrote:
  >And the Stanley quote shows every evidence of being lifted
  >out of the context of the surrounding discussion.

He's quoting Dr. *Stanley* in opposition to evolution?!?!
One of the founders of the Modern Synthesis??? That takes
massive hubris.

  >It is not by itself an admission of anything. What, for
  >example, does "major morphologic transition" refer to? Many
  >good species differ significantly only in their behaviour, or
  >plumage, etc, which do not fossilise. Are these major
  >morphologic transitions? We need to know what Stanley is
  >actually saying.

Though I think we can take it as read that the quote does not
mean what Ed thinks it means. [I seem to have missed that
quote by Ed - what book is it supposedly from?]

The peace of God be with you.

Stanley Friesen

Re: Bright promise of paleontology caught in the fog
 

Stanley Friesen <sarima~friesen.net> wrote:

  > "Rob Janssen" <y1o2o3z4e5r~t1i2s3c4a5l6i.n1l2> wrote:
     > >And the Stanley quote shows every evidence of being lifted
     > >out of the context of the surrounding discussion.
  >
  > He's quoting Dr. *Stanley* in opposition to evolution?!?!
  > One of the founders of the Modern Synthesis??? That takes
  > massive hubris.

A significant researcher in modern evolutionary biology,
yes. A founder of the Synthesis? I don't think so... not by
about 30 years.
  >
     > >It is not by itself an admission of anything. What, for
     > >example, does "major morphologic transition" refer to? Many
     > >good species differ significantly only in their behaviour,
     > >or plumage, etc, which do not fossilise. Are these major
     > >morphologic transitions? We need to know what Stanley is
     > >actually saying.
  >
  > Though I think we can take it as read that the quote does
  > not mean what Ed thinks it means. [I seem to have missed
  > that quote by Ed - what book is it supposedly from?]
  >
  > The peace of God be with you.
  >
  > Stanley Friesen

--
John Wilkins DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?

Re: Bright promise of paleontology caught in the fog
 

On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 02:49:25 +0000 (UTC), Stanley Friesen
<sarima~friesen.net> wrote:

  >"Rob Janssen" <y1o2o3z4e5r~t1i2s3c4a5l6i.n1l2> wrote:
     >>And the Stanley quote shows every evidence of being lifted
     >>out of the context of the surrounding discussion.
  >
  >He's quoting Dr. *Stanley* in opposition to evolution?!?!
  >One of the founders of the Modern Synthesis??? That takes
  >massive hubris.

Huh? Stanley wasn't born yet. Maybe you are thinking Simpson?

     >>It is not by itself an admission of anything. What, for
     >>example, does "major morphologic transition" refer to? Many
     >>good species differ significantly only in their behaviour,
     >>or plumage, etc, which do not fossilise. Are these major
     >>morphologic transitions? We need to know what Stanley is
     >>actually saying.
  >
  >Though I think we can take it as read that the quote does not
  >mean what Ed thinks it means. [I seem to have missed that
  >quote by Ed - what book is it supposedly from?]

Probably not _Macroevolution_ but the other one. _The New
Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of
Species_. I think that one is the source of most Stanley
quotes. Anyway Stanley really jumped on the PE bandwagon and
said some things that evolution deniers like to quote out of
context. So what? it's history.

Dunk

Re: Bright promise of paleontology caught in the fog
 

pdunkel~paleblue.net (Dunk) wrote:
     >>He's quoting Dr. *Stanley* in opposition to evolution?!?!
     >>One of the founders of the Modern Synthesis??? That takes
     >>massive hubris.
  >
  >Huh? Stanley wasn't born yet. Maybe you are thinking Simpson?

Probably. I sometimes make the common error of mentally
compressing time before I was aware of the world.

He was still a major player in the study of evolution.

     >>Though I think we can take it as read that the quote does
     >>not mean what Ed thinks it means. [I seem to have missed
     >>that quote by Ed - what book is it supposedly from?]
  >
  >Probably not _Macroevolution_ but the other one. _The
  >New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the
  >Origin of Species_. I think that one is the source of
  >most Stanley quotes.

Hmm, then I probably have not read it. I think I read
_Macroevolution_, but not the other.

  > Anyway Stanley really jumped on the PE bandwagon and said
  > some things that evolution deniers like to quote out of
  > context.

Yep, that matches my impression of his work - a general
supporter of PE.

The peace of God be with you.

Stanley Friesen