The Quote Mine Project
Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
"Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny"
by the talk.origins newsgroupCopyright © 2003
"It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms." (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)
[T]his is on a par with "crimes are not all observed - film at eleven".
- John Wilkins
"It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms. A direct method of tracing phylogenies has been to trace a series of fossils that resemble each other but show a sequence of changes leading through time from an ancestral to a descendant form. Relationships among the fossils are thus judged by their relative ages and their morphological resemblances and differences. This works well when abundant fossils are available in a continuous record, but unfortunately the fossil record is quite incomplete. Most animals have no easily fossilizable hard parts, and only a small fraction of animals with shells or bones are actually preserved as fossils. For most lineages we have to employ more indirect methods of phylogenetic reconstruction."
- Mike Dunford
"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)
Preceding paragraph ....
"Contrary to Creationist claims, the transitions among vertebrate species are almost all documented to a greater or lesser extent. Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds; the therapsids provide an abundance of evidence for the transition from reptiles to mammals. Moreover, there are exquisite fossil links between the crossopterygian fishes and the amphibians (the icthyostegids). Of course, many other ancestor-descendent series also exist in the fossil record. I have mentioned (Chapter 4) the bactritid-ammonoid transition, the derivation of several mammalian orders from condylarthlike mammals, the evolution of horses, and of course the hominids."
... (quoted sentences) .....
Following sentences ....
"But in view of the rapid pace evolution can take, and the extreme incompleteness of fossil deposits, we are fortunate to have as many transitions as we do. The creationist argument that if evolution were true we should have an abundance of intermediate fossils is built by denying the richness of paleontological collections, by denying the transitional series that exist, and by distorting, or misunderstanding, the genetical theory of evolution."
- Laurence A. Moran, John Wilkins and Sverker Johansson
"There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life. There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon." (Niles Eldredge)
[S]ee Eldredge's discussion of this diversification in chapter 2 of Life Pulse, where he apparently sees no insurmountable difficulties.
- John Wilkins
According to The IDEA Club Fossil Record Quote Collection the citation is Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p 45
- Floyd
Darwin's Enigma is a rather infamous creationist book. I have a copy though I have not read it yet. I looked at page 45 and what Eldredge is talking about, if it was not already obvious, is the Cambrian explosion. He is basically saying something quite real happened in it and it is not a mere artifact of an imperfect fossil record.
Of course evolution deniers try to paint this event as something that disproves evolution which is rather silly if you think about it. Since they have this false idea that the Cambrian explosion is somehow something that evolutionary biology cannot handle they gather quotes from various people who correctly state that there really was such an event.
In any event Eldredge was not very happy with how Sunderland handled his interview with him and other paleontologists and ranted on how his views were distorted in both his The Monkey Business and The Triumph of Evolution.
. . . [T]here is no context in the form of complete text of what Eldredge said. Sutherland did not provide transcripts of the interviews he conducted but rather simply quote mined them to support what he wanted to conclude.
The best way to attack this one is ask "so what?" The reasons why there was a Cambrian explosion is a mystery. The quote does reflect what Eldredge thinks. He thinks there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Of course Sutherland wants us to think that this is an unsolvable problem for evolution when there are many possible solutions that have been proposed. That is the fallacy. Just because there is a mystery (why a Cambrian explosion) it does not follow that evolution must be wrong.
As I have said, the scientists interviewed did rant on what Sutherland wrote, but without transcripts of the interviews one will have a hard time "proving" anything. (If the full text of the interviews are available I am sure someone will correct me.) Without the full text of those interviews then our answer to the quote miners should be that unless a full transcripts are published, they are presenting quotes with unverifiable context.
- Mike Hopkins
"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)
[S]ee Eldredge's Life Pulse for an extended discussion and the original [punctuated equilibrium] paper.
-John Wilkins
But later on the same page is found:
There is an alternative, however. Perhaps the fossil record is not so hopeless, and the observation of no change within species and sudden replacement between them reflects evolution as it actually occurs. Recall Chapter 26: Large, successful, central populations are resistant to evolutionary change. Small, isolated, marginal populations may speciate. The process of speciation, though slow to a human observer (hundreds or thousands of years), is geologically fleeting. In most geological situations, and at most rates of sedimentation, a thousand years translates into a single bedding plane, not a thick sequence of rock. Thus, if speciation is the dominate mode of evolution, we should expect to see exactly what we do see: the unchanging species represents a successful central population; its sudden replacement by a descendent records the migration into the ancestral area of a descendant that arose rapidly in a small population at the edge of the ancestor's geographical range. Thus, it is possible that most evolution occurs in the mode of speciation and that phyletic evolution is relatively unimportant.
So we see that Gould et al. don't reject evolution, but claim that phyletic evolution takes a second seat to speciation.
- Jon (Augray) Barber
"It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180)
[S]ee Eldredge and Cracraft's Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process, 117:
"The dearth of examples of continuous change within lineages, including change within segments designated as nominal species. in the fossil record has been recognized since Darwin's day... Adherents to the neo-Darwinian theory of transformational speciation resort to the ad hoc hypothesis that the fossil record is too poor to reflect adequately this mode of evolution. And there is little reason to doubt that the fossil record is indeed spotty."
They then argue that this is a real effect caused by a different mode of evolution than the one proposed by neo-Darwinian paleontologists; i.e., [punctuated equilibrium]...
- John Wilkins
This is an incomplete citation for Joel Cracraft's article. . Clearly the quote mine that the poster copied from copied from yet another source since it seems unaware that the quote is an article in a book: Scientists Confront Creationism edited by Laurie R. Godfrey.
Needless to say this is a misquote. "It" should not be capitalized as it is not the start of the sentence. A delicious irony of this misquote is that the context of the quote is about creationist misquoting! Lets provide the context:
In using selected quotations of paleontologists to buttress their own position, creationists have unwittingly entered one the most controversy theoretical and methodological debates in contemporary paleontological systematics. Inasmuch as this debate in has ensued for over a decade in the scientific literature, it is surprising that the creationists have not mentioned its existence (either the creationists are unfamiliar with the scientific literature or they have failed to understand the importance of that literature or they have simply chosen to ignore the problem and adopt a strategy that promotes their theological, not scientific position). The debate centers on the scientific methods used to postulate and test hypotheses of ancestral-decendant relationship. Traditionally, paleontologists, including most quoted by the creationists, have had a conviction that the stratigraphic position of the fossil taxa is a primary criterion with which to postulate ancestral-descendant relationships, whereas recent critics of this methododology have stressed the importance of a critical analysis of morphological characteristics ([deleted references]). If the stratigraphic position of a fossil [p. 179 | p. 180] is an important criterion for recognizing it as an ancestor, it should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position. There is no doubt the reason for many of the quotes cited by the creationists about the prevalence of gaps, but other citations or distortions, tailored to suit the creationists' own purposes. For example, in 1972 Schaeffer, Hecht, and Eldredge published an influential paper in which they were critical of paleotological methodology about the construction of ancestral-descendant hypotheses. In support of his argument that there are no transitional forms, Gish (1979, p. 169) quoted from a review of that paper:
Three paleontologists (no less) conclude that stratigraphic position is totally irrelevant to determination of phylogeny and almost say that no known taxon is derived from any other.
[Van Valen 1973, p. 488]
Although the Van Valen quote gives the appearance of support for Gish's argument against transitions, a reading of Schaeffer et al. (1972) shows that Van Valen is overstating their position. They clearly do not believe that stratigraphy is "totally irrelevant" for examining ancestral-descendant hypotheses nor do they deny the possibility of identifying ancestral species. Rather than engage in a critical analysis of the scientific issues raised by Schaeffer et al., Gish prefers to use Van Valen's statement in a highly biased manner. Gish's unfamiliarity with the scientific literature adds irony to this example: Van Valen, perhaps more than any other contemporary palentologist, has postulated innumerable phylogenetic connections among fossil taxa and thus offers the poorest support for Gish's viewpoint of anyone he could have misquoted.
The citation from above as listed in the "References Cited" section are:
If the poster really does have "photocopies of the original works", he should be able to tell us what book this article is in. I challenge him to do so. I have the book, and it isn't called "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism". But on to the quote.
Starting at the end of page 179, and into 180:
If the stratigraphic position of a fossil is an important criterion for recognizing it as an ancestor, it should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position. This is no doubt the reason for many of the quotes cited by the creationists about the prevalence of gaps, but other citations are distortions, tailored to suit the creationists own purposes.
Ironic, ain't it? And on page 182:
But the use of quotations is not an appropriate way to decide scientific issues, and if one examines the fossil record objectively, there is no doubt that intermediate taxa - mosaics of primitive and derived characters - exist for many major groups.
- Jon (Augray) Barber
"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)
The view expressed here is that of G G Simpson's argument for variable rates of evolution. They continue in the next paragraph:
"Theory led Simpson to conclude that the gaps between higher taxa [than between species - JSW] must reflect unusually high rates of evolutionary change."
- John Wilkins
This is an exceptionally dishonest bit of quote-mining, since it implies that the view being expressed is Eldredge's own. It is not, in any way, shape, or form. What it is is Eldredge's synopsis of Simpson's views. This is clear if the entire paragraph is read:
"Simpson suggested -- as had Dobzhansky (1941) briefly before him; indeed, the theme goes back to Darwin -- that the gaps perceived between low-level taxonomic groups such as species and genera almost always reflect the artifact of such geologically induced gaps. But, he went on, gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record. Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlocking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."
- Mike Dunford
[Commenting on the above]
But even then - Simpson hardly intended to deny evolution either, as he, also was a major evolutionary scientist (very major). So the Creationist quote-mining is doubly bad - misquoting a summary of an opinion to make the opinion seem the opposite of what it was.
- Stanley Friesen
"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)
"It is true that the fossil record of species is much poorer than the record of higher taxa... The techniques that will be described in the following chapters are aimed at circumventing problems traditionally associated with the enumeration and biostratigraphic evaluation of fossil species. These techniques provide a highly imperfect quantitative picture of species and speciation, yet their application yields provocative inferences." Stanley, S. M. Macroevolution 1979, 1998, p. 8
- John Wilkins
A more complete quote would be:
Superb fossil data have recently been gathered from deposits of early Cenozoic Age in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming. These deposits represent the first part of the Eocene Epoch, a critical interval when many types of modern mammals came into being. The Bighorn Basin, in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains, received large volumes of sediment from the Rockies when they were being uplifted, early in the Age of Mammals. In its remarkable degree of completeness, the fossil record here for the Early Eocene is unmatched by contemporary deposits exposed elsewhere in the world. The deposits of the Bighorn Basin provide a nearly continuous local depositional record for this interval, which lasted some five million years. It used to be assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together in such a way as to illustrate continuous evolution. Careful collecting has now shown otherwise. Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time. David M. Schankler has recently gathered data for about eighty mammal species that are known from more than two stratigraphic levels in the Bighorn Basin. Very few of these species existed for less than half a million years, and their average duration was greater than a million years.
So we see that Stanley wasn't talking about the fossil record in general, but the fossil record in the Bighorn Basin.
- Jon (Augray) Barber
"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny." (Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
This one was fairly hard to track down. The author's name was misspelled, and it was miscited. The full and correct citation is:
Forey, P. L., (1982) "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stories". in Joysey, K.A. and Friday, A.E (eds) Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Systematics Association Special Volume 21. London, Academic Press.
- Mike Dunford
Would it suprise anyone that it is out of context? I thought not.
It was from controversies that surrounded the rise of cladism. A cladistics purist does not look for ancestors since cladograms do not indicate them. Cladistics is certainly something we could use an FAQ for. Let me error on a too long of a passage.
Abstract: The arguments between the two schools of phylogeny reconstruction -- cladistics and evolutionary taxonomy -- are most obvious in the comparison of cladograms and trees. Cladograms are the province of neontological analysis whereas trees have become the province of palaeontological synthesis. Both schools start with the premise that life is organized in a pattern but here the agreement ends. Cladograms are simple constructs, independent of evolutionary theory and are concerned with discovering groups. Trees are complicated statements of characters, the justification of which is to be found in evolutionary theory, and are consequently one step further removed from reality. Palaeontology has adapted a special role in the construction of trees and has attempted to vindicate what Darwin saw as one of the major objections to his theory of evolution. In this chapter several trees are examined and one is to be intricately linked with a higher level of abstractions, the scenario.
INTRODUCTION
Our present theories of phylogeny reconstruction fall into two schools, phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) and evolutionary systematics (eclecticism, traditional systematics/taxonomy, evolutionary taxonomy.[1]* Dialogue between the two has been, at best, rhetorical and at worst polemical. To some people, including myself, reconciliation between them seems as far off now as it did [p 119|p120] fifteen years ago, the publication date of an English translation of Hennig's own manuscript revision (1960) of his book (1950) "Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematics". Hennig's (1966) book provided an analytical method for reconstructing phylogeny and the method is based on neontological data. Fossils are not introduced until the last quarter of his book and when they are, they are dealt with in an untraditional fashion (see also Hennig 1965). Hennig's ideas were quickly adopted by other entomologists (e.g. Brundin 1966, 1969; Dupuis 1979 gives a good account of the spread of cladism) and by those vertebrate zoologists faced with the problems of reconstructing phylogenies in groups with very large numbers of Recent species and complex classifications (Nelson 1962a).
Palaeontologists were, on the other hand, largely unreceptive to Hennig's book and preferred to stand by the synthetic[2] approach as outlined by Simpson (1961) and Mayr (1969). In the euphoria of centenary celebrations commemorating the publication of "The Origin" Newell (1959, p. 275) wrote
Thus, hyothetical phylogenies bases solely on living genera and species cannot express the true relationships. In order to understand the ancestry of, and connections between living genera and families it is necessary to know the fossil record (my italics).
To know the fossil record means to find "numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group" (Darwin 1859) Palaeontologists took the opportunity to vindicate Darwin who though that the absence of intermediates was due to imperfections in the geologic record but who recognized that the lack of intermediates "is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against my views." (Darwin 1859, p. 299).
Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. For instance, a recent symposium was held by this Society under the heading "The origin of major invertebrate groups." Many of the papers delivered at that meeting had a strong paleontological bias yet ideas of "relationships" of major invertebrate groups seem very unclear ([refs]). In fact, I do not [p120|p.121] think it is unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny....
- Mike Hopkins
"Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations." (Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988, p. 19)
OK, this is a one-page letter to Nature in July 1988 in response to a letter by Maynard Smith criticising Gould's and Eldredge's idea of species selection. Maynard Smith had, in G&E's words,
"...accused us of overextending the potential role of species selection by proposing it as a source for the origin of complex morphological adaptations. We agreed [ref] that species selection could not work in such a manner, and pointed out that all proponents of the idea had always so acknowledged."
Maynard Smith's letter is Nature 330:516 (1987). The referred letter is Nature 332:211-212 (1988)
Here is the quoted section in context:
"Maynard Smith's quotations simply illustrate a misunderstanding in the use of terms. The quotations all advocate species selection as a cause of paleontological 'trends' and Maynard Smith has equated trends with complex adaptations. Not so. In our original paper on punctuated equilibrium [ref8] we defined trends as 'biostratigraphic character gradients' -- the standards paleontological usage. Most empirical trends in fossils are chronological gradients in simple characters, the most famous being trends towards increased body size expressed as Cope's rule. [ref9] Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations -- the jaws and eyes of vertebrates, to cite two classic cases. Thus, paleontological trends, properly defined, are the very aspects of morphology that are most subject to potential explanation by species selection, because trends are simple, sustained changes that can arise by hitchhiking on a process of sorting among species."
[ref8] Eldredge, N. & Gould, S. J. in Models in Apleobiology (ed. Schopf T.J.M.) 82-115 (Freeman Cooper, San Francisco, 1972)
[ref9] Stanley, S. M. Evolution 27, 1-26 (1973).
This is not a case of misquotation, or taking it out of a qualifying context. However, it is a partial quotation, and in context it is discussing whether or not trends of complex morphological adaptations are explicable in terms of the Gould and Eldredge conception of species selection; they answer that they are not.
- John Wilkins
"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then." ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body Plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)
Surprise, surprise. We actually have a source that is only six to seven years old and actually has a chance of being current.
After 525 Ma there should be a paragraph break followed by the section title "The Post-Explosion Record." The rest of the quote is the first sentence of the next paragraph. Quotes from different sections really should not be presented as being from the same paragraph though that really did not this time add any extra distortion per se. Of course quote mine did not bother to quote potential explanations. The authors mentioned two later on in the same paragraph. Both make a great deal of sense. And though some may argue for one or the other, both can be true:
...Two long-debated explanations for this trend are that (a) developmental mechanisms became canalized or at least constrained so as to preclude the specification of great novelty and (b) the filling of the environment by early Phanerozoic diversifications preempted the ecological opportunities that were once available to organisms with distinctive bodyplans [refs]. The relative significance of these respectively internal and external controls is difficult to determine at present; new paleontological and developmental evidence will be required to assess their relative strengths [refs].
This is like the Darwin quotes that Augray looked at. The quote miners quote the problem but ignore any solution. For shame--selective quotation at its finest. This is why one should never base one's case on a list of quotations.
The PubMed entry of the quoted article has the abstract, a link to related articles, and a link to the free full text of the article (in PDF format).
Those who are have an interest in the phylogeny of misquotes might note an error in the citation: "Body plans" should be "Bodyplans." Also in the quoted text: "phylum level" should be "phylum-level." Of course if these minor errors can be found in common with other creationist quote-mining lists, then we can conclude that the poster simply copied them from quote mines.
- Mike Hopkins
"Many 'trends' singled out by evolutionary biologists are ex post facto rendering of phylogenetic history: biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history. This is particularly so in situations, especially common prior to about 1970, in which analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among species was incompletely or poorly done." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 134)
"Even when trends are real (i.e., reflecting an actual directional change of state within a system), perceptual error in characterization of the trend may lead to an incorrect analysis of underlying cause. ... With the caveat that many supposed evolutionary trends are artifacts of analysis firmly in mind, it is important to stress at this juncture that trends -- directional accumulations of (presumably) adaptive change -- are nonetheless very much a real phenomenon of evolutionary history. Nor need we rely strictly on the fossil record for empirical verification that this must be so. <example of hominid encephalisation - brain growth - deleted> There is no doubt that the trend -- which we know from the principles of comparative morphology must have occurred -- really in fact did occur." pp134-135.
- John Wilkins
"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59)
This is from a review of the book "Patterns of Evolution as Illustrated by the Fossil Record", and the section that has been replaced by ellipses is as follows:
They suggest that change occurs rapidly, by geologic standards, in small peripheral populations. They believe that evolution is accelerated in such populations because they contain a small random sample of the gene pool of the parent population (founder effect) and therefore can diverge rapidly just by chance and because they can respond to local selection pressure that may differ from those encountered by the parent population. Eventually some of these divergent, peripheral populations are favoured by changed environmental conditions (species selection) and so they increase and spread rapidly into fossil assemblages.
So Ricklefs disagrees with the idea of Punctuated Equilibria. But does he disagree with the idea of evolution? Apparently not:
The fossil record clearly is inadequate for many purposes. To be sure, one can discern general trends in morphology and diversity within phylogenetic groups. At the family to class levels of taxonomy, most paleontologists agree that adaptive radiations occur in brief bursts, often after the decline of ecologically related groups, and are followed by long periods of evolutionary quiet.
And later:
The patterns we observe in biological communities and evolutionary radiations are the sum of many lower-order processes and interactions.
And even though Ricklefs disagrees with Punctuated Equilibria, he doesn't discount it completely:
Even though Eldredge and Gould may be proven right, their model, and other recent models in paleontology, should not be accorded the status of a major synthesis.
- Jon (Augray) Barber
"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
This is a review article on the book quoted in the title. The author of the review article (Kitts) says in the first paragraph:
"This book by the distinguished French biologist is an English translation of a French edition published in 1973 under the title "L'Evolution du Vivant." In the preface to his book Grassé prepares us for what is to follow when he says, 'Many of the ideas expressed in this book will seem disconcerting to the English or American reader schooled in orthodox Darwinism. With this caveat, let him overcome initial reluctance to read the book. He will, I maintain, discover the unavowed weaknesses of a doctrine that falls far short of universal explanation.' I wish that I could report that Darwinians will find new challenges to their "doctrine" in the pages of this book, but I regret to say that they will not. All of Grassé's arguments have been marshaled against Darwinian theory before, and in the opinion of most Darwinians, have been adequately countered. If there is anything novel in this attack it is the contention that recent developments in molecular genetics have some special bearing on traditional objections to Darwinian theory." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353)
Now that we know where Kitts is coming from in this article, let's dissect the original quote posted by the quote-miner presented above. Any time I see an ellipsis ("...") in these mined quotes, one must take instant caution because it usually means they've cut out some supportive discussion of evolution. This is the case in this quote as well.
"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred.
Grassé, on the other hand, holds just the view that has so often been erroneously attributed to Darwinian paleontologists. For him the fossil record reveals not only the course of evolution but its "mechanism" as well. The history of life is an untheory-laden chronicle which any biologist must take as raw data. Evolution, on this view, is a virtually self-evident fact which remains only to be adequately explained. Grassé faults the Darwinians for failure to recognize the pristine character of paleontological evidence. He says (p. 7), 'Paleontologists, who cannot have recourse to experiments when deciding that a given character is genetically valuable, thus expresses [sic] a very hypothetical opinion. Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that they should confirm it: the premises imply the conclusion. The error in method is obvious". If a paleontologist claims to have supported the fundamental tenets of Darwinian theory in citing the fossil record, then he has indeed committed a methodological error. But every interpretation of the fossil record must proceed on the acceptance of some theory. Grassé never gives us any reason to think that he recognizes this fact, and we are, therefore, left to ferret out those surreptitious assumptions which, we must suppose, underlie his account of the history of organisms.
Grassé's confidence in the fossil record is excessive but he is not alone in supposing that it has something to tell us about the mechanism of evolution. Paleontologists and evolutionists have frequently turned to fossils for crucial tests of some theory, or even simply of some fact, only to come away with the realization that the answers lie more in the theory that they have presupposed in their interpretation of the fossil record than in the record itself and that, indeed, there isn't even any record at all until we somehow make one out of extant rocks and objects that seem to be the broken remains of plants and animals. The current debate over punctuated equilibria and gradualism as the principle modes of evolution is but the latest illustration of how difficult it is to extract theoretically significant information from fossils. When we are tempted to say that evolution or some aspect of it is an "obvious fact", it is well to turn once again to Darwin himself who devoted a large book to an argument more directed at the elusive conclusion that evolution had occurred than explaining something that might be established independent of that argument.
Darwinian paleontologists cannot take much comfort from the fact that the fossil record does not compel them to reject their theory because it does not compel them to accept it either.
The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even a historical theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
Note that the original quote-miner left out a whole bunch of material, completely removing the context above, and then pasting the two sides together as one argument. Also note that they left out the prefix "a" in "ahistorical" in their quote to be "historical" which completely changes the meaning of the quote even in the mined form
Kitts is showing that the fossil record, taken alone without a theory to test it against, is inadequate to support Darwinism, which is exactly what Gould argues in his punctuated equilibrium theory, and evolutionists know quite well. Kitts goes on for quite a while longer explaining Grassé's conception that natural selection is not enough to explain the fossil record in opposition to Darwinian theory. However, this last bit, which is not taken out of context of the above paragraphs, will show you what Kitt's final point was:
"If a theory leads us to conclude that events of a certain kind are to be expected, then we may suppose that they have occurred even though direct historical evidence for their occurrence is unconvincing. The Darwinians will, quite rightly, never be led by the fossil record to abandon their theory nor even to suppose that it is in need of alteration or emendation. But if a well supported biological theory requires them to conclude that evolution is "guided" by some previously unrecognized factor, then they should be prepared to introduce that factor into their interpretation of the fossil record. Grassé finds in contemporary molecular genetics at least the hope that the additional directing factor may be found." Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 354)
So far, no well-supported biological theory refuting the current progression of the fossil record has been found, yet Darwinists do indeed these days use biological data to help interpret the fossil record, just as Kitts noted.
Genetics since the 1970's has progressed as a science well beyond what even Kitts or Grassé might have envisioned, and has been adding support to the theory of evolution rather than to any other mechanism that might have been hoped for by Grassé before the 1970's. Genetics and genetic evidence in itself is the single most compelling evidence for evolution to date. The added value of "live data" in genetics and evo-devo to paleobiology will never be overestimated, as Gould is seen to envision in my review of a 1980 Gould "quote nugget" elsewhere in this larger quotemining document.
- Deanne (Lilith) Taylor
| Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links |
| The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates |
