http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/726

From: Todd Greene
Date: May 15, 2005 7:06 pm
Subject: Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould

--- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #716):
> "Phyletic Gradualism  -
> A theory of evolution, supported by Darwin, which states that
> evolution is a gradual process that proceeds slowly but
> constantly through a series of small changes."
>
> "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
> persists as the trade secret of paleontology... 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." (Stephen J. Gould, "Evolutions Erratic Pace"
> Natural History 86:12-16, May 1977
>
> I guess that one could accuse Gould of many things, but
> definitely NOT of one to defend creation.  Yet, he agrees with
> the fact that the major weakness of Darwin's gradual process
> is the total lack of evidence in the fossil record.
>
> Since there is no evidence, why is it that the theory is still
> defended?
[snip]

Hi, Rudy.

You should have paid attention to your better judgment. Anyone who
thinks he knows anything about astronomy, geology, paleontology,
chemistry, physics, biology, or evolution (or related areas of
science) by reading creationist propaganda is simply fooling himself.

In post #716 you make the rather bizarre claim that Stephen J.
Gould "agrees with the fact that the major weakness of Darwin's
gradual process is the total lack of evidence in the fossil record."
Okay, that's *your* characterization of what you think Gould meant,
repeating the standard creationist line of propaganda in taking Gould
out of context.. Now let's see what Gould himself said he meant, and
how he characterized creationists who misrepresent him.

Regards,
Todd Greene

----------------------------------------------------------------

| [T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved
| transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to
| our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are
| not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim.... [Gould
| then discusses two particular examples, intermediate fossils
| between reptiles and mammals, and our own hominid ancestors.]
|
| Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical
| bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon
| distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If
| I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a
| major target of these practices.
|
| I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky,
| or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change.
| In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory
| of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding
| facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of
| new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) --
| reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the
| imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small
| isolated populations are the source of new species, and the
| process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of
| years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our
| lives, is a geological microsecond....
|
| Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it
| is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists --
| whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as
| admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional
| forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species;
| directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the
| higher level of transitions within major groups. [Stephen Jay
| Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hens Teeth and Horse's
| Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W.
| Norton & Co., 1983, pp. 258-260.]

| The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is
| particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of
| jaw articulation to hearing bones. Only one bone, called the
| dentary, builds the mammalian jaw, while reptiles retain
| several small bones in the rear portion of the jaw. We can
| trace, through a lovely sequence of intermediates, the
| reduction of these small reptilian bones, and their eventual
| disappearance or exclusion from the jaw, including the
| remarkable passage of the reptilian articulation bones into
| the mammalian middle ear (where they became our malleus and
| incus, or hammer and anvil). We have even found the
| transitional form that creationists often proclaim
| inconceivable in theory — for how can jawbones become ear
| bones if intermediaries must live with an unhinged jaw before
| the new joint forms? The transitional species maintains a
| double jaw joint, with both the old articulation of reptiles
| (quadrate to articular bones) and the new connection of
| mammals (squamosal to dentary) already in place! Thus, one
| joint could be lost, with passage of its bones into the ear,
| while the other articulation continued to guarantee a properly
| hinged jaw. Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let
| facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue
| to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring
| those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with
| admittedly frequent examples of absence. [Stephen Jay
| Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," Dinosaur in a
| Haystack: Reflections in Natural History, New York: Crown
| Trade Paperbacks, 1997, pp. 360-361.]

| The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as
| science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists'
| need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the
| earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand
| years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly
| disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are
| products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion,
| misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to
| characterize the ideas of their opponents. [Stephen Jay Gould,
| The Verdict on Creationism, The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter
| 87/88, p. 186.]

| Punctuated equilibrium, catastrophic theories of mass
| extinction, hopeful monsters, and a variety of hypotheses
| about rapid rates of change in continuous sequences, not about
| unintelligible abrupt appearances, are part of scientific
| debate and bear no relationship to the nonscientific notion of
| abrupt appearance, despite pernicious and willful attempts by
| many creationists to distort such claims by misquote and
| halfquote to their alien purposes. Punctuated equilibrium, in
| particular, is a claim that evolutionary trends have a
| geometry that resembles a climb up a staircase rather than a
| slide up an inclined plane. It is, in other words, an
| alternate theory about the nature of intermediate stages in
| evolutionary trends not, as creationists have claimed, a
| denial of these stages. As a term, `creation science' is an
| oxymoron, a self-contradictory and meaningless phrase, a
| whitewash for a specific, particular, and minority religious
| view in America—Biblical literalism. [Stephen Jay Gould,
| "Creationism: Out of the Mainstream," The Scientist, 1986, 1
| (Nov. 17): 10.]

| Well, evolution *is* a theory. It is also a fact. And facts
| and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of
| increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are
| structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts
| don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain
| them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in
| this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair,
| pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like
| ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism
| or by some other yet to be discovered. [Stephen Jay Gould,
| Evolution as Fact and Theory Science and Creationism, (New
| York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 118.]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/749

From: Todd Greene
Date: May 16, 2005 3:42 pm
Subject: Re: Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould

Hi, Rudy.

In post #738 you continue to demonstrate that you do not understand
what Stephen J. Gould even stated. And even though I posted for you
Gould's specific statements clarifying to you (1) what he did and
did not mean in that context, and (2) that creationists had
misrespresented his words either by design (on purpose) or through
stupidity (his word), for some reason not so very strange you refuse
to accept what Gould has specifically told you.

> --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote:
>> Hi, Rudy.
[snip]
>> In post #716 you make the rather bizarre claim that Stephen
>> J. Gould "agrees with the fact that the major weakness of
>> Darwin's gradual process is the total lack of evidence in the
>> fossil record."
>
> Rudy writes:
> Does he, or does he not make the statement about transitional
forms?
> He does, so much so, in fact, that he developed a whole NEW idea to
> try and explain the evolutionary process.

Did Stephen J. Gould really say that there is a "total lack of
evidence in the fossil record" for evolution? No, Rudy, he never
said that. *You* said that's what he meant by what he wrote, because
you did not understand the context of his statement. You did this
because you got it from a bunch of creationist out-of-context quotes
propaganda that has been using that particular out-of-context quote
of Gould for many, many years.

You ask, what does Gould say about transitional forms? I quoted
Gould for you, on that very question, and he was specifically
writing what he wrote to clarify the matter for you creationists who
were taking him out of context. Why are you ignoring Gould's own
explanation to you? Don't you think that Gould knew what Gould was
saying? Are you now trying to argue that Gould himself does not know
what Gould meant? That's preposterous. I have again copied below two
of the relevant quotes that I provided last time on this. And here
are some selected parts from those:

Gould wrote, "[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record."
Rudy, you wrote that Gould, "agrees with the fact that the major
weakness of Darwin's gradual process is the total lack of evidence
in the fossil record." Your claim is TOTALLY WRONG. Gould has told
you that your claim is wrong, and yet you come right back trying to
pretend that Gould agrees with your claim that there are no
transitional fossils. But the fact is that Gould did NOT agree with
your claim, and he tells you straight out that he did NOT agree with
that. How much longer do you want to keep up the creationist charade
on this?

Gould wrote, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain
trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by
creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know --
  as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional
forms." Which part of that do you not understand, Rudy? He tells you
flat out that any creationist who misrepresents his quote as
admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms is
doing so only by design (deceit) or stupidity (lack of
understanding). Could Gould have been any clearer? But somehow even
this very blunt statement by Gould is just not blunt enough for the
sheer density of the creationist mind.

Gould wrote, "The punctuations occur at the level of species;
directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher
level of transitions within major groups." Rudy, do you know what
the word "rife" means? It means something like "abundant"
or "numerous." Do you get it? Gould TOLD you that directional trends
are ABUNDANT at the higher level of transitions within major group.
And in making this point he refers you to a couple of examples. One
example he refers you to is the "transition from reptiles to
mammals." He also refers to the series of hominid fossils that are
transitional between ape-like organism of millions of years ago and
modern humans.

Gould wrote, "Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let
facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue to
assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that
have been found...."

But the aggravating part of all this is that Gould directly
contradicts what creationists pretend about him, and yet no matter
what he has told you creationists like you just keep right on
pretending, in your obstinate refusal to admit that Gould himself
caught you misrepresenting him and told you so!

>
> He "proposed" a new THEORY (still without facts!) to replace
> the "old" theory (which was also without a factual basis). He
> HAD to come up with a new THEORY, because the old one was not
> supported by what he had accepted.

You don't even know what the facts are, as you keep demonstrating.
So your judgment in this regard is irrelevant. The FACT is that
THERE EXIST ALL KINDS OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS as Gould himself has
stated explicitly and discussed numerous examples of in numerous
articles during his prolific writing career. (I'm focusing
particularly on what Gould has written about, because he is the one
you keep misrepresenting.) You demonstrate your lack of knowledge
about the fossil record every time you spout the false creationist
rhetoric that transitional fossils don't exist.

>
> Anytime one needs to "propose" another THEORY to replace a
> defunct one, we can have serious doubts about the "science"
> behind the THEORY.

Based on your comments so far, I seriously doubt that you even have
a clue what punctuated equilibrium even is.

>
> Gould is free to THEORIZE all he wants. However, to have those
> who support evolution palm that off as "solid science" is
incorrect.

You don't know what the facts are. Indeed, your statements are made
based on ignoring the facts.

>
> Evolutionary processes are THEORIES, no more, no less.

That is a FALSE statement. As Gould himself has stated, the concept
of evolution is made up of both fact and theory. He has a whole
article on this particular topic, that he wrote specifically in
response to your creationist rhetoric:

"Evolution as Fact and Theory" (May 1981)
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

> Some of the
> THEORIES have a higher validity than some others. However,
> ANYTIME theories are glued together with CONJECTURE, it should
> not be accepted as "proven."

Exactly. But your problem is that you don't know what the facts are.

>
> From a personal point of view, I have no problem with anyone
> defending a THEORY - as long as it is understood it is NOT a
> FACT.

Which is exactly why you shouldn't have any problem with the factual
elements of evolution.

>
> And that is where the debate seems to falter. People like YOU
> and Baty looking down on people like me, with such a sneer of
> superiority - when ALL you have to show is a THEORY and a
> stack of CONJECTURE.

I can't speak for Robert, but for me I'll admit that you're right,
this is a problem of mine, that I have a very hard time taking
seriously people who PRETEND to understand what they're talking
about when they make certain claims about science who then proceed
to demonstrate that (1) they don't really have a clue what they're
talking about, and (2) when you try to explain their mistakes to
them they obstinately refuse to correct their errors and obstinately
refuse to learn anything.

>
> You and Baty are not even willing to maintain the idea you
> could be wrong. You claim to have "science" on your side. And
> you don't! You have CONJECTURE.

First, in regard to the antiquity of the world I have a myriad of
facts that demonstrate that young earth creationism is totally
wrong. Thus, *before we even begin to think about anything at all
with respect to biological evolution*, we already know that young
earth creationism is a bogus idea.

Then, second, in regard to the general concept of biological
evolution I have a myriad of facts that demonstrate that evolution
occurs and has occurred over the timeframe that living organisms
have been on the Earth.

And you can't even get past taking an evolutionist like Gould
totally out of context. Do you think maybe you can stop pretending
that Gould said that there are no transitional fossils? He has told
you specifically that that is NOT what he said. Do you think you can
understand even this one simple matter?

THEN, we can begin to discuss issues such as, what is evolution,
what is Darwinism, and what kind of distinction are scientists
trying to make when they refer to "Darwinism" or "Darwinian
evolution" and not just evolution in general? What do they really
mean when the discuss issues regarding how "gradual" evolution might
take place? What is "allopatric evolution," what is the "founder
effect," and what do these have to do with the concept of punctuated
equilibrium?

Instead of taking potshots at evolutionists like Stephen J. Gould
and Colin Patterson, why don't you go get some REAL ammunition and
get their books and study what they really have to say about
evolution in detail? And try to genuinely learn what REAL scientists
who actually do REAL scientific research have to say about
evolution, instead of getting little tiny bits and pieces of out-of-
context quotes buried in the distortions of creationist propaganda?

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002)
by Stephen Jay Gould
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674006135

Evolution, 2nd Ed. (1999)
by Colin Patterson
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801436427

The problem with you creationists is that you don't understand any
of these things (and you apparently don't really have any interest
in learning about them), and so when you quote these scientists who
are discussing them out of context you don't actually have a clue
what they're even talking about, because these concepts I have
mentioned and several others related to them are all involved in
what they discuss. You then pretend that they are saying what *you*
would like for them to be saying, and then when your error is
explained to you (even explained to you by the very person you have
quoted out of context) you just brush it off, refuse to educate
yourself, and just continue to espouse your error. And that's not
the way people who *say* they are concerned about truth and truth-
seeking should operate.

Sincerely,
Todd Greene

----------------------------------------------------------------

| [T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved
| transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to
| our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are
| not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim.... [Gould
| then discusses two particular examples, intermediate fossils
| between reptiles and mammals, and our own hominid ancestors.]
|
| Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical
| bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon
| distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If
| I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a
| major target of these practices.
|
| I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky,
| or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change.
| In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory
| of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding
| facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of
| new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) --
| reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the
| imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small
| isolated populations are the source of new species, and the
| process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of
| years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our
| lives, is a geological microsecond....
|
| Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it
| is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists --
| whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as
| admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional
| forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species;
| directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the
| higher level of transitions within major groups. [Stephen Jay
| Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hens Teeth and Horse's
| Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W.
| Norton & Co., 1983, pp. 258-260.]

| The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is
| particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of
| jaw articulation to hearing bones. Only one bone, called the
| dentary, builds the mammalian jaw, while reptiles retain
| several small bones in the rear portion of the jaw. We can
| trace, through a lovely sequence of intermediates, the
| reduction of these small reptilian bones, and their eventual
| disappearance or exclusion from the jaw, including the
| remarkable passage of the reptilian articulation bones into
| the mammalian middle ear (where they became our malleus and
| incus, or hammer and anvil). We have even found the
| transitional form that creationists often proclaim
| inconceivable in theory — for how can jawbones become ear
| bones if intermediaries must live with an unhinged jaw before
| the new joint forms? The transitional species maintains a
| double jaw joint, with both the old articulation of reptiles
| (quadrate to articular bones) and the new connection of
| mammals (squamosal to dentary) already in place! Thus, one
| joint could be lost, with passage of its bones into the ear,
| while the other articulation continued to guarantee a properly
| hinged jaw. Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let
| facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue
| to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring
| those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with
| admittedly frequent examples of absence. [Stephen Jay
| Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," Dinosaur in a
| Haystack: Reflections in Natural History, New York: Crown
| Trade Paperbacks, 1997, pp. 360-361.]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/753

From: Todd Greene
Date: May 16, 2005 8:52 pm
Subject: Re: Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould

--- In coCBanned, Rudy wrote (post #752):
> --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote:
>> Hi, Rudy.
>>
>> In post #738 you continue to demonstrate that you do not
>> understand what Stephen J. Gould even stated. And even though
>> I posted for you Gould's specific statements clarifying to
>> you (1) what he did and did not mean in that context, and (2)
>> that creationists had misrespresented his words either by
>> design (on purpose) or through stupidity (his word), for some
>> reason not so very strange you refuse to accept what Gould
>> has specifically told you.
>
> The issue is that Gould (and others) learned that the common
> ancestor did not find any support in the fossil record. The
> issue is that Gould developed another THEORY to explain what
> could not be supported from earlier "evidence."
>
> The "stupidity" is not in quoting or not quoting. The
> "stupidity" is on not being intellectually honest enough to
> admit that "we are CONJECTURING..." Stupidity is is continuing
> a THEORY inspite of the lack of evidence to support it.
> Stupidity is in the hanging on at all cost - even though other
> SCIENTISTS have proven in a mumber of different ways that
> evolution (common ancestry of all species; mutational
> adaptations) does NOT work and is NOT supported.
>
> So, Gould et al come up with a "flash bang" theory... For
> which there is no evidence, either...
>
> The "stupidity" is in accepting the IDEA of non-available
> evidence just because someone says, "It HAS to be there. We
> have not found it yet, but somewhere, out there, there HAS to
> be evidence for my THEORY..."
>
> And creationists are gullible???

In post #752, Rudy Schellekens ignores everything Gould told him and
obstinately continues to promote the false idea that "The issue is
that Gould (and others) learned that the common-ancestor did not find
any support in the fossil record."

That is not the issue, as I have already pointed out twice, and
explained in detail, using Stephen J. Gould's very own response to
this nonsense. Gould was absolutely right, and we have just observed a
clear example of how right he was. Creationists are very dedicated to
misrepresenting what he said, either by design or stupidity (his
words). Why waste any more time with someone who cannot understand
Gould's plain English?

- Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/764

From: Todd Greene
Date: May 17, 2005 3:44 pm
Subject: Re: Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould

--- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #759):
> --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote:
>> In post #752, Rudy Schellekens ignores everything Gould told
>> him and obstinately continues to promote the false idea that
>> "The issue is that Gould (and others) learned that the
>> common-ancestor did not find any support in the fossil record."
>>
>> That is not the issue, as I have already pointed out twice, and
>> explained in detail, using Stephen J. Gould's very own response
>> to this nonsense. Gould was absolutely right, and we have just
>> observed a clear example of how right he was. Creationists are
>> very dedicated to misrepresenting what he said, either by design
>> or stupidity (his words). Why waste any more time with someone
>> who cannot understand Gould's plain English?
>
> Rudy writes:
> Calling people "stupid" and "ignorant" does not solve your
> problem.

Hi, Rudy.

I'm not the one with the problem. You are the one with the problem
of misrepresenting Gould. Not only did you misrepresent Gould, but
GOULD HIMSELF TOLD YOU CREATIONISTS SPECIFICALLY THAT YOU HAD
MISREPRESENTED HIM, and he was so exasperated with your obstinacy in
mispresenting him (because you guys just keep right on
misrepresenting him even after your misrepresentation has been
explained to you again and again and again and...) that he realized
that either creationists were engaging in the misrepresentation on
purpose (his words were "by design," by which he was referring to
intentional deceit being involved) or that creationists were simply
not intelligent enough to understand what he was even talking about
(his words were "by stupidity," probably not a word I would have
used myself). Myself, I don't happen to think it has anything to do
with stupidity. It simply has to do with a determined unwillingness
to educate yourself, because the truth of the matter is that YOU
DON'T CARE what Gould was talking about.

I have quoted Gould extensively on this, twice now,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/726
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/749

and you have totally ignored what Gould himself stated both times.

> Gould was NOT misrepresented.

Then why did Gould himself tell you that you misrepresented him?
Your error on this is as blatant as it gets.

Gould wrote, "[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record."

Gould wrote, "The punctuations occur at the level of species;
directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher
level of transitions within major groups."

Gould wrote, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain
trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by
creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know --
as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional
forms."

Gould wrote, "Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let
facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue to
assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that
have been found...."

The truth is that Gould was misrepresented, and the
misrepresentation got to be so common that it came to his attention
and he responded specifically to your misrepresentation and GOULD
HIMSELF TOLD YOU YOU WERE MISREPRESENTING HIM, and he went on to
tell you exactly how you were misrepresenting. Of course,
creationists like you don't care about the truth, so you totally
ignore what he said (just as you've been doing) and purposely
continue to misrepresent him, even after having your error explained
to you.

> Gould's own actions
> (Developing a NEW THEORY trying to explain the LACK of evidence)
> speak for themselves.

You have demonstrated quite clearly that you don't have a clue what
Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium is, nor why he proposed it,
so please don't try to pretend otherwise.

You clearly don't understand what there is a lack of, and you have
demonstrated this a number of times now. You keep claiming
that "there are no transitional fossils" and you keep claiming that
Gould 'admitted that there are no transitional fossils.'" In the
first case, there are indeed all kinds of transitional fossils that
have been found from the fossil record, and, second, Gould never
stated that there were no transitional fossils and has specifically
told you otherwise, that there are in fact a lot of transitional
fossils. So you are wrong on both counts. In regard to what Gould
said, Gould himself came back and specifically told you that the
discovered fossils are "rife" (his word) with transitional fossil,
and he referred to some examples for you. Of course, you just keep
right on ignoring what he said.

>
> I am still waiting to meet the first person like Greene who is
> willing to admit to the fact that "his" scientists are indeed
> fallible... It seems he has created his own gods... So, I guess
> he is no longer an atheist...

That's total crap, Rudy, and you know it. The issue here is not the
fallibility of Gould and other scientists. The issue here is the
fallibility and fallaciousness of you creationists who screwed up,
and yet even when your error is pointed out and explained to you,
you obstinately refuse to correct yourself. Because you don't
understand the subjects that you love to spout propaganda on, you
read something written by a scientist, you erroneously think that
he's agreeing with some bizarre creationist claim such as "there are
no transitional fossils" because you don't understand the context of
the discussion (and wouldn't understand it even if you did read the
context because you don't understand the concepts being discussed),
and then when you get caught misrepresenting the scientist (even by
the that particular scientist himself) you obstinately refuse to
acknowledge your error and refuse to correct it.

How typical.

Sincerely,
Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/895

From: Todd Greene
Date: May 26, 2005 10:36 am
Subject: Re: Hillbillies

--- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #893):
[snip]
> The fun part?
> No matter what Todd thinks, Gould postured a different theory
> re. origins BECAUSE the old one does not work... And using all
> sorts of belittling comments from him or Baty will not change
> that fact.

Hi, Rudy.

The fun part is that you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't
even know what Gould was talking about (you have yet to write even
one single sentence on the concept of punctuated equilibrium that
demonstrates that you have any understanding of it at all), and with
respect to certain representations that you made of some of Gould's
specific comments, we have already witnessed the fact that Gould
himself flatly contradicted your description of his position, which
makes your characterization of him nothing more than a
MISrepresentation. That's not "belittling," that's simply the fact
of the matter.

What I do belittle is the person who makes a blatant error, and yet
when this error is explicitly pointed out to him, and explained to
him in detail, over and over, he obstinately refuses to acknowledge
his error. And this is exactly how you have operated. Such behavior
indeed deserves to be belittled - actually, I would describe it
as "duly criticized" - for being the wrong behavior that it is.

> Belittling those who prefer creation over evolution with such
> silly statements as "changing arguments" seems to pass over
> the fact that evolutionary arguments, too, have changed over
> the years. Yet, a number of disproven issues (by
> evolutionists, on patterns of evoution!) are STILL part of the
> science curriculum!

If you can't even get Gould's words straight, even after they are
pointed out to you over and over and over again, and explained to
you in detail, I seriously doubt that you have any decent awareness
of what issues in evolution are outdated and what issues are not.
You have no way to judge because you rely solely on false
creationist propaganda, and have little to no awareness of what the
genuine science is. The fun part? You guys love to denigrate these
valid criticisms of your position as nothing more than "belittling,"
but the fact is that we are expressing valid criticisms of the
points that you make as well as valid criticisms of how you refuse
to deal with your errors when they are pointed out to you.

Sincerely,
Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/962

From: Todd Greene
Date: May 31, 2005 8:45 am
Subject: Re: Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould

--- In coCBanned, I previously wrote (post #764):
> --- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #759):
[snip]
>> Gould's own actions
>> (Developing a NEW THEORY trying to explain the LACK of
>> evidence) speak for themselves.
>
> You have demonstrated quite clearly that you don't have a clue
> what Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium is, nor why he
> proposed it, so please don't try to pretend otherwise.
[snip]

Hi, Rudy.

Yesterday, while looking up some information for something I was
writing about in another discussion group, I stumbled across the
following quote of Stephen J. Gould commenting on the concept of
punctuated equilibrium.

| Gould defines punctuated equilibrium as follows:
|
|| Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even
|| a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory about sudden change that
|| produces a new species all at once in a single generation.
|| Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that new
|| species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and
|| through an extensive series of intermediate stages. But
|| geological time is so long that even a few thousand years may
|| appear as a mere "moment" relative to the several million
|| years of existence for most species. Thus, rates of evolution
|| vary enormously and new species may appear to arise
|| "suddenly" in geological time, even though the time involved
|| would seem long, and the change very slow, when compared to a
|| human lifetime.

[quoted in Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science
(1998), National Academy of Sciences,
http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309063647/html/57.html]

Note that Gould specifically states that the concept of punctuated
equilibrium is "neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian
evolutionary theory." Let this very clear statement by Gould sink
into your brain for awhile, and then maybe - just maybe - you should
consider stopping your misrepresentation of Gould.

And again, as always, should you care to actually discuss details
relevant to the real concept of punctuated equilibrium, I'll be more
than happy to dig into the details with you.

Sincerely,
Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

From: Todd Greene
Date: Apr 27, 2006 1:07 pm
Subject: Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould

--- In coCBanned, Veto Roley wrote (post #4999):
> I wrote, "There were zero, and remain zero, transitional
> organisms."
>
> Todd responds, "I have already proved that this creationist
> claim is false in discussion here with you in the last couple
> of days. Regardless of the facts, creationists will preach
> their errors."
>
> Veto responds: You are right Todd. The lack of transitions is
> just one of many creationists lies. I just didn't realize that
> Stephen Gould and Richard Dawkins were creationists. I always
> thought they were evolutionists:
[snip]

>| "Well-represented species are usually stable throughout their
>| temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial
>| ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of
>| observed change into longer periods of geological time could
>| not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark
>| general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the
>| time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most
>| species." (Gould Stephen J., "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness,"
>| Natural History, 1988, p. 14)
>
>| "Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their
>| lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all
>| paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because
>| prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence
>| for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis
>| became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best
>| left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is,
>| nonevolution). (Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma,"
>| Natural History, 1993, p. 15)
>
>| "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)
[snip]

> Now, without the sarcasm, there remain no, zero, not any,
> transitional forms. And, please Todd, spare us the explanation
> that these evolutionists did not mean what they said regarding
> the fossil record...

Veto, these evolutionists meant what they said, but their meaning is
not what you portray. Quoting out of context and distorting the
meaning is EXACTLY what you have done. You creationists twist the
meaning of what these men have written, by ignoring the context of
the statements which shows that what they're talking about has
NOTHING to do with the creationist lie that "there are no
transitional fossils," and then you pretend that their statements
have a meaning that is actually contrary to the meaning IN THE
ORIGINAL CONTEXT. Creationists have been engaging in these quote
distortion tactics for decades, and it comes as no surprise to me
that you practice this time-honored creationist tradition.

In this particular post, I have chosen to focus solely on Stephen J.
Gould, because he is the one you took out of context the most, and
because Gould himself has been extremely clear in chastising you
creationists for distorting his words. The fact that you pretend to
pay attention to Gould, while at the same time you utterly ignore
his direct clarifications to you, and utterly ignore him tell you
plainly and forthrightly that you have misrepresented his
statements, demonstrates creationist hypocrisy.

REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR CREATIONIST CLAIM that "there are no
transitional fossils" Stephen Gould has stated, "There is another
sense of gaps in the record claiming, in other words, there are not
transitional forms whatsoever in the fossil record. It's, in fact,
patently false."

Veto, Stephen Gould has told you SPECIFICALLY that your creationist
claim is PATENTLY FALSE. Yet you creationists have PURPOSELY IGNORED
him, and continue to falsely pretend to people that Gould is saying
that there are no transitional fossils. Creationists need to learn
how to stop their rhetoric of deception. The purposely use of
rhetoric permeated with falsehood demonstrates that you promote an
anti-truth position.

I will also point out here, Veto, that you have PURPOSELY IGNORED
the many examples of transitional fossils THAT I HAVE ALREADY
POINTED OUT TO YOU. This is how creationists operate, by PURPOSELY
IGNORING the facts that prove that their claims are wrong, then
trying to sow confusion by quoting people out of context and
distorting their meaning. This is The Young Earth Creationist Way.

I am convinced that your position is so completely opposed to
accepting truth that you will purposely adhere to your rhetoric of
falsehoods, and you will continue to purposely ignore the fact that
Stephen Gould has told you straight out that you have taken his
words out of context and distorted their meaning, and that you will
continue to purposely ignore the fact that Stephen Gould has not
only told you straight out that in paleontology there are examples
of transitional fossils but he has discussed some of them. You will
purposely ignore the facts, because you hate the facts, because the
facts show that your position and the rhetoric you use to prop it up
are based on a religious dogma that is empirically false. Which you
keep right on demonstrating for everyone, thank you.

See below.

- Todd Greene

----------------------------------------------------------------

| The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as
| science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists'
| need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the
| earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand
| years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly
| disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are
| products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion,
| misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to
| characterize the ideas of their opponents.

- Stephen Jay Gould ("The Verdict on Creationism," The Skeptical
Inquirer, Winter 87/88)

----------------------------------------------------------------

| [T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved
| transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to
| our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are
| not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim.... [Gould
| then discusses two particular examples, intermediate fossils
| between reptiles and mammals, and our own hominid ancestors.]
|
| Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical
| bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon
| distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If
| I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a
| major target of these practices.
|
| I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky,
| or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change.
| In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory
| of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding
| facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of
| new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) --
| reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the
| imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small
| isolated populations are the source of new species, and the
| process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of
| years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our
| lives, is a geological microsecond....
|
| Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it
| is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists --
| whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as
| admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional
| forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species;
| directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the
| higher level of transitions within major groups.

- Stephen Jay Gould ("Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hens Teeth and
Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, 1983, pp. 258-
260)

----------------------------------------------------------------

| The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is
| particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of
| jaw articulation to hearing bones. Only one bone, called the
| dentary, builds the mammalian jaw, while reptiles retain
| several small bones in the rear portion of the jaw. We can
| trace, through a lovely sequence of intermediates, the
| reduction of these small reptilian bones, and their eventual
| disappearance or exclusion from the jaw, including the
| remarkable passage of the reptilian articulation bones into
| the mammalian middle ear (where they became our malleus and
| incus, or hammer and anvil). We have even found the
| transitional form that creationists often proclaim
| inconceivable in theory — for how can jawbones become ear
| bones if intermediaries must live with an unhinged jaw before
| the new joint forms? The transitional species maintains a
| double jaw joint, with both the old articulation of reptiles
| (quadrate to articular bones) and the new connection of
| mammals (squamosal to dentary) already in place! Thus, one
| joint could be lost, with passage of its bones into the ear,
| while the other articulation continued to guarantee a properly
| hinged jaw. Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let
| facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue
| to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring
| those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with
| admittedly frequent examples of absence.

- Stephen Jay Gould ("Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," Dinosaur in a
Haystack: Reflections in Natural History, 1997, pp. 360-361)

----------------------------------------------------------------

| Punctuated equilibrium, catastrophic theories of mass
| extinction, hopeful monsters, and a variety of hypotheses
| about rapid rates of change in continuous sequences, not about
| unintelligible abrupt appearances, are part of scientific
| debate and bear no relationship to the nonscientific notion of
| abrupt appearance, despite pernicious and willful attempts by
| many creationists to distort such claims by misquote and
| halfquote to their alien purposes. Punctuated equilibrium, in
| particular, is a claim that evolutionary trends have a
| geometry that resembles a climb up a staircase rather than a
| slide up an inclined plane. It is, in other words, an
| alternate theory about the nature of intermediate stages in
| evolutionary trends not, as creationists have claimed, a
| denial of these stages. As a term, `creation science' is an
| oxymoron, a self-contradictory and meaningless phrase, a
| whitewash for a specific, particular, and minority religious
| view in America—Biblical literalism.

- Stephen Jay Gould ("Creationism: Out of the Mainstream," The
Scientist, 11/17/1986)

----------------------------------------------------------------

| [Punctuated equilibrium] became an issue (quite coincidentally)
| just when creationism reached its acme of thankfully temporary
| influence. Creationists, with their usual skill in the art of
| phony rhetoric, cynically distorted punctuated equilibrium for
| their own ends, claiming that we had virtually thrown in the
| towel and admitted that the fossil record contains no
| intermediate forms. (Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand,
| is a different theory of intermediacy for evolutionary
| trends-pushing a ball up an inclined plane for gradualism,
| climbing a staircase for punctuated equilibrium.) Some of our
| colleagues, in an all too common and literally perverse
| reaction, blamed us for this mayhem upon our theory. At least
| we were able to fight back effectively. Most of my testimony at
| the Arkansas creationism trial in 1980 centered upon the
| creationists' distortion of punctuated equilibrium.

- Stephen Jay Gould ("Opus 200," Natural History, Aug. 1991)
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_opus200.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

1981 Creationism Trial in Arkansas
McLean v. Arkansas
Plaintiff's transcript, testimony of Stephen Jay Gould
http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/pf_trans/mva_tt
_p_gould.html
[link is line-wrapped]

| Q: Have you read the creation science literature relative to
| geology?
|
| A: I have indeed. Let me say just for the record, though, I'll
| use the term 'creation science' because it's so enjoined by
| the Act, but in my view there is no such item and creation
| science is not science. I would prefer to refer to it as
| creationism.
|
| But yes, I have read the creation science literature, so
| called.

| Q: Would you please briefly explain the theory of punctuated
| equilibrium?
|
| A: The theory of punctuated equilibrium, which is an attempt
| to explain gaps as the normal workings of the evolutionary
| process, begins by making a distinction between two modes of
| evolution. First, evolution might occur by the wholesale or
| entire transformation of one's form, one's species into
| another.
|
| We maintain in the theory of punctuated equilibrium that that
| is, in fact, not a common mode of evolution, but what normally
| happens, the usual way for evolutionary change to occur, is by
| a process called speciation or branching. That it's not the
| whole transformation of one entire species into another, out a
| process of branching, whereby one form splits off. In other
| words, a small group of creatures may become isolated
| geographically from the parental population, and then, under
| this small isolated area, undergo a process of accumulation of
| genetic changes to produce a new species.
|
| The second aspect of the theory of punctuated equilibrium -
|
| The first one is - I did leave out a point there. That most
| species, successful species living in large populations, do
| not change. In fact, are fairly stable in the fossil record
| and live for a long time. The average duration of marine
| invertebrate species was five to ten million years. During
| that time they may fluctuate mildly in morphology, but most of
| them - I don't say there aren't exceptions - most of them
| don't change very much. That's what we would expect for large,
| successful, well-adapted populations. And that's the
| equilibrium part. By punctuation, we refer to those events of
| speciation where descendent species rather rapidly in
| geological perspectives split off from their ancestors. And
| that's the second point.
|
| First, that evolutionary changes accumulate, not through the
| transformation of entire population, but through events of
| slipping, branching, or speciation. Then we have to look at
| the ordinary time course, how long the event of speciation
| takes. And it seems to be that it occurs probably on the
| average - there is an enormous variation - in perhaps tens of
| thousands of years. Now, tens of thousands of years,
| admittedly, is very slow by the scale of our lives. By the
| scale of our lives, ten thousand years has been deceptively
| slow. But remember, we're talking about geological time. Ten
| thousand years, in almost every geological situation, is
| represented by a single bedding plane, by a single stratum,
| not by a long sequence of deposits.
|
| And therefore the species forms in ten thousand years,
| although that's slow by the standards of our life, in fact, in
| geological representation, you would find all of that
| represented on a single bedding plane. In other words, you
| wouldn't see it.
|
| What's more, if it's a small, isolated population that's
| speciated, then the chance of finding the actual event of
| speciation is very, very small, indeed. And therefore, it is
| characteristic of the fossil record that new species appear
| geologically abruptly. This is to my mind a correct
| representation of the way in which we believe the evolution
| occurs.
|
| Q: Professor Gould, would it assist you in your testimony in
| explaining punctuated equilibrium to refer to a chart?
|
| A: Yes. I have a chart that I presented to you. What we see
| here, your Honor -
|
| Q: Does that exhibit contain a chart illustrating punctuated
| equilibrium?
|
| A: Yes. I have two charts here. The first, your Honor,
| illustrates the principle of gradual - That is on page 642 -
| illustrating the slow and steady transformation of a single
| population. The next page, page 643, illustrates punctuated
| equilibrium in which we see that in geological perspectives,
| though remember, we're talking about tens of thousands of
| years, that in geological perspective, species are originating
| in periods of time that are not geologically resolvable and
| are represented by single bedding planes and, therefore,
| appear in the record abruptly.
|
| I might say at this point, if I may, that there are two rather
| different senses that would turn gap into record. The first
| one refers to an existence of all interceptable intermediate
| degrees. And to that extent, those are gaps, and I believe
| they are gaps because indeed, evolution doesn't work that way,
| usually. They are gaps because that is not how evolution
| occur. There is another sense of gaps in the record claiming,
| in other words, there are not transitional forms whatsoever in
| the fossil record. It's, in fact, patently false.
|
| Indeed, on page 643, if you consult the chart, we do display
| an evolutionary trend here on the right, and evolutionary
| trends are very common in the fossil record. Punctuate
| equilibrium does not propose to deny it. By evolutionary
| trends, we mean the existence of intermediate forms,
| structurally intermediate forms between ancestors in the sense
| that we don't have every single set, and we find transitional
| forms like that very abundant in the fossil record.
|
| But the theory of punctuated equilibrium says that you
| shouldn't expect to find all interceptable intermediate
| degrees. It's not like rolling a ball up an inclined plane,
| it's rather, a trend is more like climbing a staircase, where
| each step would be geologically abrupt. In that sense that are
| many transitional forms in the fossil record.
|
| I might also state that when the geological evidence is
| unusually good, that we can even see what's happening within
| one of these punctuations.
|
| Q: Within one of these bedding planes, as you refer to it?
|
| A: What is usually bedding planes, but in very rare geological
| circumstances, we have finer geological resolution. Those ten
| thousand years may be represented by a sequence of deposits,
| and we can see what is actually happening within that interval
| of tens of thousands of years.
|
| Q: Professor Gould, you have testified that in some rare
| instances you can find actual evidence of punctuation; is that
| correct?
|
| A: Yes.
|
| Q: Can you give us an example of such?
|
| A: There is one very good example that is published in Nature
| magazine by Peter Williamson. It concerns the evolution of
| several species of fresh water clams and snails in African
| lakes during the past two million years. At two different
| times water levels went down and the lakes became isolated.
|
| Now, in lakes you often get much finer grained preservation of
| strata than usual, so you can actually see what's happening
| within one of these punctuations. So the lakes become
| isolated, and we can see in the sequence of strata the
| transformation of ancestors and descendants within a period of
| time that is on the order of tens of thousand of years. I have
| submitted three photographs -
|
| A: In the first photograph, marked number one, you see, your
| Honor, on your left is the ancestral form. It's a snail that
| has a very smooth outline, and on your right is a descendant
| form that comes from higher strata. You notice that the
| outline is stepped, more like the Empire State Building, in a
| way.
|
| The second photograph shows the actual sequence of
| intermediate forms. Again, on your left is the ancestor, on
| your right is the descendant. The three or four snails in the
| middle are average representatives from a sequence of strata
| representing tens of thousands of years. And the third, which
| is the most remarkable that we actually have evidence for the
| mechanism whereby this transition occurred, we have three rows
| there. The top row represents a sequence of representative
| series of snails from the lowermost strata, in the ancestral
| form. And you'll note that there's not a great deal of
| variability. They all look pretty much alike.
|
| On the bottom row are the descendant forms, the ones in the
| uppermost strata in this sequence, and they all, again, look
| pretty much alike, but they are different forms. These are the
| ones that have the stepped like outline.
|
| In the middle row, notice that there is an enormous expansion
| of the variability. Presumably, under conditions of stress and
| rapid evolution, there are enormous expansions of variability.
| There you have a much wider range of variation. There are some
| snails that look smooth in outline, there are some that look
| pretty much stepped, and there are all intermediate degrees.
| Here is what happened, you get a big expansion of variability,
| and the natural selection or some other process eliminated
| those of the ancestral form. And from that expanded spectrum
| and variability, only the ones that had the stepped-like
| outline were preserved.
|
| And in the sequence, we, therefore, actually see the process
| of speciation occurring. So it's not true to say that
| punctuated equilibrium is just an argument born of despair,
| because you don't see transitional forms. When the geological
| record is unusually good, you do, indeed, see them.

| Q: Could you give an example of an entire transitional
| sequence in the fossil record?
|
| A: Yes. A very good example is that provided by our own group,
| the mammals. I have a series of skulls illustrating the most
| important aspect of this transition.
|
| Now, in terms of features that would be - In terms of the
| evidence preserved in the morphology of bones which we find in
| the fossil record, the outstanding aspect of the transition
| from reptiles to mammals occurs in the evolution of the jaw.
|
| The reptilian jaw, lower jaw, is composed of several bones,
| and the mammalian lower jaw is composed of a single bone
| called the dentary.
|
| We can trace the evolution of those lineages which gave rise
| to mammals a progressive reduction in these posterior or back
| bones of the jaw, until finally the two bones that form the
| articulation or the contact between the upper and lower jaw of
| reptiles becomes smaller and smaller and eventually becomes
| two or the three middle ear bones, the malleus and incus, or
| hammer and anvil, of mammals. And you can see a progressive
| reduction in the charts I've supplied. The first animal,
| Dimetrodon, is a member of a group called the pelycosaur,
| which are the ancestors of the so-called therapsids or the
| first mammal like reptiles.
|
| And then within the therapsids you can trace the sequence of
| the progressive reduction of these post dentary bones until -
| and this is a remarkable thing - in advanced members of the
| group that eventually gave rise to mammals, a group called the
| cynodonts. In advanced members of the cynodonts, we actually
| have a double articulation, that is, a double jaw joint. It is
| one formed by the old quadrate and articulate bones, which are
| the reptilian articulation bones, the ones that become the
| malleus and incus, the hammer and the anvil, later. And then
| the secondary articulation formed by the squamosal bone, which
| is the upper jaw bone of mammals that makes contact with the
| lower. And at least in these advanced cynodonts, it seems by a
| bone called the surangular, which is one of the posterior
| post-dentary bones, and then in a form called Probainognathus,
| which is perhaps the most advanced of the cynodonts, you get,
| in the squamosal bone, the actual formation of what is called
| the glenoid fossa, or the actual hole that receives the
| articulation from the lower jaw.
|
| And in Probainognathus, it's not clear. Some paleontologists
| think that the dentary was actually already established, the
| contact. In any event the surangular seems to be in contact.
| And then in the first mammal, which is called Morganucodon,
| the dentary extends back, excludes the surangular and you have
| the complete mammalian articulation formed between the dentary
| of the lower jaw and the squamosal of the upper jaw.
|
| Now, Morganucodon, it appears the old quadrate articulate
| contact is still present, the bones that go into the middle
| ear, although some paleontologists think that, in fact, that
| contact may have already been broken, and you may have this
| truly intermediate stage in which the quadrate and articular
| are no longer forming an articulation, but are not yet
| detached and become ear bones.
|
| I might also state that if you look at the ontogeny of the
| growth of individual mammals and their embryology, that you
| see that sequence, that the malleus and incus, the hammer and
| anvil, begin as bones of the jaws. And in fact, in marsupials,
| when marsupials are first born, it is a very, very undeveloped
| state that the jaw articulation is formed still as in
| reptiles, and later these bones actually enter the middle ear.
|
| Q: Now, Professor Gould, you've used a lot of technical terms
| here. If I understand you correctly, the point of this is that
| this transitional sequence for which we have good evidence
| shows the transformation of the jaw bones in reptiles to
| become the ear bones in mammals; is that correct?
|
| A: Yes. We have a very nice sequence of intermediate forms.
| Now again, it's not in perceptible transition through all
| intermediary degrees, because that's not the way evolution
| works.
|
| What we do have is a good temporally ordered structural
| sequence within the intermediate forms.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5031

From: Todd Greene
Date: Apr 27, 2006 2:34 pm
Subject: Re: Evolutionist nonsense by Gould

--- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #5024):
> Was this before or after Gould came up with his crisis-evolution
> ideas?
[snip]

This is Rudy telling everyone that he has chosen to PURPOSELY ignore
where Stephen Gould has SPECIFICALLY pointed out to him that
creationists have distorted his words on this topic and has
SPECIFICALLY explained how they got it wrong.

This is The Young Earth Creationist Way.

- Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5037

From: Todd Greene
Date: Apr 27, 2006 3:45 pm
Subject: Re: Evolutionist nonsense by Gould - Thank you, Veto!

--- In coCBanned, Veto Roley wrote (post #5034):
> Look, Todd, you can believe Gould's smoke and mirrors if you
> want,

Of course, it's Veto (and a YEC colleague) who've been giving us
smoke and mirrors. And Gould's discussion that I produced swept his
smoke and mirrors away. Rather dramatically!

This is Veto telling us that now - after STEPHEN GOULD HIMSELF has
SPECIFICALLY told him that he has misrepresented the out-of-context
quotes of Gould, and SPECIFICALLY EXPLAINED where the creationists
went wrong by explaining IN DETAIL exactly what he was talking
about - Veto is going to DELIBERATELY IGNORE THE FACTS and continue
to promote his falsehoods.

This is The Young Earth Creationist Way.

> but his restatement of Richard Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster
> theory kind of cinches the argument for me...

This is Veto demonstrating that he cannot even understand Gould's
plain English.

I want to thank Veto for continuing to show why when it comes to
genuine science - or, heck, even serious thinking - creationist
rhetoric is just so much rubbish.

- Todd Greene

"A truthful witness gives honest testimony,
but a false witness tells lies."
- Proverbs 12:17

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5058

From: Todd Greene
Date: Apr 28, 2006 1:38 pm
Subject: Rudy's deceitful nonsense on Gould

--- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #5043):
> --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote:
>> --- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #5024):
>>> Was this before or after Gould came up with his
>>> crisis-evolution ideas?
>>
>> This is Rudy telling everyone that he has chosen to PURPOSELY
>> ignore where Stephen Gould has SPECIFICALLY pointed out to him
>> that creationists have distorted his words on this topic and
>> has SPECIFICALLY explained how they got it wrong.
>>
>> This is The Young Earth Creationist Way.
>
> They got it wrong?  No, Todd, they did not get it wrong, YOU
> are the one who is making things up as you go along.

This is more of Rudy lying. I didn't make up a thing. I quoted
Stephen Gould, including some lengthy testimony by Gould in the 1981
Creationism Trial in Arkansas. Rudy has chosen to PURPOSELY IGNORE
what Gould has written and stated, and has decided instead to lie
about Gould.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> Gould's explanation was:
> I now have to invent a way around the lack of transitional
> fossils!

Gould never said any such thing. Rudy is merely lying here.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> He INVENTED them by circumventing the issue, and throwing in
> a "straw man"...

Now Rudy lies that Gould invented the transitional fossils that
Gould has referred to in discussion. As usual the young earth
creationist is off in his deceitful fantasy world pretending the
fossils don't even exist.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> Actually, Todd, when you READ what Gould SAID, what he did was
> a) SAY there are no transitional fossils

Gould never said any such thing. This is Rudy lying again.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> b) SAY there WERE transitional fossils, but NOT recognizable
> as such

It's unclear what Rudy is even referring to with this comment.

> c) NEVER prove there were

Rudy just lies again. Gould referred to some specific examples of
transitional fossils.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> d) Said there was a REASON for the lack thereof - crisis
> evolution.

This is Rudy giving a hint to the misinterpretation problem that
creationists invented for themselves. Because they did not
understand what Gould was talking about, they misinterpreted Gould's
comment about a "lack of transitional fossils" to mean what they
mean when they use their false claim that there are "no transitional
fossils." The statement "there are no transitional fossils" is NOT
what Gould said. The crisis is that Gould has responded directly to
creationists and explained to them SPECIFICALLY and IN DETAIL how
they misinterpreted his words, but creationists who have used this
error are so much in love with their error that they have chosen to
lie about it rather than acknowledge the truth.

> So, BEFORE you start screaming and insulting, next time READ what
> you send to this list.
>
> On the other hand, by the references you sent you just make it
> easier for people to prove you wrong again and again!

Unlike Rudy, I did read what Gould wrote, and stated in testimony.
Every single word. Here is the reference to my post with the quotes,
just a mouse-click away:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

Just keep watching, and you will see Rudy PURPOSELY IGNORE what
Gould said and continue to lie about Gould. This is The Young Earth
Creationist Way.

- Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5060

From: Todd Greene
Date: Apr 28, 2006 1:44 pm
Subject: More of Rudy's nonsense on Gould

--- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #5044):
> --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote:
>> --- In coCBanned, Veto Roley wrote (post #5034):
>>> Look, Todd, you can believe Gould's smoke and mirrors if you
>>> want,
>>
>> Of course, it's Veto (and a YEC colleague) who've been giving
>> us smoke and mirrors. And Gould's discussion that I produced
>> swept his smoke and mirrors away. Rather dramatically!
>
> Todd, exactly where was the discussion "sweeping smoke and
> mirrors away?"

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> The discussion by Gould was SHOWN to be the PRODUCER of the
> smoke and mirrors! Remember?

It's hard to remember something that never happened.

> No, there are no transitional fossils, because they are not
> supposed to be there...

This is Rudy pretending to relate Gould, when he is doing nothing
more than repeating his creationist misrepresentation of Gould,
which has already been proved to be false BY GOULD HIMSELF.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> Yes, there are transitional fossils - see how we think this
> jawbone changed into an earbone.

Wow, I'm amazed! Rudy finally comes close to the truth.

> Gould had to come up with his Crisis Evolution to explain the
> lack of transitional fossils away! Don't you ACTUALLY read what
> you send to this list?

Of course, it's Rudy who is PURPOSELY IGNORING what Gould states
here:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

The crisis is with creationists who are so wedded to their own
errors that they adamantly refuse to acknowledge them, no matter
what.

- Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5061

From: Todd Greene
Date: Apr 28, 2006 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: Todd's defense of evolutionary tapdancing

--- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #5056):
> --- In coCBanned, Todd wrote:
>> --- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #5024):
>>> Was this before or after Gould came up with his
>>> crisis-evolution ideas?
>>
>> This is Rudy telling everyone that he has chosen to PURPOSELY
>> ignore where Stephen Gould has SPECIFICALLY pointed out to him
>> that creationists have distorted his words on this topic and
>> has SPECIFICALLY explained how they got it wrong.
>
> Todd, I have done nothing of the sort. I even QUOTED Gould's own
> testimony. He tells us that there are NO TRANSRITIONALS BECAUSE
> THEY ARE NOT EXPECTED to be there.

Notice there aren't any quotes around this statement. This is
because Gould never said this. Rudy merely repeats his
misinterpretation because he cannot bring himself to acknowledge his
error, even after Gould has SPECIFICALLY explained Rudy's error to
him IN DETAIL.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> Since they ARE indeed absent, he had to
> come up with a new invention: Crisis-Evolution.
>
> Again, Todd, HIS words.

This is Rudy repeating Rudy's words, while he runs fast away from
Gould's own words.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

- Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5081

From: Todd Greene
Date: Apr 29, 2006 7:40 am
Subject: Lying about Stephen J. Gould

Last year in May Rudy posted some out-of-context quotes of Stephen
J. Gould. At that time I pointed out to Rudy in detail how he had
distorted the meaning of Gould's words by taking them out of context.

Against my better judgment...
(May 15, 2005)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/716

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(May 15, 2005)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/726
(May 16, 2005)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/738
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/749
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/752
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/753
(May 16, 2005)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/759
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/764
(May 31, 2005)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/962

So we know for a fact that Rudy knew that Gould himself had already
corrected Rudy's misrepresentations of what Gould was talking about.
Yet here in the last few days we have observed that Rudy
INTENTIONALLY gave a false representation of Gould. This is called
lying, people. Plain and simple. THERE IS NO EXCUSE for this
behavior. Yet notice how when they're caught in the act of lying,
other creationists tolerate the behavior by ignoring the deceit, and
others will even jump in line behind the liar and enourage his lies
and try to help him cover up his lies.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie

| lie
|
| 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a
| falsehood.
| 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

"A truthful witness gives honest testimony,
but a false witness tells lies."
- Proverbs 12:17

"A truthful witness does not deceive,
but a false witness pours out lies."
- Proverbs 14:5

- Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5095

From: Todd Greene
Date: Apr 30, 2006 9:13 am
Subject: Veto lies about Stephen J. Gould

--- In coCBanned, Veto Roley wrote (post #5093):
> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>> We know what Gould said. We know that Gould did not say what
>> Rudy says he did. We even know that Gould has SPECIFICALLY
>> CORRECTED the exact error that Rudy was using. We know that
>> even though the SPECIFIC things that Gould has stated about
>> this have been presented to Rudy, not once, not twice, not
>> thrice, but at least four times (and more than this, I think).
>> We know that Rudy has INTENTIONAL IGNORED what Gould has
>> stated, and then continued to state his falsehoods about Gould.
>> This is lying, plain and simple.
[snip]

> Todd,
>
> Which is more powerful? What Gould says or what Gould does?
>
> I say what Gould does (create a theory that recoginizes that
> there are no transitional forms) speaks far louder than what
> he actually says...
>
> Veto

Now we see Veto purposely, obstinately refusing to correct his
errors about Stephen J. Gould, and now just continuing with lies
about Gould. Gould never said there were no transitional fossils.
*Creationists* made the (erroneous) argument that "there are no
transitional fossils," and then they took certain statements by
Gould out of context and misrepresented the meaning of Gould's
statements as meaning "there are no transitional fossils" even
though that is not what Gould stated.

However, we are now way beyond this in the current discussion. Veto
has been given the direct response by Gould himself, where Gould has
explained IN DETAIL how and why creationists got the meaning of his
words wrong,

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

but rather than correct his error of misrepresentation, the lying
Veto has chosen to INTENTIONALLY IGNORE what Gould has explained to
him in detail, and Veto has chosen to then purposely lie about
Gould, as we continue to observe.

Ask yourself: Why are these young earth creationists so completely
dedicated to deception?

| http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie
| lie
| 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a
| falsehood.
| 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

"A truthful witness gives honest testimony,
but a false witness tells lies."
- Proverbs 12:17

"A truthful witness does not deceive,
but a false witness pours out lies."
- Proverbs 14:5

- Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5099

From: Todd Greene
Date: Apr 30, 2006 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: Gould lies by saying two opposite things

--- In coCBanned, Veto Roley wrote (post #5096):
> I do not deny what Gould has said.

So says the lying Veto - who has yet to repent of his lies about me -
  even as he continues to deny what Gould has stated.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> He has to
> protect himself both from those within the evolutionary camp who
> recognize puncutated equalibrium for what it is -- an absolute
> denial of transitional forms

Here the lying Veto now adds another lie. Punctuated equilibrium is
not "an absolute denial of transitional forms," and never was. But
Veto will never acknowlege the truth, because he loves his own lies
far more than he has any respect for being truthful.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

Why are these young earth creationists so completely dedicated to
deception?

"To teach something falsely, not knowing it is false, but believing
it is the truth, does not make one a false teacher. But once one
learns it is false and continues to teach it, yes, one then is a
false teacher." - George Jackson (9/13/2005, post #2600)

| http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie
| lie
| 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a
| falsehood.
| 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

"A truthful witness gives honest testimony,
but a false witness tells lies."
- Proverbs 12:17

"A truthful witness does not deceive,
but a false witness pours out lies."
- Proverbs 14:5

- Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5106

From: Todd Greene
Date: Apr 30, 2006 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: Veto lies about Stephen J. Gould

--- In coCBanned, Veto Roley wrote (post #5103):
> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>> --- In coCBanned, Veto Roley wrote (post #5096):
>>> I do not deny what Gould has said.
>>
>> So says the lying Veto - who has yet to repent of his lies about
>> me - even as he continues to deny what Gould has stated.
>>
>> Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
>> (Apr 27, 2006)
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023
>>
>>> He has to
>>> protect himself both from those within the evolutionary camp
>>> who recognize puncutated equalibrium for what it is -- an
>>> absolute denial of transitional forms
>>
>> Here the lying Veto now adds another lie. Punctuated equilibrium
>> is not "an absolute denial of transitional forms," and never was.
>> But Veto will never acknowlege the truth, because he loves his
>> own lies far more than he has any respect for being truthful.
>>
>> Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
>> (Apr 27, 2006)
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023
>>
>> Why are these young earth creationists so completely dedicated
>> to deception?
>
> Todd,
>
> I have to correct you, for in your evolutionist blindness you
> can not see the obvious. Punctuated equalibrium was created by
> Gould to explain why he did not see transitional forms. Start
> using your brain and not your faith, Todd.

This is both ironic and absurd, having a deceitful brainless man
with no eyes accusing me of being blind and not using my brain.

What we observe are the continuing lies of Veto, as he keeps on
lying that Gould said "there are no transitional forms" despite the
FACT that Gould NEVER stated that. Notice how the lying Veto just
keeps right INTENTIONALLY IGNORING what Gould has told him:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

Why does Veto INTENTIONALLY IGNORE the facts. This is because young
earth creationists like Veto know how the facts reveal the lies of
their creationist rhetoric, so they HATE the fact, and they RUN AWAY
from the facts, and then blatantly lie about them.

"To teach something falsely, not knowing it is false, but believing
it is the truth, does not make one a false teacher. But once one
learns it is false and continues to teach it, yes, one then is a
false teacher." - George Jackson (9/13/2005, post #2600)

| http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie
| lie
| 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a
| falsehood.
| 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

"A truthful witness gives honest testimony,
but a false witness tells lies."
- Proverbs 12:17

"A truthful witness does not deceive,
but a false witness pours out lies."
- Proverbs 14:5

- Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5110

From: Todd Greene
Date: Apr 30, 2006 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: Veto lies about Stephen J. Gould

--- In coCBanned, Veto Roley wrote (post #5108):
> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>>   --- In coCBanned, Veto Roley wrote (post #5103):
>>> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>>>> --- In coCBanned, Veto Roley wrote (post #5096):
>>>>> I do not deny what Gould has said.
>>>>
>>>> So says the lying Veto - who has yet to repent of his lies
>>>> about me - even as he continues to deny what Gould has stated.
>>>>
>>>> Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
>>>> (Apr 27, 2006)
>>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023
>>>>
>>>>> He has to
>>>>> protect himself both from those within the evolutionary camp
>>>>> who recognize puncutated equalibrium for what it is -- an
>>>>> absolute denial of transitional forms
>>>>
>>>> Here the lying Veto now adds another lie. Punctuated
>>>> equilibrium is not "an absolute denial of transitional forms,"
>>>> and never was. But Veto will never acknowlege the truth,
>>>> because he loves his own lies far more than he has any respect
>>>> for being truthful.
>>>>
>>>> Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
>>>> (Apr 27, 2006)
>>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023
>>>>
>>>> Why are these young earth creationists so completely dedicated
>>>> to deception?
>>>
>>> Todd,
>>>
>>> I have to correct you, for in your evolutionist blindness you
>>> can not see the obvious. Punctuated equalibrium was created by
>>> Gould to explain why he did not see transitional forms. Start
>>> using your brain and not your faith, Todd.
>>
>> This is both ironic and absurd, having a deceitful brainless man
>> with no eyes accusing me of being blind and not using my brain.
>
>> What we observe are the continuing lies of Veto, as he keeps on
>> lying that Gould said "there are no transitional forms" despite
>> the FACT that Gould NEVER stated that. Notice how the lying Veto
>> just keeps right INTENTIONALLY IGNORING what Gould has told him:
>>
>> Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
>> (Apr 27, 2006)
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023
>>
>> Why does Veto INTENTIONALLY IGNORE the facts. This is because
>> young earth creationists like Veto know how the facts reveal the
>> lies of their creationist rhetoric, so they HATE the facts, and
>> they RUN AWAY from the facts, and then blatantly lie about them.
>
> Todd,
>
> The subject line says it all -- show me where Gould specifically
> repudiated punctuated equalibrium and said that evolution
> occurred gradually through verified transitional forms and I
> will admit that Gould is consistent.
>
> I know you can't do that because Gould defended punctuated
> equalibrium until his death.
>
> Use your mind and stop unthinkingly repeat the religious dogma
> of evolution.
>
> Veto

The lying Veto - who has yet to repent of any of his lies about me -
continues to deny what Gould has stated and he INTENTIONALLY IGNORES
Gould's own statements about this, even though I took the time to
acquire and format Gould's statements on this specific issue for
him, and even though I have subsequently given Veto this link
something like 10 or more times:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

Now the lying Veto ignores everything that Gould pointed out and
everything I have pointed out to him, and Veto continues with his
campaign of lies that punctuated equilibrium is "an absolute denial
of transitional forms." The truth of the matter is that punctuated
equilibrium is not "an absolute denial of transitional forms," and
never was. I have explained this to Veto (and Rudy). Stephen J.
Gould explained this in detail. The young earth creationists screwed
up when they got confused and took Gould's words out of context and
distorted its meaning. Gould then SPECIFICALLY told creationists
they screwed, and EXPLAINED IN DETAIL to them how and why they
screwed up. But Veto INTENTIONALLY IGNORES Gould and then
obstinately continues to lie about Gould and about punctuated
equilibrium, because Veto is utterly dedicated to error and then
lying to cover up his error.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

"To teach something falsely, not knowing it is false, but believing
it is the truth, does not make one a false teacher. But once one
learns it is false and continues to teach it, yes, one then is a
false teacher." - George Jackson (9/13/2005, post #2600)

| http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie
| lie
| 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a
| falsehood.
| 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

"A truthful witness gives honest testimony,
but a false witness tells lies."
- Proverbs 12:17

"A truthful witness does not deceive,
but a false witness pours out lies."
- Proverbs 14:5

- Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5119

From: Todd Greene
Date: Apr 30, 2006 4:24 pm
Subject: Is Rudy getting close to correcting his errors about Gould?

--- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #5117):
> This is what I wrote:
> "Phyletic Gradualism  -
> A theory of evolution, supported by Darwin, which states that
> evolution is a gradual process that proceeds slowly but constantly
> through a series of small changes. "
>
> "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
> persists as the trade secret of paleontology... 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." (Stephen
> J. Gould, "Evolutions Erratic Pace" Natural History 86:12-16, May
> 1977
>
> Rudy writes (2006)
> Where did I misrepresent Gould?

Gould NEVER stated "There are no transitional fossils." In fact,
Gould himself discusses examples of transitional fossils, and has
also contributed research on an example of species arising gradually
by the steady evolution of their ancestors in a local area.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> Did he or did he not say, "The extreme rarity of transitional
> forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of
> paleontology...?"

Gould NEVER stated "There are no transitional fossils." In fact,
Gould himself discusses examples of transitional fossils, and has
also contributed research on an example of species arising gradually
by the steady evolution of their ancestors in a local area.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> Did he or did he not say, "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."

Gould NEVER stated "There are no transitional fossils."

In the quote here Gould is referring to his "stair-step" model based
on how the evolution of species typically shows up in the fossil
record (that's typically, not always). Gould has ALSO pointed out
examples (which are rarer, thus not typical) where the fossil record
has indeed preserved species arising gradually over time.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> Did he or did he not say, ""...the evolutionary transformations
> occured so quickly that no fossil record was preserved...?""

Gould did NOT state "There are no transitional fossils." And that is
not what he's saying here. This is a great example of how you
creationists took his statement out of context and then distorted
the meaning to pretend that he said "There are no transitional
fossils" when that is not what he said. In fact, Gould himself
discusses examples of transitional fossils, and has also contributed
research on an example of species arising gradually by the steady
evolution of their ancestors in a local area.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> "Extreme rarity" is exactly what one of Todd's references (Do not
> use lack of transitionals as an argument...") was stating.
> EXACTLY what Gould stated...

Gould NEVER stated "There are no transitional fossils." In fact,
Gould himself discusses examples of transitional fossils, and has
also contributed research on an example of species arising gradually
by the steady evolution of their ancestors in a local area.

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> Now, Todd, if you can show how I misrepresented Gould, go for it.

This is Rudy continuing to ignore where Gould has SPECIFICALLY and
IN DETAIL described exactly how creationists screwed up and
misunderstood what he wrote:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

"To teach something falsely, not knowing it is false, but believing
it is the truth, does not make one a false teacher. But once one
learns it is false and continues to teach it, yes, one then is a
false teacher." - George Jackson (9/13/2005, post #2600)

| http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie
| lie
| 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a
| falsehood.
| 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

"A truthful witness gives honest testimony,
but a false witness tells lies."
- Proverbs 12:17

"A truthful witness does not deceive,
but a false witness pours out lies."
- Proverbs 14:5

- Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5120

From: Todd Greene
Date: Apr 30, 2006 4:35 pm
Subject: Re: Rudy's deceitful nonsense on Gould

--- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #5111):
> --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote:
>> --- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #5043):
>>> --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote:
>>>> --- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #5024):
>>>>> Was this before or after Gould came up with his
>>>>> crisis-evolution ideas?
>>>>
>>>> This is Rudy telling everyone that he has chosen to PURPOSELY
>>>> ignore where Stephen Gould has SPECIFICALLY pointed out to him
>>>> that creationists have distorted his words on this topic and
>>>> has SPECIFICALLY explained how they got it wrong.
>>>>
>>>> This is The Young Earth Creationist Way.
>>>
>>> They got it wrong? No, Todd, they did not get it wrong, YOU
>>> are the one who is making things up as you go along.
>>
>> This is more of Rudy lying. I didn't make up a thing. I quoted
>> Stephen Gould, including some lengthy testimony by Gould in the
>> 1981 Creationism Trial in Arkansas. Rudy has chosen to PURPOSELY
>> IGNORE what Gould has written and stated, and has decided
>> instead to lie about Gould.
>
> Rudy writes:
> "Purposely ignored"?? I have QUOTED Gould, so not quite sure what
> you mean by purposely ignored.

So says Rudy, who has NEVER quoted Gould to say "There are no
transitional fossil," even while Rudy keeps lying that Gould said
that.

Rudy also keeps PURPOSELY IGNORING where Gould explained
SPECIFICALLY and IN DETAIL how creationists screwed up in
misrepresenting the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" and in
misrepresenting him as saying "there are no transitional fossils"
even though he never said that:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

It's amazing how Rudy now lies that he has not purposely ignored
this, even while he purposely ignores it.

> I DO know that you seem to be getting high on accusing others of
> all sorts of stuff... Must be, since you spend so much time doing
> it.

Of course, it's Rudy who's high on his lunatic creationist nonsense.
I'm not just accusing Rudy and Veto of lying. They have proved that
they're lying, numerous times.

> Addictions are serious issues, Todd, I would seek professional
> help if I were you...

This is Rudy again pretending that it's perfectly okay for him and
Veto to lie, and that no one should complain about their blatant,
constant lying.

"To teach something falsely, not knowing it is false, but believing
it is the truth, does not make one a false teacher. But once one
learns it is false and continues to teach it, yes, one then is a
false teacher." - George Jackson (9/13/2005, post #2600)

| http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie
| lie
| 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a
| falsehood.
| 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

"A truthful witness gives honest testimony,
but a false witness tells lies."
- Proverbs 12:17

"A truthful witness does not deceive,
but a false witness pours out lies."
- Proverbs 14:5

- Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5121

From: Todd Greene
Date: Apr 30, 2006 4:49 pm
Subject: Re: More of Rudy's nonsense on Gould

--- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #5112):
> --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote:
> SNIPPED
>>
>> This is Rudy pretending to relate Gould, when he is doing
>> nothing more than repeating his creationist misrepresentation
>> of Gould, which has already been proved to be false BY GOULD
>> HIMSELF.
>>
>> Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023
>
> Rudy writes:
> Todd, you AND Gould can call things "truth" and "rebuttal" and
> lies all you want, That does not create truth.

When Rudy lies, pointing out that he's lying and showing how he's
lying demonstrates the truth that creationists are so dedicated to
their errors that they will even lie to cover up the erroneous
nature of their rhetoric.

And, of course, Rudy is just trying to distract from the fact that
his is INTENTIONALLY IGNORING the fact that Gould himself has
explained to creationists exactly why the creationist rhetoric about
Gould is all screwed up:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> I quoted Gould, showing how inconsistent his point of view is.
> You, like your practice, misquote what I wrote, PURPOSELY...

This is Rudy continuing to pretend that Gould said that "there are
no transitional fossils," when the fact is that Gould NEVER said
that. Rudy just keeps right on intentionally ignoring where Gould
has corrected Rudy's errors, as quoted here:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

>>> Yes, there are transitional fossils - see how we think this
>>> jawbone changed into an earbone.
>>
>> Wow, I'm amazed! Rudy finally comes close to the truth.
>>
>>> Gould had to come up with his Crisis Evolution to explain the
>>> lack of transitional fossils away! Don't you ACTUALLY read what
>>> you send to this list?
>>
>> Of course, it's Rudy who is PURPOSELY IGNORING what Gould states
>> here:
>>
>> Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023
>
> Rudy writes"
> "Evolutionary nonsense by Todd Greene can be found in his
> website..." Does that make the stuff on your website nonsense,
> just because I say so?

This is Rudy intentionally ignoring where Gould has specifically and
in detail described Rudy's creationist errors, as quoted here:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> Neither does Gould calling creationist responses "nonsense" make
> it so.

This is Rudy intentionally ignoring where Gould has specifically and
in detail described Rudy's creationist errors, as quoted here:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> I have quoted Gould. DEAL WITH THE QUOTTES, Todd.

Gould's quotes are not the problem. The problem is creationists
misrepresenting Gould as saying "There are no transitional fossils"
when in fact Gould NEVER said that.

> Gould is INCONSISTENT
> in his statements.

Gould is not consistent with the creationist misrepresentations of
Gould, because the creationist misrepresentations are
misrepresentations.

And Rudy continues to intentionally ignore where Gould has
specifically and in detail described the erroneous nature of the
creationist misrepresentations, as quoted here:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> Gould had to
> INVENT a new process to EXPLAIN AWAY THE LACK OF TRANSITIONALS.

A lack is not a completely absense. This is exactly what the
creationist misrepresentation is all about. Gould has explained the
nature of the creationist misrepresentation specifically and in
detail, as quoted here:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

I have little doubt that Rudy will continue to purposely ignore what
Gould has explained to him, and then will continue to lie about
Gould. This is The Young Earth Creationist Way.

"To teach something falsely, not knowing it is false, but believing
it is the truth, does not make one a false teacher. But once one
learns it is false and continues to teach it, yes, one then is a
false teacher." - George Jackson (9/13/2005, post #2600)

| http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie
| lie
| 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a
| falsehood.
| 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

"A truthful witness gives honest testimony,
but a false witness tells lies."
- Proverbs 12:17

"A truthful witness does not deceive,
but a false witness pours out lies."
- Proverbs 14:5

- Todd Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5135

From: Todd Greene
Date: May 1, 2006 8:24 am
Subject: Veto continues to ignore Gould

--- In coCBanned, Veto Roley wrote (post #5131):
> Todd,
>
> The only one who hasn't dealt with Gould is you.

So says Veto, even while he PURPOSELY IGNORES Gould, as quoted here:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> You have not
> yet given a plausible, rational reason why someone who believes
> in transitional forms would come up with a theory that dismisses
> transitionals as being needed.

Veto keeps right on using his creationist lie that Gould's rarity of
transitional fossils is the same thing as the creationist error
of "no transitional fossils at all," even while he PURPOSELY IGNORES
Gould discussing specific examples of transitional fossils, as
quoted here:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> Regardless of what actually says, the logical implication of
> Gould's theory is that he truly does not believe in transitional
> forms.

Veto continues spouting his lie about Gould, even while he purposely
ignores Gould correcting that lie, as quoted here:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

> Puncutated equalibrium is a radical reworking of Darwin's
> theory of gradual evolution.
[snip]

Gould himself stated that punctuated equilibrium was NOT a "radical
reworking" of Darwinian evolution. Gould himself has specifically
and in detail explained how the creationist representation of his
concept of punctuated equilibrium is all screwed up, during his
testimony in the 1981 Creationism Trial in Arkansas (over 20 years
ago), as quoted here:

Creationist nonsense about Stephen J. Gould
(Apr 27, 2006)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5023

- Todd Greene