The Dishonest Creationist Tactic of 'Quote Mining'

[abu afak]

Not only is there a lack of transitional evidence, but slow, gradual transitional evolution would be useless for the survival of a species, which is probably why there is a distinct lack of such fossils in the chain of evidence in the first place.

Which is why 99+% of every Species that every live is Extinct.. and we have some of their chains of fossils as well. For ALL extant creatures, Including Humans, we have an Ever growing filling in of 'Tweeners.'
You're an Ignorant Idiot. Use google Falwell.


AI Overview
Learn more

The "fossil record for evo" refers to the collection of fossilized remains of ancient organisms that provides strong evidence for the theory of evolution, demonstrating how life forms have changed over time through the progression of different species in the geological record, showcasing transitions between ancestral and descendant organisms, often including "missing links" called transitional fossils; essentially acting as a historical snapshot of life on Earth across millions of years.

Key points about the fossil record and evolution:

• Evidence for change:
  Fossils show that organisms from the past were different from those alive today, indicating evolution has occurred.
  
  
• Transitional fossils:
  These fossils exhibit characteristics of both an ancestral group and its evolved descendant, providing strong evidence for evolutionary links.
  
  
• Example: Horse evolution:
  The fossil record of horses shows a clear progression from small, multi-toed ancestors to the modern, single-toed horse, illustrating gradual changes over time.
• Fossil evidence - Understanding Evolution
  The fossil record provides snapshots of the past which, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past...
  Understanding Evolution
  
  
  
• Evolution and the Fossil Record - Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
  Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
  
  
  
• Evolution - Fossils, Species, Adaptation | Britannica
  Oct 25, 2024 — Numbered bones in the forefoot illustrations trace the gradual transition from a four-toed to a one-toed animal. The f...

Featured snippet from the web​

The fossil record provides snapshots of the past which, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past 3.5 billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and has bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is very, very old and has changed over time through evolution.

Fossil evidence - Understanding Evolution​

Understanding Evolution
https://evolution.berkeley.edu › lines-of-evidence › fossil...

18.5A: The Fossil Record as Evidence for EvolutionBiology LibreTexts​

https://bio.libretexts.org › 18.05:_Evidence_of_Evolution
Nov 23, 2024 — Fossils provide solid evidence that organisms from the past are not the same as those found today; fossils show a progression of evolution.

Evolution - Fossils, Species, Adaptation​

Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › ... › Branches of Biology
Oct 25, 2024 — The history of life recorded by fossils presents compelling evidence of evolution. The fossil record is incomplete.

Evolution and the Fossil Record​

Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
https://www.digitalatlasofancientlife.org › learn › evolut...
The fossil record of the past 6 million years reveals the transition from chimp-like species with smaller average brain sizes to species that are increasingly ..

`

 

[abu afak]

a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."
b. The attempt to prevent students from hearing of the problems with evolutionary theory is exactly the kind of indoctrination that critics of the Left have been railing about. “Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to ‘defend evolution,’ please decline...you probably will get beaten.”
Scott, Eugenie C., "Monkey Business," The Sciences (January/February 1996), pp. 20-25.






" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17

Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.




Notice that I provide documentation in my posts.

 

[Hollie]

Not only is there a lack of transitional evidence, but slow, gradual transitional evolution would be useless for the survival of a species, which is probably why there is a distinct lack of such fossils in the chain of evidence in the first place.

Nonsense. There is a well defined history of transitional fossils.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nonsense. There is a well defined history of transitional fossils.

What about the cases where there isn't?

 

[Hollie]

What about the cases where there isn't?

What about them? Fossilization is rare,

What about the clear fossil record?

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

www.talkorigins.org

CC200.1: Transitional fossil abundance

www.talkorigins.org

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What about them? Fossilization is rare.

So I've heard. But are they rare because fossilization is rare or because there wasn't much of anything there to fossilize? There's no way to tell which of these is the case.

What about the clear fossil record?

Can you explain what that means? what is a "clear record"?

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

www.talkorigins.org

CC200.1: Transitional fossil abundance

www.talkorigins.org

 

[Hollie]

So I've heard. But are they rare because fossilization is rare or because there wasn't much of anything there to fossilize? There's no way to tell which of these is the case.

Can you explain what that means? what is a "clear record"?

Just go with, "the gods did it"

There are clear evidences of gradual change in species within the fossil record.

Do you think the gods left the fossil record as a way to play a cruel joke on the religious?

 

[BackAgain]

Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik.
Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.

Quote mining

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...

rationalwiki.org

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] It's a way of Lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.

Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
...
Examples

Darwin
A famous example, possibly one of the most famous examples of quote mining, is the following misquotation of Charles Darwin, where the bold section is often presented without including the rest of the quote.

“”To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

—Charles Darwin[5]

..
.........

Without discussing the merits, I note that the inference of apu dumfuk’s OP is that someone (in this case, of course, Darwin) said something that, therefore, what he said must be accurate.

But, in reality, the bolded first part may be correct and his almost fully contradictory second part might be wrong.

Personally, whether we are discussing the creation of the entire cosmos or the concept that species evolve and that the survival traits of the ones who survive best are passed along genetically to their offspring, I lean toward accepting both.

Up to a point.

The cosmos consisting of energy, matter, time and space either came into being out of nothing on its own or it was created. Neither answer is satisfying.

Similarly, fauna generally require oxygen. Does this mean we used to have ancestor fauna who did not require oxygen and only those who mutated to “need” oxygen ultimately survived?

Darwinian theory holds a great deal of explanatory power. But it doesn’t answer everything.

As to “quote mining,” there is this traditional solution. Quote and cite your source. Let the readers then determine if your analysis about the quote is fair or unfair. Complete or incomplete.

 

[abu afak]

Darwinian theory holds a great deal of explanatory power.

So you disagree with PoliticalChic IAC, but only chose personal grudge response to me.
She believes he holds none.
I'm just doing what you suggest! Luckily in THIS case (Unlike her quote mining) readers have Access to not only what you said PARTIALLY, but the further CONTEXT of what you actually meant.

That's why gratuitous objecting low IQ guy.
I love it!
(Last Word Away!)
`

 

[BackAgain]

So you disagree with PoliticalChic IAC.
She believes he holds none.

I don’t know that you accurately state her beliefs. I don’t speak for her, anyway. I posted what I believe.

I'm just doing what you suggest, luckily in THIS case (unlike quote mining) readers have Access to not only what you said PARTIALLY, but the further CONTEXT of what you actually meant.

I didn’t ask what you were doing. And I don’t care. If I post a quote (I almost never forget to give full attribution) and I cite my source for that quote, it provides you and others with the resources needed to assess whether I have been at all misleading.

That's why gratuitous objecting low IQ guy!
`

There was almost a sentence there, dumfuk. But, alas, you failed yet again

 

[abu afak]

But much of it has been taken literally.....by science.
In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation Homo sapiens).”
Another scientist, Palmer, wrote a book about the astounding accuracy of the Bible, 3 thousand years ago, stating the order of the evolution of life on or planet….exactly the presentation that science now accepts as the fact.

Dr. Andrew Palmer, Oxford biologist, whose book, "The Genesis Enigma," states that the writer of the book of Genesis provides an uncannily similar synopsis of the events in the creation as compared to that accepted by modern science today.



Rather than ridicule the Bible, those very same secular, atheistic scientists have come around to accept the very order that the Old Testament claimed was the course of creation:
The idea of the miraculous confluence of the first chapter of Genesis and the sequence advanced by modern science is as follows:


a. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


b. From a water covered planet, to terrestrial life. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.


c. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, …then the seas appeared on earth, …and that life forms were photosynthetic.

d. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.

e. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.

The above largely from chapter nine of zoologist Andrew Parker’s “The Genesis Enigma.”



Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

Or…an alternative explanation: divine intervention.

Dennis Prager no less, you IDIOT!!!
`

 

[abu afak]

Let's quote the very book, one which you clearly never consulted:

"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6

. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine


I once had respect for you......had.

 

[abu afak]

Contrary to the lie above, post #896, darwin even created a 'tree of life on earth" to show his predicted theory.
. In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.

In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.



Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, as most mutations are lethal, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on.

But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction."

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata - Collection at Bartleby.com

 

[abu afak]

It is a belief, like any other religion.
"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski



You are entitled to your beliefs.

Just don't call it science.

Quoting the Attorney General of Louisiana on a Science/Evolution matter?
That's also the Appeal to [bogus] Authority Fallacy.
`

 

[abu afak]

....and refuting this:
AI Overview Learn more

Yes, Charles Darwin's primary contribution was attempting to explain the variety of life on Earth through his theory of evolution by natural selection, proposing that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor and diversified over time through adaptation to different environments, resulting in the vast diversity of species we see today.




But you can't do either, can you.

Obviously a 'Short Quote'/One sentence from much longer 'AI' explanation you Dishonestly cut off.
IOW, 'Quote Mining' again.
Try this

"AI Overview

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is considered the Foundation of modern biology, as it provides the framework for understanding the diversity of life on Earth and how species change over time, essentially explaining the origin of all living organisms through a mechanism based on natural processes like variation and adaptation within populations.

Key points about Darwin's contribution to modern biology:

• Natural Selection:
  Darwin's central concept is that organisms with advantageous traits in their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on those beneficial traits to their offspring, leading to gradual changes in a species over generations.
• "Descent with modification":
  This phrase describes Darwin's idea that all species are descended from a common ancestor, with modifications accumulating over time through natural selection.
• Impact on scientific understanding:
  Darwin's theory revolutionized the way scientists view the natural world, providing a unifying explanation for the vast diversity of life on Earth
• `""

`

`

 

[abu afak]

More twice Daily.
The Lying Tw0t PoliticalSheep never stops.
She has NO evidence, only Quote Mines.

Now she has the Natl Academy of Sciences "refuting" Evo!!
When in fact they will tell you it's the Foundation of Modern Biology.
(along with Darwin himself and PRO-EVO Niles Etheridge.)

The evidence is on my side: Darwin's presumptions are false.
Watch me prove it.
...
1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata - Collection at Bartleby.com



This is where you lie and scream "is not!!! Is notttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[scruffy]

More twice Daily.
The Lying Tw0t PoliticalSheep never stops.
She has NO evidence, only Quote Mines.

Now she has the Natl Academy of Sciences "refuting" Evo!!
When in fact they will tell you it's the Foundation of Modern Biology.
(along with Darwin himself and PRO-EVO Niles Etheridge.)

It looks like she took my advice. That's good, proves there's still a glimmer of intelligence.

I try to be gentle whenever possible. Sometimes people make it difficult though.

 

[abu afak]

Actually, to prove your religion of hatred is false, I simply quote Darwin:
Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory
a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and
b..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6

. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”

Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”



Must I must admit that I enjoy your discomfort.

 

[abu afak]

Let’s get to the definitive proof that Darwin is incorrect, advanced by a Leftist political view, not science, and the Bible reflects what is known, scientifically, today.



Darwin’s view to explain the multiplicity of life on earth, requires a series of small changes in organisms which mount up, gradually, until they become a different organism. He expected, and we should, too, the fossil record to contain organism a, and a series of intermittent organisms showing changes in organism a, until it becomes a separate species, organism b.





The Bible posits a full array of life as authorized by a being known as God. No intermediates necessary. Spontaneous existence of new species.



Now, let’s check.




1. Evolutionary biologist and supporter of the theory, Stephen Gould admits same: "Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phyla had appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

.


2. Darwin himself admitted that:

"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

3. “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”



4. So Charles Darwin named the Litmus Test for his theory: we should see if new species arise gradually, or spontaneously. If the former, he's a winner....but if the latter....well...


5. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.



6. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.


7. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

PLAGIARIZED and QUOTE MINED FROM CREATIONIST WEBSITE LIKE 80% of JeHOvachic's posts/OPs

Her Retarded 3, 4, 5 line spacing for more attention.

A Proselytizing Billboard with zero science.
`
`