From: LARRY SITES                                      Posted:  8 Sep 94  22:36
To  : ARTHUR BIELE
Subj: Gould

ARTHUR BIELE to MARTIN GOLDBERG on 09-05-94 14:37 re: TRANSITIONALS, PART
6.

AB>"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
AB> little in the way of intermediate forms; Transitions between major
AB> groups are characteristically abrupt." Stephen J. Gould, 'Return of
AB> the Hopeful Monster' Natural History, Vol. 86, 1977, p. 22)
AB>"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
AB> persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees
AB> that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of
AB> their branches, the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the
AB> evidence of fossils." Stephen J. Gould, 'Evolutions Erratic Pace'
AB> Natural History.

So? What do you think his point was? You have read him in the original
haven't you? If not, why are you plagerizing by not giving proper credit
for the research work done by your REAL source? Isn't that the same a
breaking the commandment against stealing?

You're not the first. See below:

Message # 8543                                   Area : 148  SCIENCE
From : Phil Nicholls                             03-28-93  12:47
To   : Mark Arvid Johnson
Subj : Evolution v. Evolution

>Why is it no one assails Steven J. Gould, leading Harvard evolutionist
>when he says
>
> "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
>  persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees
>  that adorn our our textbooks have data only at the tips or nodes of
>  their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the
>  evidence of the fossils. All paleontologists know that the fossil
>  record contains    precious little in the way of intermediate forms;
>  transitions between  major are characteristically abrupt" _The Panda's
    Thumb_

>Why is it that no one questions the scientific stature of Dr. Gould,
>when creationists who have been saying the SAME thing are labeled
>`quacks' and `psuedoscientists' or even `not real scientists?'

Because anyone who has actually bothered to read Gould's work (and
apparently you are not included in that group) knows that Gould is talking
about transtions linking one species to another.  Where Gould says these
are rare, creationists claim they are non-existent.

You might consider the following quote:

" 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 contains no transitional forms.  The punctuations occur at the
level of speices; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at
the higher level of transtions within major groups."  From _Evolution as
Fact and Theory_, Discover, May, 1981.

It seems that Gould has given you two choices.  Either you are purposely
misrepresenting his ideas OR you are too stupid to bother reading his
original work, relying instead on handy quotes from creationist
literature.

Either way, your credibility is cooked.

Have a nice day.

Phil Nicholls
Anthropologist to the Masses