"When someone quotes someone, especially a recognized expert, with a quote which seems to go against everything the person

believes, advocates and stands for, i t's best to check to see what was actually said, as well as what they were tryin g to actually convey." I have removed certain portions of the original post for the sake of brevity and staying on point. My claim was to the quote mining of the experts/evolutionists , claims made by creationists, the author, or unnamed/unspecified persons are no t being addressed here and now as that would detract from my premise. please fee l free to check that my citations are accurate, that the context I'm using is co rrect and that I am being honest in the following. If you feel I have omitted a quote out for nefarious reasons please bring it up and I will address it. Original link: http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/01/09/44-reasons-evolution-just-fairy-tale-adu lts/ **** **#2** When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transiti onal forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certai nly existed and would eventually be discovered Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numbe rless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the sa me group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable trans itional forms must have existed, **why do we not find them** embedded in countle ss numbers in the crust of the earth? Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numbe rless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the sa me group, must assuredly have existed." This first part is in the final paragrap h of the chapter, this is in the second: "But, as by this theory, innumerable tr ansitional forms must have existed, **why do we not find them** embedded in coun tless numbers in the crust of the earth? reference containing entire chapter, including Darwin's take on the imperfection of the fossil record: http://www.bartleby.com/11/6002.html **** **#3** Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the c omplete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. C olin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural Hi story and author of Evolution once wrote the following I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evoluti onary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certai nly have included them . I will lay it on the line **there is not one such fossil ** for which one could make a watertight argument. the quote is taken from a letter written to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, it continues however: "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and des cent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of a ll birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such st ories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test." Dr. Patterson was trying to illustrate that whether transitional fossils are DIRECT ancestors or merely related to direct ancestors it isn't possible to verify 100 % but it makes sense that there is a relationship. reference materials containing the correspondence between the author of the arti cle and Dr. Patterson: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html **#4** Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard Unive rsity, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, **even in our imagination**, to constru ct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging pro blem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. This quote by Gould is about gradualism: "The saltational initiation of major tr ansitions: _The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, t o construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and na gging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution._ St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient st ages of useful structures" -- of what possible benefit to a reptile is two perce nt of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by D arwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediate stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only afte r greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned "for" insulation and l ater "for" the trapping of insect prey (Ostrom 1979) a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight." he is making the case for punctuated equilibrium, unfortunately all links to the original article in _Paleobiology_ I could find require membership or payment s o here's talkorigins again with the context: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html the link goes into greater detail and expounds more on it, it is quote #50 on th e linked page **** **#5** Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also comm ented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document **a single transition** from one species to another. this is a classic example of quote mining where not only is the quote way out of context, it is pulled from the middle, omitting both the beginning and the end of what Stanley is actually talking about, the actual quote: "Superb fossil data have recently been gathered from deposits of early Cenozoic Age in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming. These deposits represent the first part of the Eocene Epoch, a critical interval when many types of modern mammals came in to being. The Bighorn Basin, in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains, received larg e volumes of sediment from the Rockies when they were being uplifted, early in t he Age of Mammals. In its remarkable degree of completeness, the fossil record h ere for the Early Eocene is unmatched by contemporary deposits exposed elsewhere in the world. The deposits of the Bighorn Basin provide a nearly continuous loc al depositional record for this interval, which lasted some five million years. It used to be assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked toge ther in such a way as to illustrate continuous evolution. Careful collecting has now shown otherwise. Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants._ In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one speci es to another._ Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of tim e. David M. Schankler has recently gathered data for about eighty mammal species that are known from more than two stratigraphic levels in the Bighorn Basin. Ve ry few of these species existed for less than half a million years, and their av erage duration was greater than a million years." Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95 he is # 7: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html **** **#8** Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fac

t that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants **instead spec ies appear and disappear abruptly**, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God. this one was tricky, I was getting frustrated because there are plenty of claims that _evolutionary paleontologist_ Mark Czarnecki said the above quote. However I discovered this: "_Freelance writer and Maclean's theatre critic Mark Czarnecki:_ "What areas are taboo? Anything critical of business, anything to do with the way culture works in Canada, how it's perceived, how its funded. Anything to do with thought, jus t thinking about something and writing about it." http://www.rrj.ca/m3567/ It seems the lauded paleontologist transitioned to theatre after his comment in the 1981 article in _MacLean's_. additional info which actually cites the article but doesn't say whether he's a paleontologist or not, though the author seems to be under the impression that h e is not a scientist of any kind: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html#quote26 not quote mining so much, just flat out lying. **** **#9** The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniab le that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, **without any evolutionar y history**. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted cr eationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so -called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternativ e explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Ca mbrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative. Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p p. 229-230 Dawkins explains further: "Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that t his really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is s imply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from p eriods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossil ize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My po int here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists '." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote40 **#11** Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the Univer sity of Pittsburgh, openly admits that the formation of a new species, by any mec hanism, **has never been observed**. "It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim abo ut a new species of fruit fly,_ the formation of a new species, by any mechanism , has never been observed_." _Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes and the Emergence of Species_ Jeffrey Schwartz is advocating for a different module of evolution, one in which the primary drivers are the homeobox genes. These genes regulate the developmen t of creatures from embryo through adult. Mutations in these genes propagate inv isibly through the species as recessive and unexpressed, says Schwartz, until th ey are common enough that some individuals inherit them from both parents. That leads to fully developed novel features. Within a few generations, a new species

emerges. Schwartz is an advocate for punctuated equilibrium and thinks homo sap iens are more closely related to orangutans than chimpanzees. This is less quote mine and more just incorrect. Some observed instances of speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation **** **#12** Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted th at the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it d uring a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College Every paleontologist **knows that most species don't change**. That's bothersome.bring s terrible distress. .They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it s not evolution so you don't talk about it. This quote by Gould I cannot find in its original form, in fact it seems that th e only source for it is the quote itself... multiple creationist sites offer thi s quote, the majority include reference to Hobart & William Smith College, many include the date, none provide links or offer direction to the actual material. Hobart & William Smith College has no records of a lecture by Gould in 1979, 198 0 or 1981 (this quote is allegedly from a lecture/conference on by Gould on Febr uary 14, 1980) As I am unable to see any evidence that such an event even occurr ed, let alone what was said there, I cannot provide any meaningful commentary on the quote given. TalkOrigins has a piece which may be the source of the quote, the words are different but I think it reads closely enough to be plausibly para phrased from "_Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness_." I have provided links to HWS's n ewspaper from late 1979 into mid 1980 covering lectures and appearances and camp us events, Gould is not listed anywhere, nor are there any lectures which sound like something he would have done. HWS's archives turn up nothing for Gould in t he timeframe either, though his work has been offered for study courses for the last few years. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html#quote35 https://library.hws.edu/archives/pdfs/HI80.pdf **** **#20** The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evoluti on, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by **c reative imagination**. As has become expected the author of this junk fails to source his citations and neglects to do substantiate his claim. The quote is from: "A Genetic Perspectiv e on the Origin and History of Humans" by Dr. Naoyuki Takahata, PhD, professor e meritus, an expert in: biology, genetics, and evolutionary biology. Dr. Takahata's info: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Naoyuki_Takahata/info The quote is mined from the second page of: "A Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans"(pg 344 of _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics_ Vol . 26, 1995) Unfortunately I cannot find the paper without using sites I'm regist ered on, free, unregistered viewing only allows visitors to view the first page of the paper, I will provide the link to resources which are free to register wi th and offer access to the paper in full, I will also quote the article directly for those less inclined to put in the leg work. This is part of Dr. Takahata's introduction, wherein he covers some of the many hominid fossils discovered which shed light on our history. His paper is quite t horough and well worth the read, he goes into the confirmation by DNA of how clo sely related humans and chimps are, the molecular anthropology, genetic bottlene cking, hominid evolution according to multiple hypothesis etc. Dr. Takahata's wo rk is very thorough and the quote is mined in an effort to show that DNA sequenc

ing is very reliable and yet it doesn't show evolution, this is simply not the c ase. DNA sequencing isn't perfect, but it is an excellent tool which helps confi rm observations and fits and works when used correctly. Dr. Takahata is presenti ng how it works, why and where it works, where it doesn't work, why it doesn't w ork there and how to use appropriate theories with the appropriate tools to make more accurate conclusions which provide greater predictive capacity, more accur ately reflect observations and more fully explain evidence. _"Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evol ution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by **creative imagination**. Appropriate theory is necessary for this approach. Thi s review therefore begins with a description of a demographic model of populatio ns and presents several theoretical formulas that I believe are helpful in imagi ning the past."_ a direct link to the paper: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2097211?uid=3739936&uid=2134&uid=248139645 3&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=2481396443&uid=3739256&uid=60&purchase-type=article&acc essType=none&sid=21104067976023&showMyJstorPss=false&seq=1&showAccess=false and to the site: http://www.jstor.org/stable/i310056 **** **#24** Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement? The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evid ence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside **a single coffin**! Source: `The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44. This statement by Dr. Watson was not drawn from a research paper in a refereed s cientific journal, it is from a minor opinion piece in a popular science magazin e. The writer of the piece was arguing in favor of the "aquatic ape" theory of h uman origins, over and against the "savanna ape" theory, and he thought that by downplaying the amount of actual fossil evidence, in journalistic fashion, he mi ght be able to make the "aquatic ape" theory sound more credible. Dr. Lyall Watson is lying in an attempt to promote his own pet idea: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_17 we have a treasure trove of hominid remains which support human evolution. Not o nly do we have enough to fill a single coffin, we have enough to fill museums th roughout the world. **** **#41** If you want to be part of the scientific community today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you. Richard Lewont in of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its con structs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubst antiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherenc e to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter h ow mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." I don't think I even need to comment on this one. Source: Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1 997 (review of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark Original quote: "With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular cr edibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost inv

isible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are ag ainst common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch i s really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embar rassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, w hereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the m oon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very se nsibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even g et Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the myster y of the Holy Trinity "in deep trouble." Two's company, but three's a crowd. Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supern atural. **_We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs_**, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life,_** in spite of the tolerance of the scientific com munity for unsubstantiated**_ just-so stories, because we have a prior commitmen t, a_** commitment to materialism**_. It is not that the methods and institution s of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomena l world, but, on the contrary, that _**we are forced by our a priori adherence t o material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter h ow mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door**_. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To a ppeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Lewontin_on_materialism **** **#42** Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of eviden ce for the theory of evolution Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn't fit into the picture c an upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate. I decided to address this even though the assertion is not attributed to an auth or, merely to an unnamed magazine article published at an unknown, to shed light on the matter here is what was actually said: "How Man Began" New evidence shows that early humans left Africa much sooner than once thought. Did Homo sapiens evolve in many places at once? By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK Posted Monday, Time Magazine Mar. 14, 1994 _No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals -- bu t that hasn't stopped the phrasemakers from trying to find one. They have descri bed humans as the animals who make tools, or reason, or use fire, or laugh, or a ny one of a dozen other appealing oversimplifications. Here's one more descripti on for the list, as good as any other: Humans are the animals who wonder, intens ely and endlessly, about their origin. Starting with a Neanderthal skeleton unea rthed in Germany in 1856, archaeologists and anthropologists have sweated mighti ly over excavations in Africa, Europe and Asia, trying to find fossil evidence t hat will answer the most fundamental questions of our existence: When, where and how did the human race arise? Nonscientists are as eager for the answers as the experts, if the constant outpouring of books and documentaries on the subject i s any indication. The latest, a three-part Nova show titled In Search of Human O

rigins, premiered last week._ _**Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeni ngly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn't fit into the pic ture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks i n the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid fu rious debate.**_ _Now it appears to be happening once again. Findings announced in the past two w eeks are rattling the foundations of anthropology and raising some startling pos sibilities. Humanity's ancestors may have departed Africa -- the cradle of manki nd -- eons earlier than scientists have assumed. Humans may have evolved not jus t in a single place but in many places around the world. And our own species, Ho mo sapiens, may be much older than anyone had suspected. If even portions of the se claims prove to be true, they will force a major rewrite of the book of human evolution. They will herald fundamental changes in the story of how we came to be who we are._ _The latest shocker comes in the current issue of Nature, where Chinese scientis ts have contended that the skull of a modern-looking human, found in their count ry a decade ago, is at least 200,000 years old -- more than twice as old as any Homo sapiens specimen ever found in that part of the world. Moreover, the skull has features resembling those of contemporary Asians. The controversial implicat ion: modern humans may not have evolved just in Africa, as most scientists belie ve, but may have emerged simultaneously in several regions of the globe._ This is just confusing to me about why it is listed as a reason that evolution i s a fairy tale, the fossil record is sparse, when the timeline and volume of org anisms is considered, this is expected and predicted. It is amusing that the dis covery of new evidence is viewed as a flaw when it is the only way to honestly a pproach the subject. http://www.badgleyb.net/html_docs/howmanbegan.htm http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980307,00.html