From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Subject: _Life:_ (JW book) and _The New Evolutionary Timetable_
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:36:05 GMT

On page 65 of _Life:_, in paragraph 29, after showing the stability
of species over time (accounted for by punctuated equilibria),
we read:

" 'In fact,' _The New Evolutionary Timetable_ acknowledges, "the
fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition
from one species to another.  Furthermore, species lasted for
astoundingly long periods of time."

The quote in question is on page 95 of the _NET_:

     Superb fossil data have recently been gathered from 
     deposits of early Cenozoic Age in the Bighorn Basin
     of Wyoming.  These deposits represent the first part
     of the Eocene Epoch, a critical interval when many
     types of modern mammals came into being.  The Bighorn
     Basin, in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains, received
     large volumes of sediment from the Rockies when they
     were being uplifed, early in the Age of Mammals.  In
     its remarkable degree of completeness, the fossil
     record here for the Early Eocene is unmatched by
     contemporary deposits exposed elsewhere in the world.
     The deposits of the Bighorn Basin provide a nearly
     continuous local depositional record for this interval,
     which lasted some five million years.  It used to be
     assumed that certain populations of the basin could be
     linked together in such a way as to illustrate continuous
     evolution.  Careful collecting has now shown otherwise.
     Species that were once thought to have turned into
     others have been found to overlap in time with these
     alleged descendants.  In fact, the fossil record does
     not convincingly document a single transition from one
     species to another.  Furthermore, species lasted for
     astoundingly long periods of time.

This quote is misleading in 3 ways.  First of all, it seems
to me, although it is not made explicitly clear in the text,
that the failure of the fossil record to 'convincingly
document the transitions' is only with respect to this local
formation (Bighorn Basin in Wyoming).

Next, this all makes sense to me.  What are creationists expecting?
A series of fossils, all on top of each other, modeling the
"ladder" of evolution?  This idea is absurd.  As one evolutionist
said, the fossil record always tells you that evolution happened
somewhere else.  It would be naive to expect a continuous
series in one small area.  What are species to do, just stick
around in a 10-meter area waiting to evolve so their remains will
show the transitional steps in a nice sequence?  Come on!  Species
aren't static things like rocks.  They can move, oftentimes very
far distances.  All this fits in with the PE theory.

Third, note the qualifier Stanley makes : "it used to be assumed
that certain populations of the basin could be linked together in
such a way as to illustrate *continuous* evolution." It would be
presumptuous to assume that Stanley is saying that the fossil
record doesn't illustrate any kind of evolution at all.  Rather,
the primary point being made is that it illustrates *sporadic*
evolution.

The point Stanley is trying to make is that the old model
of gradualistic evolution is being refined by the punctuated
equilibrium model.  In the above book, Stanley has an entire
chapter devoted to debunking creationist's explanations for
the fossil record.  He obviously thinks evolution has happened.


The _Life:_ book also quotes from Stanley's book on page 21,
par 16, saying "The known fossil record is not, and never has
been in accord with [slow evolution]."  The word in Stanley's
book that they substituted was gradualism (Stanley, p. 71).
This is not a misquote; rather, it preserves the full meaning
of the sentence.  One wonders why the _Life:_ writers didn't
put ellipses in place of "slow".  Obviously, to do so would
be a blatantly obvious dishonest use of other sources.  So
instead, they opted to put this quote in Chapter 2, which
attempts to show that evolution is a dying science.  This
quote will support that view, because the readers will not
think that the fossil record *could* be in accord with *sporadic*
evolution!  (This, BTW, was one of the quotes I was able to
analyze without looking it up; it was obvious to me what the
WTBTS was trying to prove, after reading talk.origins for a
while.)

Without going into the gory details, _Life:_ does similar
things to Stanley's book; check out the quotes on pages
59, 67, and 93-94 of _Life:_ that quote from Stanley's book,
and then look up the corresponding quotes on pages 6, 4,
and 142 in Stanley's book.

-- 
"All religions make me wanna throw up!"
"All religions make me sick!" - Dead Kennedys, Religious Vomit

corey@sdf.lonestar.org                       ..!uunet!convex!egsner!sdf!corey