The debating skills of evolutionists

[mynameisDan]

Nice work Dan, good of you to drop by and learn nothing.

Actually, I did learn something. There may well be at least one example of a beneficial mutation in biston betularia. Beyond that, everything offered here I learned over 20 years ago in college.

 

[Ophiolite]

If I went through 4 years of college and earned a degree in science followed by a degree in science education and 30 credits toward my masters and didn't read a research paper what does that tell you about the state of modern education? Perhaps this could happen in Australia, I don't know.

I have no idea if this could happen in Australia, though I doubt it. Is that relevant in some way?

At any rate I am sorry but I will decline your silly challenge ....

This was most certainly not a silly challenge. You claim that evolution is flawed. It is reasonable to ask you to explain, in your own words, some aspect of evolution as presented in a popular science work, text book, or research paper. This will demonstrate we are using the same language. It then provides you with a perfect opportunity to point out what you consider the specific flaws in the aspect of evolution being dealt with.

I cannot see what you find objectionable (or silly) about this challenge. Perhaps you can explain.

Go back and read the Max Spetner debate and give me a synopsis of your conclusions as to how Max did, how Spetner did, and what advice you could offer either of them. .

I shall be happy to do so if you agree to accept my challenge.

If you do well perhaps we can arrange a debate with you and Dr. Safarti. I believe he lives near you and would be anxious to meet you.

True. We are on the same planet and living at the same time, even though he is in Australia and I am in the UK. Is your fact checking always so rigorous?

Provided of course that you demonstrate a basic comprehension of science principles and are able to actually say something in a debate.

Trust me. I wouldn't be earning a six figure income if both those things were not blindingly obvious.

 

[mynameisDan]

And he still can't figure out the quote tags..

still working on it...

Evolution is the accepted explanation for the diversity of life on Earth because it fits the observed facts the most closely.

"most closely" than what? You state later on that there is no alternative so evolution wins by default right? I mean if weaknesses and objections arise to the hypothesis, if no alternative exists, we simply tweak the only hypothesis available to fit the new facts right? Isn't this why Gould invented "punctuated equilibria", because the facts of science (fossil record) weren't comporting with gradualism? Since post modern science can no longer allow "a divine foot in the door", we will always be stuck with "the only alternative", regardless of how discredited it has become.

"The only people who cannot accept this are those blinded by religious dogma."

really, is biochemist Michael Denton "blinded by religious dogma". Is this why he wrote "Evolution: A theory in Crises?" Or do we just assume that he must be a "religious nut" because by definition, they are the only ones who would question or challenge the theory?

"You are here to use the pseudoscientific work of others to try and insult people you don't agree with because their incredulity about your dogmatic beliefs is insulting to you."

is your degree in psychology or are you just guessing? I have been challenging the established dogma of evolution on scientific grounds, and for this I have been insulted by antichristian bigots. You left that part out.

But all you are achieving is making yourself look foolish and petty. Ophiolite was being too kind.

Ophiolite was being an insulting bigot only. If I am making myself look foolish and petty for criticising evolution then I am playing into your hands and you should be grateful. But I don't think that is the case. And in any case, I intend to continue on....

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Isn't this why Gould invented "punctuated equilibria", because the facts of science (fossil record) weren't comporting with gradualism?

Wrong but a common misconception - PE is a form of gradualism, it merely points out that the rate of gradual change can be highly variable - (just as one might expect when you consider rates of change in abiotic factors such as environmental change and their likely effect upon rates and direction of selective pressure) - and that large changes over relatively small physical distances in the geological column still represent long periods of time.

really, is biochemist Michael Denton "blinded by religious dogma". Is this why he wrote "Evolution: A theory in Crises?" Or do we just assume that he must be a "religious nut" because by definition, they are the only ones who would question or challenge the theory?

Like most writers of pseudoscience, he primarily wrote this very sloppy piece of work (I've read it - it's so bad it makes Behe's books look good in comparison) - to extract money from the gullible.

I borrowed my copy - how much did you pay for yours?

 

[mynameisDan]

I have no idea if this could happen in Australia, though I doubt it. Is that relevant in some way?.

My mistake.

This was most certainly not a silly challenge. You claim that evolution is flawed. It is reasonable to ask you to explain, in your own words, some aspect of evolution as presented in a popular science work, text book, or research paper. This will demonstrate we are using the same language. It then provides you with a perfect opportunity to point out what you consider the specific flaws in the aspect of evolution being dealt with..

I claim that evolution is flawed, and provided a published debate by two qualified scientists on the subject of molecules to man evolution mechanisms. My credentials to offer this article are not in question here. You need to answer Dr. Spetner and explain why Dr. Max failed to offer a single example of an observed information adding mutation in the germ cell of any living organism such that would offer support to transmutation theory. I have already seen what the science novices here and internet "scientists" have to offer, I am interested to know what an "expert" such as yourself might bring to this discussion.

I cannot see what you find objectionable (or silly) about this challenge. Perhaps you can explain.

it is completely off topic and a diversionary tactic of yours. I am not on trial here, evolution is. If you can defend it against my attacks, then you will have demonstrated that you are correct in your conclusions about me perhaps. If you cannot, then you will be viewed as the sniveling coward and pompous fool that I suspect you are (Dear mod, note that I am not calling this little man a fool, only that he might be a fool).

I shall be happy to do so if you agree to accept my challenge.
True. We are on the same planet and living at the same time, even though he is in Australia and I am in the UK. Is your fact checking always so rigorous?
Trust me. I wouldn't be earning a six figure income if both those things were not blindingly obvious.

The two challenges have nothing to do with each other. This is just another example of the fallacious debating tactics of evolutionists, the subject of this thread. My challenge to you is to answer to the objections of Dr. Spetner and explain why Dr. Max was unable to answer him sufficiently. I assume since you are a "six figure wage earning" scientist of some reputation that this will be all too easy for you. If you insist on making this discussion about me, rather than the evidence for evolution, we will all have our answer.

 

[mynameisDan]

Wrong but a common misconception - PE is a form of gradualism,

right, it is the other "form of gradualism" evolutionists offer when the facts of science appear to be falsifying the cherished theory. Here is what Gould stated when he was being frank with his colleagues:

"In 1977 Gould wrote,

‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. … to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.’
Gould, S.J., Evolution's erratic pace.Natural History 86(5):14, 1977.

In 1980 Gould said,

‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’
Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130 (p.127), 1980.

I do not think Gould thinks gradualism means what you think it means.

it merely points out that the rate of gradual change can be highly variable - (just as one might expect when you consider rates of change in abiotic factors such as environmental change and their likely effect upon rates and direction of selective pressure) - and that large changes over relatively small physical distances in the geological column still represent long periods of time.

we understand that Gould was not suggesting the "hopeful monster" theory of Dr. Goldschmidt. We also understand of course that Gould was in no way abandoning evolution. What he was doing is offering an argument of silence. If transitions are the evidence in the fossil record for evolution, and we cannot find only a handful of disputable ones to support it, we simply mold the plastic theory of evolution to fit the observed reality. Whalla! Punctuated Equilibria. To use Goulds words when grumbling about creationists picking apart is words, "Pray tell, how is evolution in any way, science"?

Like most writers of pseudoscience, he primarily wrote this very sloppy piece of work (I've read it - it's so bad it makes Behe's books look good in comparison) - to extract money from the gullible.

Of course it is pseudoscience. It is critical of many of the claims for molecules to man evolution. My point above is no less valid. Apparently non creationist Denton was also deficient in his training and somehow missed the mountains and mountains of scientific evidence for evolution. He must be sent back to the re-education camp along with all infidels.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

right, it is the other "form of gradualism" evolutionists offer when the facts of science appear to be falsifying the cherished theory. Here is what Gould stated when he was being frank with his colleagues:

"In 1977 Gould wrote,

‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. … to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.’
Gould, S.J., Evolution's erratic pace.Natural History 86(5):14, 1977.

In 1980 Gould said,

‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’
Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130 (p.127), 1980.

I do not think Gould thinks gradualism means what you think it means.




we understand that Gould was not suggesting the "hopeful monster" theory of Dr. Goldschmidt. We also understand of course that Gould was in no way abandoning evolution. What he was doing is offering an argument of silence. If transitions are the evidence in the fossil record for evolution, and we cannot find only a handful of disputable ones to support it, we simply mold the plastic theory of evolution to fit the observed reality. Whalla! Punctuated Equilibria. To use Goulds words when grumbling about creationists picking apart is words, "Pray tell, how is evolution in any way, science"?

what do you call a quote mined misquote? - or a whole series of them in this case.

I'll forgive you because I don't beleive you were being willfully deceitful and dishonest with them - you are merely a creationist behaving like the perfect archetype of your ruminant ilk on the internet - blindly cutting and pasting your unwitting bullshit from your set of creationist approved web sources (AKA lies) without giving any thought or scrutiny to their validity.

you lose again - sorry

http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/sc_misq/_sjg.html

 

[Ophiolite]

I claim that evolution is flawed, and provided a published debate by two qualified scientists on the subject of molecules to man evolution mechanisms. My credentials to offer this article are not in question here.

But they are. Or rather your credentials to comment intelligently on evolution are precisely what is in question. To deny the massive weight of evidence for evolution requires some combination of arrogance, stupidity and self delusion. The topic heading may be 'the deabting skill of evolutionists', but that makes the debating (and comprehension) skills of creationists equally relevant.

You need to answer Dr. Spetner and explain why Dr. Max failed to offer a single example of an observed information adding mutation in the germ cell of any living organism such that would offer support to transmutation theory..

No, I don't require to answer this at all. I offered you an opportunity to summarise any argument by any evolutionist in just about any format of your choosing. Total freedom. You do not offer but demand that I deal with a very specific instance. You don't think that is perhaps a trifle biased, or are you as blind here as you are to the evidence?

I have already seen what the science novices here and internet "scientists" have to offer, I am interested to know what an "expert" such as yourself might bring to this discussion.

I have made no claims to be an expert, or even an "expert".

it is completely off topic and a diversionary tactic of yours. I am not on trial here, evolution is.

BE assured you are on trial. Your debating techniques are on trial. your grasp of reality is on trial. Run away from this if you will. I expect you to. Your can engage in a wide open process in which you have full freedom of choice and in return I accept your narrow, selected challenge. Are you really going to shy away? I suspect you will. That is fine with me, since it reveals to all the value of your specious arguments.

If you can defend it against my attacks, then you will have demonstrated that you are correct in your conclusions about me perhaps.

So go ahead and attack it by summarising any popular sceince work, text book, or research paper, then show how the ideas presented in them are false.

If you cannot, then you will be viewed as the sniveling coward and pompous fool that I suspect you are (Dear mod, note that I am not calling this little man a fool, only that he might be a fool)..

I am certainly pompous and I grant you that an IQ in the top 0.3% of the population does not mean that I am not a fool. Also, I rendered immobile by heights and spiders, so I am doubtless a coward. I can't see any evidence for the 'snivelling'. Perhaps you need a new Thesaurus.

The two challenges have nothing to do with each other.

Of course they do. I set mine first and offered to complete your highly restrictive challenge if you also agreed to meet mine.

This is just another example of the fallacious debating tactics of evolutionists, the subject of this thread.

My challenge provides you with a golden opportunity to single out an area of evolutionary theory and demonstrate to all how flawed it is. If you truly wish to debate I am giving you a golden opportunity. Grasp it.
.

My challenge to you is to answer to the objections of Dr. Spetner and explain why Dr. Max was unable to answer him sufficiently. .

Which I am ready to attempt once you accept my challenge. I cannot see what possible value this will have, other than demonstrate that I am a klutz, but I willing to amuse you if you will cooperate.
.

I assume since you are a "six figure wage earning" scientist of some reputation that this will be all too easy for you. .

Nowhere have I claimed to be a scientist. Nowhere have I claimed to be a scientist of some reputation. You really need to improve your reading comprehension.
Perhaps the reason you do not accept evolution is that you have failed to understand the explanations. Demontrate that I am mistaken in this by singling out an area of evolutionary theory, summarising it, the demonstrating to all how flawed it is.

 

[mynameisDan]

what do you call a quote mined misquote? - or a whole series of them in this case.

I'll forgive you because I don't beleive you were being willfully deceitful and dishonest with them - you are merely a creationist behaving like the perfect archetype of your ruminant ilk on the internet - blindly cutting and pasting your unwitting bullshit from your set of creationist approved web sources (AKA lies) without giving any thought or scrutiny to their validity.

you lose again - sorry

http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/sc_misq/_sjg.html

the quotes are accurate and referenced. Evolutionist leaders hate to be quoted and often claim to be "quoted out of context". Yet the quotes speak for themselves, look up the references for both and you will see that I am correct, and you. as usual, are blowing smoke.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

the quotes are accurate and referenced. Evolutionist leaders hate to be quoted and often claim to be "quoted out of context". Yet the quotes speak for themselves, look up the references for both and you will see that I am correct, and you. as usual, are blowing smoke.

I have - which I why I know - and proved - that your quotes are dishonestly portrayed - not by you of course because you have never taken the time to examine them - its the shady websites where you unthinkingly copy and paste this tripe from who are truly deceitful.

I've seen several fundaligionists C&P verbatim what you have just posted - all whom have either had to concede or change the subject

 

[mynameisDan]

"I am certainly pompous and I grant you that an IQ in the top 0.3% of the population does not mean that I am not a fool. Also, I rendered immobile by heights and spiders, so I am doubtless a coward. I can't see any evidence for the 'snivelling'. Perhaps you need a new Thesaurus."

well there you have it. My unworthy opponent is exactly as I suspected, a fraud. He can no more present evidence for molecules to man evolution from his own mind to his key board than I can leap over mount Everest in a single bound. By your own unwillingness to stick to the debate here and making me the issue, you have emasculated yourself. Even your best friends on this forum will not be able to convince me that you are anything other than the nutcase you have clearly made yourself out to be.

 

[mynameisDan]

I have - which I why I know - and proved - that your quotes are dishonestly portrayed - not by you of course because you have never taken the time to examine them - its the shady websites where you unthinkingly copy and paste this tripe from who are truly deceitful.

I've seen several fundaligionists C&P verbatim what you have just posted - all whom have either had to concede or change the subject

so let me have a clear understanding of what you are saying here. Are you saying that these quotes are improperly attributed? Or are you here stating that these quotes are somehow paraphrased innacurrately from the original? Or are you stating that they are simply frauds and Dr. Gould never wrote these?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

so let me have a clear understanding of what you are saying here. Are you saying that these quotes are improperly attributed? Or are you here stating that these quotes are somehow paraphrased innacurrately from the original? Or are you stating that they are simply frauds and Dr. Gould never wrote these?

I provided you with a link to a dissection of the deception - I suggest you follow it - it may teach you not to be so blindly trusting in your shady websites with the "safe for creationsists to read" rubber stamp on in future.

Normally I'm not a fan of inserting large chunks of C&P into my posts, but I think it may be appropriate for Mr Gould to provide his own defence.

Transitions 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. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

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. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Dan - so far you have been following a pattern of creationist webloony behaviour that is so cliched that you are close to becoming a caricature - we've had the old "no new information" malarkey, we've had the "playing the victim" we've had the poor excuses for failing to address or refute ANY evidence presented - and now we move to quote mining - frankly mate if you were a movie villain you would be twiddling your moustache and chaining women to railroad tracks.

In order to make you less of a caricature I intend to nip your newest creationist cliche (quote mining) in the bud.

Prior to blindly copying and pasting any bit silly fundaligionist propaganda on here - do yourself a favour just check here first to make sure it isn't a quote mine that hasn't been seen and completely refuted a few thousand times already: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

 

[D H]

so let me have a clear understanding of what you are saying here. Are you saying that these quotes are improperly attributed? Or are you here stating that these quotes are somehow paraphrased innacurrately from the original? Or are you stating that they are simply frauds and Dr. Gould never wrote these?

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. Quoting out of context is amongst the slipperiest of lies because the person often did write or say the exact words being quoted. By removing the context, mined quotes can completely misrepresent the intent of the author. Moreover, synthesizer-patel provided references that show that not only are your mined quotes out of context, the miners did something far worse. They juxtaposed phrases and inserted phrases of their own to further mislead, misrepresent, and lie.

 

[mynameisDan]

I provided you with a link to a dissection of the deception - I suggest you follow it.

that's the problem, I did follow it and the quotes under criticism in your link were not the quotes I offered. Did you even read it yourself? I will ask you again, what was wrong with my quotes,

1) where they complete frauds?
2) where they misattributed
3) where they somehow inaccurate.

Please answer the question, without more irrelevent links, because you stated that you have checked them out for yourself, so you should be able to answer this simple question.

- it may teach you not to be so blindly trusting in your shady websites with the "safe for creationsists to read" rubber stamp on in future.

Oh it definitely will! Which is why I need you to answer the question above. I want to know exactly what was wrong with my quotes so that I can make sure I don't make the same foolish mistake again. Please help!

- Normally I'm not a fan of inserting large chunks of C&P into my posts, but I think it may be appropriate for Mr Gould to provide his own defence.


- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

funny you should mention this article. I read it in its entirety just today. We can dissect this article later if you wish. But before we do, Please answer the above question.

 

[mynameisDan]

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. Quoting out of context is amongst the slipperiest of lies because the person often did write or say the exact words being quoted. By removing the context, mined quotes can completely misrepresent the intent of the author. Moreover, synthesizer-patel provided references that show that not only are your mined quotes out of context, the miners did something far worse. They juxtaposed phrases and inserted phrases of their own to further mislead, misrepresent, and lie.

actually he didn't. Look at my quotes and go back and look at the link he provided, they are not the same quotes. Lets review here:

synthesizer-patel what do you call a quote mined misquote? - or a whole series of them in this case.

I'll forgive you because I don't beleive you were being willfully deceitful and dishonest with them - you are merely a creationist behaving like the perfect archetype of your ruminant ilk on the internet - blindly cutting and pasting your unwitting bullshit from your set of creationist approved web sources (AKA lies) without giving any thought or scrutiny to their validity.

you lose again - sorry

http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberr...misq/_sjg.html


Dan: the quotes are accurate and referenced. Evolutionist leaders hate to be quoted and often claim to be "quoted out of context". Yet the quotes speak for themselves, look up the references for both and you will see that I am correct, and you. as usual, are blowing smoke.

synthesizer-patelI have - which I why I know - and proved - that your quotes are dishonestly portrayed - not by you of course because you have never taken the time to examine them - its the shady websites where you unthinkingly copy and paste this tripe from who are truly deceitful.

I've seen several fundaligionists C&P verbatim what you have just posted - all whom have either had to concede or change the subject"

Now synthesizer-patel has accused me of a a quote mined misquote. When I challenged him stating that these quotes were properly referenced and accurately written and challenged him to prove otherwise he stated "which I why I Know(?)- and proved- that your quotes are dishonestly portrayed.

Now at this point he appears to have shifted his argument from accusing me of a completely fabricated quote to simply quoting out of context, the usual atheist whelp. So it is only natural that I should get clarification, don't you agree?

 

[Ophiolite]

well there you have it. My unworthy opponent is exactly as I suspected, a fraud. He can no more present evidence for molecules to man evolution from his own mind to his key board than I can leap over mount Everest in a single bound. By your own unwillingness to stick to the debate here and making me the issue, you have emasculated yourself. Even your best friends on this forum will not be able to convince me that you are anything other than the nutcase you have clearly made yourself out to be.

1. I have previously noted that I have zero interest in your distorted view of evolution that focuses on the evolution of man.
2. It is foolish in the extreme - or wholly dishonest - to expect the evidence for evolution to be presented in the context of a forum. In contrast I have offered you the opportunity to dissect any, any aspect of evolutionary theory and to demonstrate its falsehood. You continue to run away from this fair challenge.
3. You don't seem to know what the debate is about. You claimed it was about the validity of evolution. The title of the thread suggests otherwise.
4. I trust my 'best friends' have better things to do with their time than seek to prove the irrelevant. Are you getting a little desparate.

You have demonstrated to anyone with a brain they are capable of using that you are the one avoiding the issues, sidestepping the debate. Despite claims to the contrary I have seen nothing from you that constitutes a reasoned argument with supporting data. I will not waste anymore time on your slippery dishonesty.

 

[mynameisDan]

1. I have previously noted that I have zero interest in your distorted view of evolution that focuses on the evolution of man.
2. It is foolish in the extreme - or wholly dishonest - to expect the evidence for evolution to be presented in the context of a forum. In contrast I have offered you the opportunity to dissect any, any aspect of evolutionary theory and to demonstrate its falsehood. You continue to run away from this fair challenge.
3. You don't seem to know what the debate is about. You claimed it was about the validity of evolution. The title of the thread suggests otherwise.
4. I trust my 'best friends' have better things to do with their time than seek to prove the irrelevant. Are you getting a little desparate.

You have demonstrated to anyone with a brain they are capable of using that you are the one avoiding the issues, sidestepping the debate. Despite claims to the contrary I have seen nothing from you that constitutes a reasoned argument with supporting data. I will not waste anymore time on your slippery dishonesty.

You are indeed a piece of work! Now that I know that you are not a scientist or an expert on anything related to science I understand why you feel that attacks constitute an argument. But anyone here who cannot see through your transparent ruse really do need some help. You can leave now and try your bluff on another forum

 

[synthesizer-patel]

that's the problem, I did follow it and the quotes under criticism in your link were not the quotes I offered. Did you even read it yourself? I will ask you again, what was wrong with my quotes,

Either you are lying - not the first time in this thread - or you simply do not comprehend the english language - its very clear in the link

You (mis)quoted this:

"‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. … to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

The real quote is this:

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument.
We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet
to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection
we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess
to study."

The explanation of the dishonesty is here

So what was Darwin's argument referred to in the slightly restored
context? Merely that natural selection had to progress by extremely
small differences spread over long periods of time. While Gould avers
that this is not seen in the fossil record, it is probably more
accurate to say that the recording of Darwinian gradual change is rare
in the fossil record (Cuffey 1973). Gould, of course, is promoting
the theory of evolutionary change which Niles Eldredge and he forwarded
in the early 1970's, that of punctuated equilibria. Later in the essay
he makes clear that punctuated equilibria is supported by the pattern
of change that is recorded, by and large, in the fossil record. Thus,
the characterization that our SciCre quoter wished to foster was based
upon a critical act of editing, and is definitely not supported by
reading Gould for content.


Furthermore you - or rather the webpage you copied and pasted it from - have tacked another unrelated passage on the front in an attempt to mislead the reader to think that one is a conclusion of the other - which if you have read Gould as you pretend to have you will know it is not.

There is further information with a fuller quote and similar explanation in the Quote Mine Project on this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2