The third “misunderstanding” Mr. Wallace wants to “uphold” is the claim that

Mr. Wallace begins this section with a quote from Mr. Isaak:
 

We will find support for this definition once we examine Mr. Wallace's misquoted references in the proper context.

Solid Ground or Shifting Sands?
 

Right from the start Wallace tries to mislead us. He thinks that disagreement with the characteristics of specimens that qualify as transitional forms means that there is much disagreement to whether transitional fossils exist. The content of his essay is to select quotes and make it seem like there’s a question of whether there are transitional fossils. What we will see when we objectively look at his resources and his assertions, we will find that there are many transitional fossils.
 

This is a misconception of paleontology, and evolution. First, where are any references to show examples of where these "authoritative declarations" happen? Secondly, where is the data to support that assertion of the transitional form being incorrectly identified? Finally, why must there be a restriction in paleontology that says a parent species can’t be found above a daughter species?
 

This is the way science works. In the face of significant data conflicting with a theory, a scientist must change the theory. It is creationism where significant data is scrapped when it differs with the theory. Mr. Wallace’s young earth creation theory of a one week creation and global flood can never change. All we will see is his attempt to hide the empirical data of transitional fossils in his essay.
 

A sweeping generality with no support other that Mr. Wallace’s say-so. After examining his essay it will be more appropriate to edit this statement as saying: "A very serious indictment of creationism "spokespersons" (such as Wallace) thus arises, as under the guise of a "united front" by misquotes, they declare the matter of transitional fossils to be a major problem, while in reality the hands-on practitioners of science continue to agree with one another on matters both great and small as they attempt to construct the very same phylogenies which the "spokespersons" describe as not established and forever in dispute."

What do the Experts Say?
 

It seems here that West was correctly pointing out circular reasoning, but it is not against the theory of evolution. His argument is that uniformitarianism should be used to explain the fossil record using the Darwinian theory. He does not imply that the Darwinian theory is wrong, or how data is forced into an evolutionary framework. Creationists argue against the concept of Uniformitarianism, something West supports and explains in this article. Uniformitarianism falsifies many of the claims made by creationists concerning their literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

The article by West was criticizing how some authors (specifically G.H. Scott who subscribes to either using Lyellian uniformitarianism [substantive uniformitarianism] or not [methodological uniformitarianism]) fail to examine the relationship of the concepts of uniformitarianism and paleoecology studies within the framework of classical logic. Shortly after the quote Mr. Wallace provides for us, West states his conclusion by quoting none other than S.J. Gould:

"In conclusion it is again appropriate to quote from Gould regarding methodological uniformitarianism (p. 227):

'But since these principles belong to the modern definition of empirical science in general, uniformitarianism is subsumed in the simple statement: 'geology is a science'.  By specifically invoking methodological uniformitarianism, we do little more than affirm that induction is procedurally valid in geology...As a special term, methodological uniformitarianism was useful only when science was debating the status of the supernatural in its realm; for if God intervenes, then laws are not invariant and induction becomes invalid.  It was useful for those who, as Lyell, needed a guide to combat what we now consider unscientific notions of divine intervention and the resultant discordance of past and present modes of change.  Their battle has been won, and the weapon which secured the victory deserves to be honorably retired, lest it appear like the crossbow in a nuclear age.'" [Ronald R. West, "Paleoecology and Uniformitarianism", The Compass of Sigma Gamma Epsilon, Vol. 45, No. 4, May 1968, p. 217]

This article was difficult to find because Mr. Wallace failed to include the name of the journal it was found in. One can see in the last sentence of this quote that Stanley is presenting evidence in favor of the punctuational model of evolution. This article presents evidence that supports evolution. Mr. Wallace misunderstands this, he thought Stanley was saying there were no fossils - period. But that’s probably because he never read the article and just requoted it from some creationist book of misquotes.
 

This quote was taken from the beginning of a chapter where Stanley presents some problems that will be addressed later in the chapter. A typical creationist tactic to ignore the compelling evidence (for  punctuational equilibria, as seen from the part in the quote he left out, are provided in chapters 4 through 6) and distort bits and pieces of where some difficulties are being presented that are addressed later. Based on this distortion, he makes a sweeping generalization that whole fossil record offers no evidence. It is very clear by reading the book that transitional fossils abound. What Stanley discusses in his book, is how evidence supports the punctuational model rather than the model for phyletic gradualism.

For more information on other publications by Steven Stanley try this link - Steven Stanley Publications
 

Notice first how Wallace conveniently (and dishonestly) removed the word "new" in this quote about categories above the level of families that appear in the record suddenly. When you continue to read from the part Wallace left out, we find that Simpson tells us that incomplete transitions are to be expected. He also tells us that it is not evidence for special creation. In this book there is nothing that says the data is forced to fit into a framework of evolution. Simpson explains very plainly what we expect to find in the fossil record according to evolution. He says there are many examples of transitional specimens.
 

This is a book review of [Pierre-P. Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation, Academic Press, New York (1977)]. The title of Kitts’ review is attributed to Grassé’s book, not the fossil record as Mr. Wallace would like to imply.

Grassé’s theory is basically that evolution is "goal oriented". In his review Kitts discusses and dismisses that theory. The citation (severely misrepresented) that Wallace provided was directed at Grassé’s (and Wallace’s) misconceptions of how presuppositions work in science. Grassé’s book (like Wallace’s rebuttal) wants to suggest there be a "mechanism" or "internal factor" that drives and directs genetic change without addressing randomness. Although he says Grassé reiterates some significant questions, Kitts concludes his review:

"It seems then that the fundamental issues raised by Grassé’s theory of evolution do not even belong to biology, but to some other discipline.  The promise held out by the subtitle of Grassé’s remarkable book has been kept only in the sense that he has attempted to support his contention that a new evolutionary theory is needed. Members of the predominately Darwinian community of evolutionists are unlikely to be persuaded until the promise is fulfilled in the much stronger sense that evidence is presented to support a well formulated new theory that explains the special kind of orientation that Grassé sees in the history of life."

This article was an essay given at a anthropologist symposium about the consideration of anthropology being a social science and the misunderstanding of the public with that view. Leach (an anthropologist, not an expert in paleontology) reflects about the misunderstandings of Darwin’s theory in 1860, specifically the Huxley/Wilberforce debate, showing the similarities in the misunderstandings now. What Leach meant by the quote was that some parts of evolution are still debatable, not the theory itself.. There was no discussion of whether or not there are transitional fossils, but that some transitional sequences are still incomplete.  He was leading into a section about how the public (and apparently Wallace) has an image of anthropologists being more concerned with origins rather than comparative sociobiology. If you were to go back a couple of paragraphs before Wallace’s quote you would find Leach saying:

"The evolution of species from earlier species is not seriously questioned; nor is the theory that most species are specially adapted to the environmental niche in which they are encountered. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand just how they came to be that way. "
[Leach, 1981, p. 20]

Wallace seemed to miss the point in this thirty-six page article. If you read the title you find it is the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered, not the fact of evolution itself. The arguments are aimed against phyletic gradualism. The authors questions are about at what rate did evolution occur according to the data we find in the fossil record. Archaeopteryx doesn’t count because it is believed by Gould and Eldredge to be of a lineage that did not leave any descendants. The authors find the punctuational theory in agreement with Darwinism, the stratigraphic record, and contrary to Wallace’s assertions, with Isaak too.
 

This article is probably a non-technical explanation of punctualistic vs. gradualistic evolution found in the previous article by Gould and Eldredge in Paleobiology. If you read the quote in context, you find Gould saying in the sentences that Wallace left out that the fossil record does in fact show the processes we would expect to find with Darwinism. This article is arguing that it is the gradual change of transitional forms that we do not see in the fossil record. Again, Gould says that transitional fossils are rare, but not nonexistent as Wallace claims. It seems Gould does agree with Isaak in that there are transitional forms. There are just not as many transitional forms that creationists with their misconceptions of evolution think there should be.
 

Wallace makes this statement as if his misquotes are evidence that there are little to none of the intermediary forms. If we look again at the quote by Isaak (that was in-context) with the quotes by Wallace (edited by me, in context) we see that Gould has not changed his mind and it is Wallace who is not in agreement.

"The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism.  Such transitional forms are scarce, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons - geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy."
[Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past", Natural History, May 1994, p. 8]

Here’s a link for current  information on Eldredge’s research - American Museum of Natural History
Here’s a link for current information on Gould’s research - Museum of Comparative Zoology
Check out for yourself what these scientists are really up to.
 

Again we have seen so far that prominent scientists are in agreement about evolutionary transition. We will also see that paleontology has progressed quite a bit.
 

Upon reading the quotes in context this should be edited to say: "What a complete affirmation to both the above leading evolutionists’ own words, and the actual fossil record itself! If Wallace’s claims were true, why would the leading authorities of evolutionary thought so plainly disagree with this "spokesperson"? Well, the answer is that Wallace is just plain wrong.
 

In the remainder of his essay, Wallace will only address the "land animal to early whale" transition. We are supposed to apparently base on his own personal confidence that the transitional sequences are equivocal and transitory in the misrepresentation he perpetuates on Archaeoceti and Archaeopteryx.
 

This book appeared to be an "updated" version of a previous book The Challenge of the Fossil Record and we will see in the following sections that it is no more than a masterpiece of logical fallacies, conjecture and misquotes that are parroted by Wallace in the remainder of his essay.
 

As we will see in part two of this essay, the same instead should really be said for Wallace and that book by Gish.

PART II