I am completely puzzled by this pattern. You cite someone saying something or other is so, and then, when that’s challenged, you point to the same person’s statements as though a person saying something twice constitutes corroboration. You’ve done it with RFK Jr. and now with Bechly.
The published version of Muller’s presentation contains, so far as I can see, no reference at all to the fossil record. @John_Harshman has already posted the link above, comment #192 or thereabouts. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that you need to produce the actual quote – not from Bechly but from Muller.
In this case it’s probably warranted, as Bechly’s written reference is ambiguous, and the video makes clear that Bechly actually makes a particular claim about what someone else said. Now, whether the claim — that Müller did say X — is true is another matter, as is the truth of Müller’s (supposedly) and Bechly’s (definitely) claims about biology.
Of course I don’t. I only know what the published version says.
Quaint that you would use one of Ken Ham’s favorite rejoinders. Of course I wasn’t, and you weren’t either. The only support you have for Bechly’s contention (which is at least now confirmed as his contention) is a single sentence in that video. Who knows whether that actually happened or whether Bechly misinterpreted what was actually said?
I never said he didn’t. I said that it wasn’t in the published version. But why would Müller change his claim from the spoken to the written version of the same thing? (Digression: I’m amused that Bechly needs to insert “prestigious” and “famous” in an attempt to buttress his passing reference.)
More important point: this trivial controversy distracts from any real discussion of the fossil record, which you studiously avoid even noticing.