A simple Example of Evolutionism's fiction

"There you go again claiming that EXACT quotes are "false quotes" simply because they are inconvenient facts getting in the way of your "stories"."

They are false quotes because you change the meaning of what the author intended. YOu are like the atheist who quotes the Bible as saying "There is no God." That, too is an exact quote. How would you respond?

 

I have been pouring over UTEOTW's statements and I have not found a single Bible verse to backup his claims. Interestingly enough, the entire YEC model is based upon scripture.

UTEOTW undermines his own faith. If he can non-literally interpret Genesis and give us a non-literal exegesis that supports evolution, let him do so. We will apply his standards to the whole of scripture and see if they pan out (for example, since Jesus, Paul, and other quote Genesis as literal, we will apply any non-literal exegesis UTEOTW gives us to the words of Christ and Paul).

You see, the Bible forms one clear, unified picture. To change the literality of the foundation is to change the leterality of the whole. [edited in: is literality a word? lol]

Otherwise, UTEOTW is simply arguing against God and ultimate truth.

 

Bob

I have given you Patterson's own response to this quote. He himself explains that he was only saying that you canno make ironclad statements of ancestor . descendent relationships. It is not damage control. It is the truth.

All that is needed to see your false quoting is to read the Simpson quote the way you present it and the way it reads in context. You say it says the horse series does not exist. When the rest of the text is added, anyone can see that he says that the gradual series does not exist. He discussed trends in horse evolution, strange if he thought it did not happen. And he concluded that it is a "classic" example of evolution.

 

Bob

A long time ago this passed to the point where I was violoating the standard of not answering a fool according to his folly. I am not quite sure why Icontinue. You obviously have no scruples when it comes to debate. Facts are unnecessary and accurately quoting others is not important at all to you. You throw out misquote after misquote and continue to do so even after the truth has been revealed. I do not comprehend how you think lying about what others say and twisting their words to make them appear to say something they did not mean can either be convincing or pleasing to the Lord.

I have many times in the past given you Patterson's own opinion of the way his statement is being used by people like you. It is not a kind reference. I have given you in his own words how what he was saying is that it is not possible to tell whether a given fossil in a direct ancestor or a closely related side branch. I have even given you the following statement from Patterson.

Now if you think that not knowing whether a given fossil is a direct ancestor or a closely related side branch is a huge problem for evolution, then by all means go on quoting Dr. Patterson. If you do not think that this is a problem then stop quoting Dr. Patterson It is as simple as that. But if you have an honest bone in your body, you will stop quoting PAtterson as if he is saying something he did not mean the way you present it.

I will not be holding my breath.

 

"My very POINT in isolating this one shining example is because I AGREE that this IS the best evolutionism has to offer."

Agree with whom?

Simpson said "The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms, but it is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented."

"...no better known..." What part of that indicates "best" to you?

"You continually point out that atheist evolutionists are STILL atheist and STILL evolutionists EVEN when they say things like these "stories" about ancestors - so easily "made up" are "NOT SCIENCE". I never disputed that."

No. I point out that you cannot quote scientists in a manner that preserves their initial intent.

In your favorite Simpson quote he is arguing that gradual evolution is not the norm and he uses the horse as an example. He says that the gradual series that was assumed when only a few specimens were knwon was found to not have really occurred as more data comes in and showns a complex, bushy, jerky pattern of evolution for the horse.

If you find bushy, jerky mechanisms to be a problem for evolution, by all means continue to qute Dr. Simpson. If you wish to change the meaning of his statement and continue to insist that he claims the horse did not evolve, then I must ask you to stop. If you have an honest bone in your body, you will quit lying to us about what Simpson meant in his statement.

I will not be holding my breath.

 

"The quote I gave IS ACCURATE and EXACT and is not only NOT a misquote - but the DETAILS in the quote are so devastating to your case - you can not even address them!"

It is not simply enough to list all the words in the right order as you seem to think. When you present the quote in a manner that makes it appear that the author was saying something different than what was intended, that it dishonest. Period. You are just like the atheist who quotes the Bible as saying "There is no God." The answer to that lie is to give the full quote. The answer to your dishonest quotes is show the full quote and let it be known that the author intended something different than the way you have it presented.

I tell you what. Let's play a game. Now this game really is a trap for you, you see. Here is how the game works. I am going to post the full Simpson quote. You will paraphrase THE WHOLE QUOTE in your own words telling us what you think Simpson was saying throughout the whole quote. This is where the trap comes in. To refuse to do so will be a tacit admission that you are not quoting him honestly. You cannot affors not to play. But if you do play, you have a choice. You can continue to insist that SImpson says that the horse sequence never existed and therefore the horse sequence is wrong. But if you do so you will have to do some very creative paraphrasing of the rest of the quote. It will be obvious to the reader what you have done. On the otherhand, you could give an even appraisal of the quote, but then it will be obvious that you have no point to make from the quote. This wil be such fun. Remember, a failure to comply will be viewed as an admission that you have not quoted Simpson honestly. I will hang that over your head.

 

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about by paraphrasing it myself. This will also allow the reader to compare the original with my paraphrase and your paraphrase and see who they think comes closest to the original. All very instructive in your tactics.

Early on the tempo of evolution was believed to be that of slow, steady, gradual change from one species to another. We said that the process was orthogenetic. The horse, as an example, has long been shown in textbooks with this type of change. A very gradual and progrssive change from Hyracotherium, the earliest horse, to Equus, the genus that includes the modern horse and the zebra. This gradual transformation, however, never actually occured in nature!

When examining the trends in the evolution of the horse, no single pattern emerges. Instead of a gradual increase in size, we instead see no change in size through the first third of the sequence. Even after that, the changes in size were not steady. Some lines of descent showed large changes in size while others showed small changes. Some groups of horse even followed the increase in size with a decrease in size.

The same thing can also be seen in the reduction of the number of toes. The reduction was not gradual. For the first 15-20 million years of the sequence, the horses maintained the four toes on the front feet of Hyracotherium. Then the front feet rapidly reduced to three toes. After this, most of the horse genera simply maintained the three toed foot. In one group, the side toes rapidly reduced in size. After this change, most of the decendent genera simply maintained this new foot. However, the was agin a small group from this group that shrunk the side toes further and gave rise to the modern horse.

As seen, there is no trend in the history of the horse family that affected the whole family. Even in individual lines of descent, there were not any traits that steadily and gradually changed even in just that one line. This is because trends in evolution really do not have to act that way. Trends in evolution need not be orthogenetic.

We now have a very complete fossil record of the horse family, Equidae. There are many other fossil series, however, that are known at least equally well. But, the horse series must be presented correctly with all its fits and starts and stops. The simple, gradual presentation is incorrect. But, when presented correctly, the horse series is still a classic example of evolution in action and can be very instructive.

 

Bob, it is not worth going down this path with you any longer.

You have responded to the thread without the demanded paraphrasing of the FULL Simpson quote. You have merely responded with more false quotes, the true context of which has been pointed out to you.

If you are honestly quoting Simpsin, then go though the quote, line by line, sentence by sentence, paraphrasing it in your own words and with your own interpretation.

That you refuse to do so is a tactic admission that you have not honestly quoted him. Otherwise you would be able to paraphrase the whole wuote in a manner that supports your claims. By not doing so you reveal that it is not possible to reconcile what you say he said with what he actually said.

From now on, when you start quoting such, I will be giving this same challenge with the same full quote and my paraphrase for comparison. If you ever respond, then I might be forced to pull out the full quote and each of our paraphrases when you begin quoting.

This is a trap I have set for you. You are in it. The only question is will you die quickly by playing my game or will you de slowly with me forced to hound you with the fact that you have not played the game?

 

I'll meet your challenge but I do not expect you to comply with mine. Just what was Raup talking about...?

Well let's add some perspective by quoting a little more widely from the source material.

LEt's go all the way back to page 21.

Right off the bat, Raup tries to draw a difference between the FACT of evolution and the explanation of how that change occurred. When he speaks of Darwin, he is speaking specifically of slow, gradual change.

Now on the next page he states

Look at his own words. The source you choose to use in the paper you choose to quote. There is a "mountain" of evidence to support even gradual change through natural selection. Evolution through natural selection is a process that is shown to work.

On the next page.

Now we start getting to the crux of the matter. Raup supports puncutate equilibrium which says that most change is not gradual. Instead it is "highly uneven or jerky." While natural selection has "mountains" of data to show that it works, the data also show that it is far from the most common mechanism. This is in conflict with Darwin's own initial predictions. Darwin expected change to be dominated by the mechanism of natural selection resulting in gradual change across the board. THis is not what we find.

Your quote.

First, could you find the full quote and give it for us? You always worry me with those ellipsis. I'd like to know what you are cutting out. It is normally important and not charitable to your position.

But, it should not start becoming clear what Raup was saying. It is Darwinian style, natural selection driven, gradual change that is not improving very quickly in quantity of data. Remember though, he has already said there is a "mountian" of evidence to support even this mechanism.

Also on the same page.

Again, it is gradual change to which Raup is objecting here.

Finally, on the next page.

This is your explanation. The original horse series, the one that was constrained by being assumed to be Dawinian in nature, the one that was assumed to follow a gradual process, had to be modified when more data was made available. When we had only a few fossils, it appeared to be a nice, smooth progression. When we found more data, the series was able to be seen as "complez" and not "gradualistic." Instead it was "highly uneven [and] jerky."

Context has once again betrayed you. Now meet my trap...uh challenge to you. I have answered you. Give me the same courtesy.