Bob,
I do think that this hurts your case. Patterson's remarks were (he said specifically) concerned with systematics. To generalize and say that even this evolutionist doesn't hold evolution in high regard is to take the statement out of context. In response Patterson in as much alluded to the fact that he was misrepresented - although he was honest enough to admit to the remark and to admit to the given degree of uncertainty which surrounds all scientific theory.
If one does not believe evolution the fine. Just rest on the authority of the Bible.
But these "apologist" methods which include misrepresenting quotes and generating nonsense explanation dressed up in scientific words are not good!!!
Are creationists purposely misquoting evolutionists?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by xdisciplex, Jun 1, 2006.
Page 11 of 14
-
-
UTEOTW brings this up as the perfect example - I have even started a thread JUST dealing with this one golden example that should by all rights be the perfect poster child for UTEOTW's point -- if she can not make it here - she shows the true transparent failing of her methods.
Remember "making stuff up" is not a form of "data" no matter how much evolutionists "prefer" that model of integrity.
What more perfect scenario could you ask to make that case?? I ask that the case "now be MADE" instead of continually "asserting" that the case WAS made without actually providing DETAILS -- so I even provide a thread dedicated to it!
Comon friends of evolutionism - step up to the plate SURELY this is one place you can step up, be counted and make your case "in details" not just vagaries. :thumbs:
In Christ,
Bob -
Well, we now have Bob on record as saying that the meaning of a quote should not change when you look at the larger context. So let's go back and take a look at some of his favorite material. This will require several posts, so I apolgize in advance for the string of posts.
Let's first get into the record just what Bob has posted since he earlier complainded that I was just repeating the quotes without his comments on them.
We saw begin this back on the 7th page of the thread.
And in the next post
"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."—George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.Click to expand...Click to expand...
And
SIMPSON ADMITS that the horse series initially published -- and promoted as THE BEST example of evolution - was in fact BOGUS!! NOT because HE does not think horses evolved but because the STORY they were telling was so easily DEBUNKED as it was a pathetically transparent FABRICATION of a fossil SEQUENCE that is in fact NOT FOUND in that SEQUENCE in nature!Click to expand...
First the objective thinking mind NOTES that Simpson (atheist darwinist icon for evolutionists) is HIMSELF admitting that what they spewed out to the public was false when it comes to the exact fossil series they published!! He ADMITS that the "Series" the "SEQUENCE" did not HAPPEN in nature"
He does not claim that all of the fossils were "faked" just that the SEQUENCE - the ORDER they were placed in was a fake and then the STORY wrapped around that FAKED order (the story of smooth orthogenic transitional sequence) was also WRONG!Click to expand... -
Now it is time to start filling in the details to show how Bob has misunderstood and misrepresented the Simpson quote.
But first we need a few more quotes. The first, Bob himself was kind enough to give us on a different thread.
The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution.
G.G. Simpson, Horses, 1951, pg 215Click to expand...
And of course we need the whole quote itself.
The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic. The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature. Increases in size, for instance, did not occur at all during the first third of the whole history of the family. Then it occurred quite irregularly, at different rates and to different degrees in a number of different lines of descent. Even after a trend toward larger size had started it was reversed in several groups of horses which became smaller instead of larger. As already briefly noted, the famous “gradual reduction of the side toes” also is something that never happened.
There was no reduction for the 15 or 20 million years of the history. There was relatively rapid reduction from four front toes to three (the hind foot already had only three toes). Many horses simply retained the new sort of foot without further change. In one group there was later another relatively rapid change of foot mechanism involving some reduction in size of the side toes, which, however, remained functional. Thereafter most horses retained this type of foot without essential change. In just one group, again, another relatively rapid change eliminated functional side toes, after which their descendants simply retained the new sort of foot.
In the history of the horse family there is no known trend that affected the whole family. Moreover, in any one of the numerous different lines of descent there is no known trend that continued uniformly in the same direction and at the same rate throughout. Trends do not really have to act that way: there are not really orthogenetic.
(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…)Click to expand... -
As already stated - on the previous page - UTEOTW would do well to make good on this accusation befor engaging in further "bait and switch".
BobRyan said:Here is my latest reference to UTEOTW's own decision to bringi up the Patterson test case --
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=788798&postcount=165
Here UTEOTW shows explicitly that she would like to label me with this problem specifically -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=788797&postcount=164
She does this by stating the following -
"He specifically states that the interpretation of the quote that you are peddling is "wrong."
Surely you can step up to such a simple easy case. UTEOTW has provided such a perfect example as a test case showing my error. Why not take a little interest in actually SHOWING the details here?Click to expand...
In Christ,
Bob -
Now, we have enough information to judge the varacity of the quote as presented.
It is a fairly simple manner to read through Bob's comments of the quote to see what it is that he claims about the quote.
(From my perspective, I find that Bob's opinions of the quote seem to have changed through the years. At one time, it seemed to me that he presented the quote as being a straight "admission" that horses did not evolve. Lately, he has tried a more subtle approach where he instead says that the quote is an admission that the original horse series "never happened.")
Bob basically asserts that before the time of Simpson, that there there was a fraudulent horse series passed off as true. Look at some of the words that he specifically uses. In the first post, Bob asks "did someon [sic] ARRANGE a set of fossils and then SHOW THEM to the worldAS IF such a smooth orthogenic transitional sequence had actually been found IN the fossil record just as was fraudulently presented!"
Bob shortly thereafter says
"Answer - it was ARRANGED in fossil order sequence and then published AS IF that arrangement had actually been found IN THAT SEQUENCE in the fossil record! When in fact - it had not!"
So what Bob is claiming is that fossils were fraudulently put into an order in which they did not occur in the fossil record, that this was done on purpose, and that Simpson is admitting as much.
That simply is not so.
Now if Simpson has said that "The transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus never happened in nature," Bob might have had a case to be made if the rest of the context still supported such a statement. But there are two key words in there.
"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus ... never happened in nature."
Those words, "uniform" and "continuous," are the key to understanding the passage.
Bob's assertion that the fossils that comprised the early series were not found in the order in which they are presented is patently false. Stratiography strongly supports the horse series as it was arranged then and today.
Here is an image, from a creationist site no less, that shows the modern tree and when and where the specimens lived. It shows that assertions that are often made, such as the fossils were not found in the right order or that the actual line was from fossils from the world over (one that Bob has also made in the past), just are not true.
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/images/MacFadden.gif
The fossil horse from before Simpson's time were in the correct order, just there were few of them. The limited number of fossils led to an incorrect assumption of monophyletic evolution. Also called orthogenetic. This is where evolution happens in a straight line, with little or no branching, and at a fairly stead pace.
By Simpsons time, enough fossils had been discovered to show that the actual pattern was phyletic, or highly branching. Hence the quote from Simpson that "[h]orse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations." And the statement that the "line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution"
All of these together show us that Simpson was pointing out that horse evolution was not "uniform" and "continuous" as had been previously thought. He was not at all suggesting that there was somehting fundementally wrong with the old horse series. Just that the mode and tempo of change was misunderstood because the record was not complete at the time.
The starting and endpoints were correct even in the original series. The known fossils in the original series were even in the right order, contrary to Bob's claims. They just didn't have all of the data. And as that data came in, nothing about the horse series changed except the pace of change and the depth of knowledge.
Now these are my assertions about the quote. Look at the full quote in context to see if it fits.
Look at the sentence immediately preceding Bob's quote. "The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic." Sound familiar?
Look at the sentences immediately after Bob's quote. "Increases in size, for instance, did not occur at all during the first third of the whole history of the family. Then it occurred quite irregularly, at different rates and to different degrees in a number of different lines of descent. Even after a trend toward larger size had started it was reversed in several groups of horses which became smaller instead of larger." Notice that Simpson is not saying anything about fraud or about the fossils being in the wrong order or about mistakes that were made. He instead is discussing how the horse fossil record was anything but a "uniform continmuous transformation."
He uses the reduction of the toes as an example of another jerky transition in the horses.
He then says. "In the history of the horse family there is no known trend that affected the whole family. Moreover, in any one of the numerous different lines of descent there is no known trend that continued uniformly in the same direction and at the same rate throughout. Trends do not really have to act that way: there are not really orthogenetic."
Again, we see that it is the pace of change that Simpson is addressing. There is nothing of the sort that Bob alledges.
Simpson finally concludes that the evolution of the horse "is still a classic example of evolution in action."
Now, I have made a well reasoned case that the message that Bob presents about the quote is not one that is grounded in either fact nor in the context of the quote.
If Bob really thinks that he is presenting the quote accurately, then he should be able to show that I am mistating that quotes that I use to support my assertions. He should be able to show from the wider context that his interpretation is the more reasonable. And he should be able to show that the facts of nature agree with his assertions. (For example, he could show documented evidence that the horse fossils were really found way out of order.) -
And for his other favorite quote on this thread.
To understand how it got there - first you most understand the intellectual dishonesty that forms the heart of evolutionism's "story telling" passed off AS IF it was "science". Atheists sources admit to that background of deceit in this way --
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils[/b].” “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86 (May 1977): p. 14.Click to expand...Click to expand...
Bob refers to this quote later.
In that confession from Simpson the objective thinking mind begins to investigate DEEPER just HOW such an imaginary SEQUENCE could be presented as FACT when it was NEVER FOUND TO START WITH!! Because if they are doing that as "a matter of policy" then WHAT OTHER THINGS are also fraudulent.
It is THERE that the quote I provided about what athiest darwinist themselves call the "great secret of paleontology" comes in. Surely you remember it? It is quoted right here on this thread!Click to expand...
How carefully you AVOIDED that quote you were claiming to explain (i.e. glossed over the inconvenient facts just to "fit your story" again.)
The key in the quote that you avoid -- is highlighted in BOLD for you.
(Actually for the objective reader who sees and reads with the thinking mind. But we both knew that of course)
The Quote is given in the context of the "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" blunder of Evolutionism in terms of the early smooth orthogenic transitional sequence fraudulently presented as fact.
But the "telling" feature here is in the quote above where we see that "INFERENCE" is being portrayed as discovered fact!Click to expand...
And in extreme cases - "inference that fills in as substitute for vast amounts of data".Click to expand... -
Once again, I think that this quote requires a little more quoting to be understood properly.
First, the Gould quote I have been presenting in response in a longer form.
[T]ransitions 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. [snip Gould discussion of two detailed transtional sequences: humans from our last common ancestor with the other apes and mammals from the reptiles]
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.Click to expand...
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
And the full quote.
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.Click to expand...
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.
For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record.Click to expand... -
UTEOTW -
Now it is time to start filling in the details to show how Bob has misunderstood and misrepresented the Simpson quote.Click to expand...
And then of course - there is the Patterson quote still waiting for you to support your wild accusations.
It is time to -
So let's get on with it.
I think that it is important from the very beginning to look at the title from which Bob's quote comes. "Life's Erratic Pace."
This becomes important as you start to look at what Gould was discussing. A whole paragraph from Gould is telling.
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.Click to expand...
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.Click to expand...
In biology, speciation is generally defined as the branching where a new species is born. Look at what Gould says. We have data from the "nodes of the branches." He also says that we have data from the "tips." The tips would be extant species, or at least known species. Put it together and what do you get?
Gould is discussing how it is that we have the larger transitions but are genrally lacking the smaller transitions. If he says that we have down to the "nodes of the branches, " that we have the tips and that we must "infere" what is in between, what does he mean? He means that genrally we are lacking the information about how an individual species changes with time and changes between species. He is saying that we genrally have good data for larger changes. To repeat in GOuld's own words, "[t]ransitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
The quote that Bob lifted is from a writing describing just this phenomenon. Gould and Eldredge proposed punctuate equilibrium to explain just why this should be the case. In their theoru, most evolutionary change happens in relatively small populations over geologically short periods of time.
Now a common distortion of adherents of YEism is to say that PE was proposed to explain a lack of data. Nothing could be less true. If you go back to the early 1970's when they first proposed the theory, their paper outlined specific examples of where such change can be seen in the fossil record.
So what Gould was saying is seen in the fossil record with "extreme rarity" is transitions within species or between two species. Gould says that transitional forms are "abundant between larger groups."
It is important to note that most adherents of YEism will only allow "microevolution." This is exactly the kind of change that Gould notes is "extremely [rare]." The change giving rise to new genera, families, classes, orders, kingdoms and phyla, which YEers would deny as possible, Gould says is "abundant."
So, similar to what we saw with Simpson, GOuld is arguing against the idea of gradual change only. He says that "n fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record." Contrary to the expectations of YEers.
Again, I have laid out a good case that shows that Gould was speaking only of changes withing species, between the "nodes" and the "tips," when he says that the fossil record is rare. I have used quotes from the wider context and from other GOuld writings. If Bob wants to insist that he was right when he asserted that Gould was saying that transitionals in general are rare, then he should be able to show where I am mistating the opinion of Gould in my larger quoting. He should be able to show, using a broader context, where Gould actually thinks as Bob has asserted. And he should be able to show from the facts where transitionals at all levels are in fact missing.
What will we get instead.
Bob will respond. No doubt about that. There will be repeats of quotes with lot's of bolding. There will be phrases with quotation marks around them. In some cases he may be actually quoting someone and in some cases he will just be randomly inserting quotation marks. Very hard to tell which is which. There will be a lot of random words in all CAPS. The word "salient" will be in there somewhere. I'd guess he will keep misstating my gender. There will be a bunch of posts in a row, as well. Some will be repeats. Some may even be nothing more than quotes of what he said in a post one or two above the one in question.
But what you will not see is a detailed accounting as I have given showing where he preserved the original intent and opinion of those he quoted. You will not see long quotes to give you all of the context. You will not see links, as I gave in one case above, to where the entire original article can be read.
And, since I have done such detailed anaylsis with Bob in the past to no avail, you will continue to see him use these quotes in the future. He has been exposed but he has deluded himself into thinking that the quotes are valid. We all know better, now. -
UTEOTW said:(From my perspective, I find that Bob's opinions of the quote seem to have changed through the years. At one time, it seemed to me that he presented the quote as being a straight "admission" that horses did not evolve. Lately, he has tried a more subtle approach where he instead says that the quote is an admission that the original horse series "never happened.")Click to expand...
In the link YOU GIVE to the 2002 discussion - you will find that THERE I continue the SAME approach I have used here - stating EXPLICITLY that WHILE these atheist darwinsts are REMAINING atheist darwinists - true devotees to the cult of evolutionism - YET they can be seen to expose key blunders in the history of evolutionism - by making some of the same claims "in FACT" that you see in the salient points of the Bible believing Christians opposing the fallacious "story telling instances" of evolutionism.
Here is case where I show that I am taking this position "consitently" in that August 2002 thread that UTEOTW has posted here for reference.
Bob said –
As I said - I only quote atheist evolutionist ICONS when the case for evolutionism is so weak that even THEY admit to the salient points of creationism [b]while they still CLING to atheism and its religion of origins the junk-science faith we know today as evolutionism.[/b]
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=437756&postcount=32Click to expand...
Bob saidClick to expand...
"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.
Click to expand...
"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."— *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.
Click to expand...
The problems identified -
#1. Wild imaginings of creative evolutionists gets accepted "as if they are true" in fact they are merely "stories". The horse series is a good example of such a practice. It SHOWS us a SERIES that "NEVER HAPPENED"
But does that mean that these atheist evolutionists have given up their faith in evolutionism? NO - NEVER! IT is the ONLY religion available to the atheist!
Does that mean these devoted atheists "imagine" that NO ancestor - DIRECT straight line EXISTS for the modern horse? NO - by faith they KNOW that such an ancestor - a straight line immediate ancestor MUST exist and by faith WILL be found.
So UTEOTW will now come back with but atheists are STILL atheist in spite of this problem with eovlutionism so it MUST NOT really be a problem
(or something like that)
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=437758&postcount=34
Click to expand... -
I made some predictions about the response.
Bob will respond. No doubt about that. There will be repeats of quotes with lot's of bolding. There will be phrases with quotation marks around them. In some cases he may be actually quoting someone and in some cases he will just be randomly inserting quotation marks. Very hard to tell which is which. There will be a lot of random words in all CAPS. The word "salient" will be in there somewhere. I'd guess he will keep misstating my gender. There will be a bunch of posts in a row, as well. Some will be repeats. Some may even be nothing more than quotes of what he said in a post one or two above the one in question.
But what you will not see is a detailed accounting as I have given showing where he preserved the original intent and opinion of those he quoted. You will not see long quotes to give you all of the context. You will not see links, as I gave in one case above, to where the entire original article can be read.Click to expand...
1. Repeats of previous quotes? Check.
2. Lot's of bolding? Check.
3. Seemingly random quotation marks? Check.
4. Semmingly random use of all CAPS? Check.
5. Use of the word "salient?" Check.
6. Still misstating my gender? No mention.
7. Several posts in a row? It must have been late. I still bet we'll se them.
8. Repeats of previous posts? Check.
9. No detailed acounting of how my reasoning is wrong and how Bob was really the one who better preserved the original intent and opinion of the authors? CHECK!
The question was whether the quotes were valid.
I made a detailed response to two quotes. I used the wider context of the material where the quotes came from. I used the context of other writings by the same author. And I supported the interpretation using the general state of the science in that area.
I built a case that shows from multiple lines of reasoning that mine is the correct interpretation of the quotes.
Simpson was saying ONLY that the horse sequence was not "uniform continuous" change, that is it was not orthogenetic. He never said anything about the change not happened or the sequence being wrong or the fossils being out of order.
Gould was saying only that records of change at the level of change between or within species is rare. He, and science, says that larger changes, those denied by YEism, are "abundant."
Bob will not be able to make a strong case that I am the one misrepresenting the opinions of these two, for I represent them correctly.
Thus, by definition and default, Bob has misquoted and misrepresented the quotes he gave. He will continue to twist in the wind on this. He is the master of obfuscation. But he will never be able to make a case that he is the one who preserved the original intent and opinion of the authors rather than me. -
Since UTEOTW seems to insist that we NOT look at her wild claims using Patterson on this thread any more -- Let's note the obvious in what she has admitted to - vs the actual facts.
Fraudulent story History: summarized –
Original myth:
Atheist Darwinists started with the ancient tree-dwelling Hyrax (similar to the current tree dwelling Hyrax closer than the way a Wolf is similar to a Shetland Sheep Dog) and end up with the modern day Horse after showing straightline smooth orthogenic transition after transition.
Hyrax – (Magic)- A-(Magic)-B-(Magic)-C-(Magic)-D-(Magic)…-Modern Horse
In the initial mythical lie presented “As if fact” each of the “magic goes here” boxes are comprised of an unknown number of generations.
(Bible Believing Christian scientists of course denied that the fossil record ever showed such transitions taking place in nature – Obviously. They claimed this was all just “story telling” within the cult of atheist Darwinist believing “faithful”)
Of this contrivance – somewhat honest atheist evolutionists now say
“Never Happened in Nature”
“Fewer examples today of evol transition than in Darwin’ day – for example (the initial) Horse series Had to be totally discarded”
“Lamentable”
Bob observes – the obvious
More than that – it is apparent that “The stories” have been claiming that they DO find transitions and smooth change from A-to-B-to-C but “What is ACTUALLY found” is “highly uneven” with Species “APPEARING – Suddenly – VERY Suddenly”
"The ancestral family tree of [b]the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be[/b]. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized [b]Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong[/b]."—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.
"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."—*[/b]Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.
)Click to expand...
Notice the presentation was “all wrong”. HOW could an “ALL wrong” presentation be concocted WITHOUT the evidence for it?? Answer: With LESS data and fewer example there is room for “more story telling”!!. Their “Story” was better with less data!! (And so it is with “all stories”!!)
"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories]has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true.[/b] For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution[/b] prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been [b]presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.Click to expand...
"The uniform continuousClick to expand...transformation of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus[/b], so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook[/b] writers, never happened in nature."— *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.Click to expand...
Not to suggest that the many-storied tactics of evolutionism are JUST confined to the discredited discarded Horse Series. We find another point on “stories told by Evolutionists”
Click to expand... -
UTEOTW by contrast “clings to the failed horse series anyway” claiming that NOT only are all the individuals related – BUT they are in the exact ancestral line and order as initially contrived with the only difference being that the “magic” goes here boxes have MORE individuals and more changes IN The “magic” than first “imagined”. But of course that sad desperate fallacy of UTEOTW’s ignores the obvious fact that even in the initial failed series they did not say how many generations occur between A-and-B.
Here we see UTEOTW in what is perhaps the saddest “believe anyway” statements that any cult member could be expected to utter –
UTEOTWClick to expand...The fossil horse from before Simpson's time were in the correct order, just there were few of them. The limited number of fossils led to an incorrect assumption of monophyletic evolution. Also called orthogenetic. This is where evolution happens in a straight line, with little or no branching, and at a fairly stead pace.
By Simpsons time, enough fossils had been discovered to show that the actual pattern was phyletic, or highly branching. Hence the quote from Simpson that "[h]orse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations." And the statement that the "line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution"
All of these together show us that Simpson was pointing out that horse evolution was not "uniform" and "continuous" as had been previously thought. He was not at all suggesting that there was something fundementally wrong with the old horse series. Just that the mode and tempo of change was misunderstood because the record was not complete at the time.
The starting and endpoints were correct even in the original series. The known fossils in the original series were even in the right order, contrary to Bob's claims. They just didn't have all of the data. And as that data came in, [n]nothing about the horse series changed except the paceClick to expand...of change and the depth of knowledge.Click to expand...Click to expand...
“Had to be Discarded” (as evaluated by atheist Darwinists themselves) gets transposed by UTEOTW into “Nothing changed but the pace…”.
“Never happened” (as evaluated by atheist Darwinists themselves) gets transposed by UTEOTW into “Fossils in the right order..”.
Truly that “is Lamentable” -
There comes the string of posts.
Remember what I did. I used the broader context of the work which you quoted and other writings by the same author to show that I was the one accurately representing his original intent and opinion. I also used the broader science around the issue to show as much.
As predicted, you are unable to do the same. Having failed to be able to use the author to show that you are the one correctly portraying his intent, you are off quoting others out of context to prop up your original misquote. We have already shown that you misquoted Gould and Simpson. Why should we believe that your other quotes trying to support your original misquotes are any more valid?
Be a man, step up to the plate and show that you correctly portrayed the original intent of those you quoted. -
If you want to say that the fossils were in the wrong order, instead of dragging quotes out of context, why don't you tell us what order they put the fossils in originally, how that was wrong and how you know it is wrong.
Use some actual science and some actual references.
Surely you have not just been blowing smoke all these years? -
It would be nice if you would actually read all the way through my posts before responding, too.
I have now posted three times that you are misstating my gender and yet you continue to do so.
Please read the whole posts before you respond. -
And before you go off calling [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hyracotherium a hyrax too much more, let's return some some pictures.
Here is a Hyracotherium
And here is a hyrax
Do these look like the same animal to you? They don't to me. Yet I have posted these same images for you repeatedly.
And just like the refuted quotes that reappear, the refuted claims reappear too.
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
You dig your credibility a deeper and deeper hole. Any reader can easily see the difference and would have been able to do so all the other times I have posted these images for you. Yet you ignore the inconvenient facts for your fantasy world.
[/FONT] -
Since some would argue for taking larger chunks of Simpson’s position and dissecting them – here is one. *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.
The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic.Click to expand...The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature. Increases in size, for instance, did not occur at all during the first third of the whole history of the family. Then it occurred quite irregularly, at different rates andClick to expand...to different degrees in a number of different lines of descent. Even after a trend toward larger size had started it was reversed in several groups of horses which became smaller instead of larger. As already briefly noted, the famous “gradual reduction of the side toes” also is something that never happened. There was no reduction for the 15 or 20 million years of the history. There was relatively rapid reduction from four front toes to three (the hind foot already had only three toes). Many horses simply retained the new sort of foot without further change. In one group there was later another relatively rapid change of foot mechanism involving some reduction in size of the side toes, which, however, remained functional. Thereafter most horses retained this type of foot without essential change. In just one group, again, another relatively rapid change eliminated functional side toes, after which their descendants simply retained the new sort of foot. (Fig. 39)Click to expand...
In the history of the horse family there is no known trend that affected the whole family. Moreover, in any one of the numerous different lines of descent there is no known trend that continued uniformly in the same direction and at the same rate throughout. Trends do not really have to act that way: there are not really orthogenetic.
(The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups[/b] of organisms, but it is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented…)
*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.
Click to expand...
#1. The uniform continuous transformation from start to end SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence NEVER happened in nature.
#2. The Gradual reduction of side toes SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence NEVER happened.
#3. The Single line of descent (with many generations between each line node admittedly) NEVER happened.
#4. Individuals often “RETAINED their foot with NO FURTHER CHANGES” – unlike the fraudulent sequence “Story”.
#5. The TRENDS affecting the whole horse family as SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence – DO NOT HAPPEN! In fact “No known trend affected the WHOLE horse family”
#6. THE NEW improved “story” is still accepted as “an example” of evolution but the old discredited debunked story “IS NOT”!!
By contrast some devotees to the cult of evolutionism STILL CLING to the old story to this very day AT LEAST in this form –
UTEOTW –Click to expand...All of these together show us that Simpson was pointing out that horse evolution was not "uniform" and "continuous" as had been previously thought. He was not at all suggesting that there was something fundementally wrong with the old horse series
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=792474&postcount=206
Click to expand...
Sad but true! -
And after comparing the ancient tree dwelling Hyrax to the modern tree dwelling hyrax - we go on to compare the wolf skeleton to that of the modern Shetland Sheep dog!
Page 11 of 14