Post Mortem on the debunked horse series

UTEOTW · Feb 21, 2006

Not for part two.

Mercury makes a good analogy which it is worth exploring.

There was nothing wrong with the horse series even from the beginning other than it was incomplete.

Even with all the new data that has been collected and even with all of the language regarding the original series that you so gleefully post, the fact remains that it was at worst incomplete.

The basic facts have never changed.

In both cases horses evolved from the same small browsing animal with generalized teeth, a flexible body, pads on the feet instead of hooves and three toes on one pair of feet and four on the other pair.

In both case the teeth specialized into a set optimized for grazing over a period of time.

In both, the feet changed such that the pads disappeared and the animals began to run on their tiptoes with the nails becoming hooves.

In both, the feet were reduced to a single toes per foot.

In both, the two toes to either side became shin splints.

In both, there was a great increase in size.

In both, the skelton became less flexible and more suited to galloping.

And the fossils originally discovered to be part of the series are still a part of the series.

The main differene between the two is the tempo and mode of evolution.

The original series had few fossils. The few transitionals they had were simply arranged in order. A simple, steady, gradual progression through each was assumed.

At the time, this is how all such sequences were assumed to have happened. Gradual series were all that was known. But with time, an increasing number of fossils were discovered. It became apparent, not just in horses, that evolution was generally anything but steady and gradual.

So back to the horses. As the family tree was filled out, it was found that there were quite a few side branches. It was found that many of the major changes happened over geologically short periods of time and were stable at other times instead of a gradual change. It was found that sometimes traits would trend in one direction and then the other.

But was it "wrong?"

Well, that depends. Back to Mercury's analogy. For centuries, we had a dominant theory to describe the actions of gravity. But in that time, we also found that there was somethings which it could not explain. These were resolved when Einstein came along and supplanted the older theory with relativity.

But was classical gravity "wrong?" Well it was certainly incomplete. And it certainly had some wrong answers. So it could conceivable be described as "wrong." But it also must be pointed out that it was a close approximation and sreved us well during its time. No one really goes around talking about Newton being "debunked."

And this is the same situation with which we find ourselves with the horses. The original series was far from complete. Was it "wrong" in that sense? Some apparently characterize it that way.

But the original series still served us well. It still got the basic facts right. It still lead to the research which fleshed out the details.

So was there some sort of deceit at work? Not at all. They were going with that they had. And like all good science, they modified the details as new material became available. And in the case of horse evolution, those details had to do with the pace and with the exact path that was taken. The general story and path was known even in what you are calling a "debunked" series.

So was it "lamentable" for a museum to still be showing the old path decades after better information became available? You seem to have found a couple of people who think so. But so what? Is it lamentable for textbooks today to teach classical gravity instead of just starting with relativity? It, too, gets the story largely right while missing a few of the details.

But we get back to the question of the point of this thread. Why do you do the strawman thing and attack a hypothesis which has been out of favor for decades? Why do you not step up and discuss modern theory? Real science is too hard to knock over, isn't it?

BobRyan · Feb 21, 2006

Originally posted by Mercury:
It seems to me that the gradual model of horse evolution was wrong the same way Newton's theory of gravitation was wrong. Both were incomplete, and were supplanted by better explanations that dealt with (and predicted) further evidence.

If BobRyan's point is that scientific explanations adapt to account for all the known evidence, then yes, science is guilty as charged.
Click to expand...

Finally a small glimmer of "reason" in the constant efforts by evolutionists on this thread who typically limit themselves to misdirection and "story hoppin".

In your statement above you reference what I already identified as "story hopping" that once one story does not pan out they hop on to the next WITHOUT doing a "lessons learned".

It is UTEOTW that wants to keep pointing out that they are "NOW on to a NEW story". MY point is NOT "HEY they are on to a NEW story lets talk about that story hopping" in the OP because I am trying to get evolutionists to engage in substantive detail review of the FIRST story. HOW did the FIRST story result in the debunked lamentable SEUQENCE "presented as though it were FACT"??

From the OP.

STILL no evolutionist can tear themselves away from their typical tactics to answer the question or engage in subjstantive dialog on that point!

Perhaps Mercury will now pick up the discussion long dropped by evolutionists here.

Perhaps ONE evolutionist will finally be able to engage in a "lessons learned" discussion that reviews the DETAILS of how the FIRST lamentable and debunked horse series "that never happened in nature" came about in a form "presented as though it were fact".

(Notice that the QUOTES are from atheist darwinists themvselves. Paul seems content to BLAME ME for what THEY say. UTEOTW seems content to PRETEND that it is dishonest to QUOTE atheist darwinist who admit to the DEBUNKED horse series.

These are all blinders-one horribly fox-holed defensive tactics for avoiding substantive dialog on the part of evolutionists - but certainly to be expected).

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 21, 2006

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
There was nothing wrong with the horse series even from the beginning other than it was incomplete.
Click to expand...

The FIRST series - the DEBUNKED series had these attributes according to Atheist Darwinian evolutionists THEMSELVES --

"NEVER happened in Nature"!!

Story "presented as THOUGH it were FACT"!!

UTEOTW ALSO whines constantly that "NOBODY believes in that series any more so HOW DARE you even mention it!!".

NOW we see UTEOTW BACK TRACKING??!!!

How "surprising".

How "predictable" the result as you GLOSS OVER each of the Atheist Darwinist quotes PROVIDED here to contradict both THEM AND YOUR OWN claims that the entire DEBUNKED SERIES is a strawman!!

Try QUOTING the pointed statements and then SHOWING that the old debunked series has "NOTHING WRONG with it"

come on - you have to at least try!!

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 21, 2006

UTEOTW you claim the DEBUNKED HORSE SERIES "
It, too, gets the story largely right while missing a few of the details."

By glossing over almost every detail in the OP and page one you "Misdirect" back to the "STORY" instead of the SEQUENCE that was contrived to FIT THE STORY!!

As has been pointed out REPEATEDLY since page ONE - the POINT here is NOT "why is there one STORY that is then followed by an IMPROVED STORY?". That has NEVER been the question.

The question is about the ACTUAL SEQUENCE PRESENTED it is not about the STORY that the sequence was contrived to FIT. The issue is the embarrassing TACTIC of ARRANGING data found in nature to FIT the STORY and then presenting the ARRANGEMENT "as though it were FACT".

This is the PAGE 1 OP Question. you are STILL DODGING with Misdirection and attempt to "put a nice face on evolutionist tactics" by spinning the subject AWAY from the debunked series and on to "story ONE vs Story TWO"

UTEOTW
But we get back to the question of the point of this thread. Why do you do the strawman thing and attack a hypothesis which has been out of favor for decades?... (vs REAL science)
Click to expand...

"Again" this is "Story ONE vs Story TWO" Story "A" vs Story "B" subject matter.

you "pretend" that the OP and PAGE ONE of this thread is talking about "why the first hypothesis EXISTED" -- that was NEVER the question (and you know this since you PROVIDE NO QUOTE)!!

I just don't understand why these simple concepts FROM PAGE ONE are soooo difficult for evolutionists??!!

I understand why an admitted atheist MUST duck and dodge the question that deals with actual "review" of the DEBUNKED SEQUENCE origin and the contrived nature of the presentation that "NEVER HAPPENED in NATURE" that is a story "PRESENTED AS THOUGH IT WERE FACT".

Why do you do it?

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 21, 2006

The original series had few fossils. The few transitionals they had were simply arranged in order. A simple, steady, gradual progression through each was assumed.

At the time, this is how all such sequences were assumed to have happened. Gradual series were all that was known. But with time, an increasing number of fossils were discovered. It became apparent, not just in horses, that evolution was generally anything but steady and gradual.
Click to expand...

#1. IT "NEVER happened in Nature"
#2. It is a STORY "presented as though it were FACT"
#3. It shows ANCESTOR decendant claims that ARE NOT TRUE.

Instead of new data showing decendants with even MORE contiguous SMOOTH TRANSITIONS BETWEEN the SMOOTH transitional sequences CONTRIVED in the debunked series we have the BREAK of those SMOOTH transitional sequences AND THE DENIAL that smooth transistional sequences EVEN EXIST for the horse!!

I regret that the careful objective reader must see the same embarrassing details glossed over by evolutionists on this thread -- hence we must bring BACK what evolutionists are trying desperately to GLOSS OVER!

But even in this attempt to gloss over and misdirect UTEOTW finally brings himself to ALMOST deal directly with the subject matter of the OP - so credit where credit is due.

The few transitionals they had were simply arranged in order.
Click to expand...

THE PROBLEM with the debunked horse series hailed as the "BEST example of horse evolution IN nature" is that it shows a pure and explicit SMOOTH TRANSITIONAL form SEQUENCE that is ARRANGED to fit the STORY using claims for ancestors and decendants that CAN NOT BE supported in nature -- in fact "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE".

Instead of showing FEW transitionals it shows CONTINUOUS, SMOOTH transitional sequences!!

You admit that they are "ARRANGED" to fit the STORY. And the LAMENT is that in doing so they present the ARRANGEMENT as though it were FACT instead of a CONTRIVED sequence that "NEVER HAPPENED in nature" a contrived sequence that "IS just STORY presented as though it were FACT"

And now for some of those "inconvenient quotes" showing the "inconvenient details" getting in the way of "UTEOTW's new story" above.

BobRyan · Feb 21, 2006

The "lessons learned" objective is to discover HOW a "Story Presented as though it were fact" -- a "fossil SEQUENCE of smooth transitional forms" that "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" is presented NOT as "hypothesis" but as "FACT found in nature"!!

OBVIOUSLY if we can LEARN not to DO THAT - such "lamentable" blunders will not be repeated!!

But notice that this "LESSON LEARNED" is the VERY thing evolutionists here are kicking and screaming against!!

WHY? the reason is because that is EXACTLY what they want to do AGAIN!!

BobRyan · Feb 21, 2006

Those who want to "imagine" that the thread is about "WHY an atheist darwinist would WANT to have the initial smooth transition STORY in the first place" or "WHY they have gone on to a new story" - will need to wait for another thread and another day. That is not what is being questioned EITHER in the quotes given OR in my comments on page 1 and 2 or in the OP!!

My question is directed at applying REAL science to the pseudoscience METHODS of athiest darwinism. REAL sciences EMBRACES the "lessons learned" model - pseudoscience dives into foxhole defensive misdirection instead of substantive review of "the details". Pseudoscience misdirects and glosses over details as the evolutionists here have done.

In REAL science we do NOT want to say of previous experiements "That was LAMENTABLE" or "That never ACTUALLY HAPPENED in nature" or "That was just STORY presented as though it were FACT"!!

Get it??

When comparing Newtonian physics with quantum mechanics we never say of the experiments in Newtonian physics "That was a lamentable" that is "story presented as though it were FACT" nor do we say "that NEVER actually HAPPENED"!

When we DO have to say that it is because of FRAUD!

In Christ,

Bob

UTEOTW · Feb 21, 2006

Bob

Why don't you deal with my last post in some detail. I have shown that the main problem with the original horse series was that it got the tempo and mode wrong but I have also shown that in all other areas it got the salient points correct. We never had to change the beginning or the the end nor the steps that happened in between. All that was changed was the spped.

Now you keep harping on your quotes about such things as "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE." Let's once again take a look at your quote and show how you take it out of context in order to build your case.

Let's even take that very quote. Simpson is historically your most abused quote.

You quote him as follows.

"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...

Now I am going to take a closer look at this quote.

Above, I make the argument that it was merely the tempo and mode of horse evolution which was being cited as wrong. I assert that all of these authors accpet the general story of the evolution of the horse and were merely pointing out the imcomplete knowledge of the earlier hypothesis.

You, on the other hand, keep asserting that they say that this is a story that never even happened. That is the whole basis for your thread, right.

Now as you look at the quote in context, you will see something. Your quote is part of a paragraph. Immediately after the sentence you quote, Simpson tells us exactly what he means by that sentence. And as ayou by now know, what he tells us is not that horse evolution "never happened in nature." He tells us that an orthogenetic mode of horse evolution "never happened in nature."

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. (Fig. 39)

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...

I have bolded the rest of the paragraph for you, the part you so conveniently leave out.

In context, it is quite apparent that is is the "uniform, continuous transformation" of the lineage that "never happened in nature." It might help to point out the sentence that preceeds the one you quote. "The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic."

Taken together, one cannot miss that Simpson is discussing the tempo at which horse evolution occurred and is never once casting doubt on any transistional horse series or whether horse evolution is something that happened.

Read the paragraph. He talks about changes in size. He talks about changes in the number of toes. He talks about the pace and direction of change but never once does he ever say we where ever wrong about whther the change happened or that we where ever wrong about what happened.

You have seen this quote put back into context numerous times now. Why do you continue to insist that Simpson meant something other than what he said?

And why do you ignore that the fact remains that it was at worst incomplete.

The basic facts have never changed.

In both cases horses evolved from the same small browsing animal with generalized teeth, a flexible body, pads on the feet instead of hooves and three toes on one pair of feet and four on the other pair.

In both case the teeth specialized into a set optimized for grazing over a period of time.

In both, the feet changed such that the pads disappeared and the animals began to run on their tiptoes with the nails becoming hooves.

In both, the feet were reduced to a single toes per foot.

In both, the two toes to either side became shin splints.

In both, there was a great increase in size.

In both, the skelton became less flexible and more suited to galloping.

And the fossils originally discovered to be part of the series are still a part of the series.

The main difference between the two is the tempo and mode of evolution.

All your noise in all of your quotes is about the pace and direction of change, not about whther the change happened at all. Please quit pretending otherwise.

BobRyan · Feb 21, 2006

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Bob

Why don't you deal with my last post in some detail. I have shown that the main problem with the original horse series was that it got the tempo and mode wrong
Click to expand...

Ok let me put it in simple terms.

"because that is misdirection and baloney"!

You are dealing with the Hypothesis "the story" NOT with the SEQUENCE example that is GIVEN AS IF it actually accured in nature!!

In post after post you are missing the entire point of the thread!!

The "example" - the "SEQUENCE presented" is like an "experiment conducted" if this were REAL science.

The problem is NOT that the paradigm (the story) needs to be updated THE PROBLEM is that what was claimed IN NATURE never happened and the claim was made in the form of a DISCOVERY!!

Why is this concept so hard for you to get???

I am not debating the THEORY that is tossed aside. There is no question on this thread by asked by ME about WHY atheist darwinists came up with that idea - that paradigm for horse evolution NOR about WHY they need to "update the story".

The point is they went out on a limb when they claimed to DISCOVER IN NATURE the VERY sequence they predicted - they very one that is now discredited!!

In other words by going out on that limb they engaged in actual fraud! They claimed to HAVE something that now atheist darwinist say "NEVER HAPPENED in NATURE"!!

In fact they MADE the claim in SUCH A WAY that atheist darwinists today say "it was a claim MADE AS THOUGH IT WERE FACT"

The problem is not the process of having one theory and then updating it with another. The problem is with fraudulent claims in experiment, in actual findings - ARRANGING the findings to FIT the story!! You could not even do that TODAY much less in the 1900's!!

Why is this concept so hard for you?

UTEOTW
but I have also shown that in all other areas it got the salient points correct. We never had to change the beginning or the the end nor the steps that happened in between. All that was changed was the spped.
Click to expand...

As it relates to the ACTUAL fossil sequence PRESENTED as though FOUND in that smooth transitional sequence - you are "dead wrong"!!

Your points ONLY work as a "correction to a hypothesis" they do NOT work as a way to SAVE the bogus fossil SEQUENCE presented. So it is called "LAMENTABLE" even by atheist darwinists!!

Get it??

What they did (using the current "story" ) is to present LEAF NODEs AS IF they had parent child relationships -- they contrived parent child relationships where there were NONE!

This is why the conclusion of atheist darwinists is that "IT NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE".

All you are doing is "facing saving the discredited smooth transitional HYPOTHESIS".

All the glossing over of the details and revisionism in the world -- will never make two leaf nodes enter into parent-child relationships!!

They took REAL FOSSILs that today are considered sibling leaf nodes and in many cases leaf nodes at different depths in different hierarchical chains within the tree and tried to INSERT THEM into parent child relationships within the same hierarchy.

Now you keep harping on your quotes about such things as "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE."
Click to expand...

That is not me - it is atheist darwinists themselves.

You quote him as follows.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"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...

Now I am going to take a closer look at this quote.</font>[/QUOTE]Please do that. (finally). And as you do recall that the CONTEXT is specific to the ACTUAL horse series fossil ARRANGEMENT and the fact that LEAF NODES are being fraudulently presented AS THOUGH they are parent child relationships in the same hierarchy of the horse "tree".

So it is More than the THEORY being updated or corrected, it is the SEQUENCE that is actually SHOWN in the EXAMPLE of the horse series that is in error!

If all you do is try to "correct the theory" you have failed to grasp the magnitude of the problem. ALL THEORIES are "correctable" it is the CLAIMS to have FINDINGS in nature that show that theory that are in question!

What "methods" will "FIND something" that "NEVER EXISTED"??

UTEOTW
Above, I make the argument that it was merely the tempo and mode of horse evolution which was being cited as wrong. I assert that all of these authors accpet the general story of the evolution of the horse and were merely pointing out the imcomplete knowledge of the earlier hypothesis.
Click to expand...

So you are back to "correction of the STORY" NOT exaplanation of the FINDING that CLAIMED to have parent child FINDINGS showing SMOOTH TRANSITIONS where in fact the new stor "claims" to only have leaf nodes falsely ARRANGED as IF they had parent child relationships!!

UTEOTW

You, on the other hand, keep asserting that they say that this is a story that never even happened. That is the whole basis for your thread, right.
Click to expand...

INDEED once you CHANGE the parent-child sequence claiming it was in fact a fraudulently connected LEAF node you can not claim "the parent child sequence is correct anyway EVEN though this is REALLY a case of leaf end nodes being falsely connected"

It is the DIFFERENCE between correcting a THEORY vs is denying the fraudulent ARRANGEMENT of fossils!!

UTEOTW Immediately after the sentence you quote, Simpson tells us exactly what he means by that sentence. And as ayou by now know, what he tells us is not that horse evolution "never happened in nature." He tells us that an orthogenetic mode of horse evolution "never happened in nature."
Click to expand...

Which is why I keep pointing to the fact that you try to twist this into "Bob claims evolutionists stopped beliving in evolutionist stories when he shows that they have debunked the old horse fossil series"

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.
Click to expand...

And YET if we go to the ACTUAL ARRANGEMENT we see that the INCREASE stated IS SHOWN in the fraudulent arrangement - where data is "ARRANGED" to FIT the story!

How much more obvious can this BE!!??

All my quotes and comments have been about the fraudlent ARRANGEMENT and NOT CLAIMS that evolutionists have given up on horse evolution. Please stop glossing over the details and pretending to find something here that you have NO QUOTE FOR AT ALL!

In Christ,

Bob

Petrel · Feb 21, 2006

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Petrel - in your constant efforts to gloss over the details in every subject area that you post - - you finally provided a "quote" out of context and spun it to your imaginative misdirection -- but are you actually "making a point" with such tactics?

No - You simply reveal the motives of your posts.
Click to expand...

No way, you actually said "Blah 'blah' BLAH"??

Yes, the motive behind my post is to encourage excellence in grammar, spelling and punctuation. I weep for the poor abused quotation marks. Their plight pains me and galvanizes me to action! Your best efforts will never sway me from my course.

UTEOTW · Feb 21, 2006

Let see, on the first page of the thread, you were claiming that your quotes showed that there were no transitionals in the fossil series.

My how you have backed down through the thread.

When pressed, you then claimed that it was just that there were no transitionals in the original horse series. You said that you were not making any claims at all about the modern series.

Now I have pressed the issue further. I pointed out that there were transitional fossils all along but that there are simply more now. I pointed out that the knowledge of the starting and ending points have not not changed. I pointed out that the knowledge of what changed between those two points has not changed. I pointed out that only ideas of the tempo and mode have changed.

I used your own mostest favoritest quote to show that what Simpson was saying "never existed" was the steady gradual change, not that the horse series itself never existed.

So where have you retreated to now?

Now you are reduced to trying to claim that it was the ideas about pace and direction that you were referring to all along. You cannot say that it was ever a lack of transitionals any more. The transistionals were there even back when there was not enough data to discern the actual pace and direction of change.

This leaves you in a very unenviable position.

Your claim is now that the scientists who advovated for straighline, steady, gradual change leading to the modern horse were committing a heinous fraud.

Let's all think about that for a moment.

They proposed a theory to fit the data they had. Now their theory, based on scant evidence comparitively, was correct on most major points. It properly dedeuced the proper endpoints. It properly deduced the changes that happened between those endpoints. It properly deduced the time frame of the changes. On most major points, additional evidence has confirmed their ideas.

And the ideas they presented were consistent with the data they had on hand.

Yet they missed one crucial detail. Because they lacked sufficient data, they were unable to correctly to correctly say at what path and pace evolution took. They thought that the evolution was a straightline A to B to C to D process. It was actually a highly branching process. They thought that the physical changes happened at a steady pace throughout the process. It was actually a very jerky process.

Now, because they missed that bit, based on insufficient data, you say that they were lying and that they were deliberately perpetrating a fraud.

Come on.

Here is your unenviable position. Here is the corner into which you have painted yourself.

According to you, if one ever, ever, ever hypothesizes an explanation based on anything short of a complete data set, and if that hypothesis ever, ever, ever has to change in any of its details, then one has committed a grievous act of fraud.

So, not only have you now defined every single scientific endeavor as a fraud, you have defined every learning process as fraudulent and likely most human activities period as fraudulent.

I predicted all along that given enough rope that you would hang yourself. I predicted all along that given enough time that you would dig yourself a whole from which you cannot get out. It has come to pass. You have been forced into the corner of procaliming that it is fraudulent to ever change your mind or to update your thinking in any minor way in response to new information.

And one more thing, and this is a biggie...

In your last set of posts you attack me for not producing a single quote to support my side. (I would disagree with that because by putting your quotes into context I have advocated my case.) YOu seem to utterly fail to comprehend something. Don't feel too bad, because it seems that most YEers fail to grasp this.

Scientific debates are not argued nor won nor lost based on whatever quotes you can dig up. They are based on the facts. Quotes are not facts! Whatever it is that you have been arguing here, it has not been science.

If you care to ever post any facts, there are some great search engines to review the literature. PNAS has a good search. PUBMED has a good, broad search function. Google Scholar has been productive for me.

But somehow I don't think that you are interested in the facts. You would prefer to spin out of context quotes. And besides, facts can be dangerous to your worldview. How do you think I got from YE to TE?

BobRyan · Feb 21, 2006

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Let see, on the first page of the thread, you were claiming that your quotes showed that there were no transitionals in the fossil series.

My how you have backed down through the thread.
Click to expand...

A. I am not the AUTHOR of the atheist darwinsts that are debunking yor pet ideas. MY own statements on Page 1 and page 2 have ALL been that the debunked horse series - the actual sequence presented by Marshall (the one you keep saying is a century old) and STILL promoted in the 1980's is the topic of the "lessons learned" exercise.

I guess you need to see my PAGE ONE statements again instead of "pretending" like a switched to the topic of this thread some time AFTER page ONE!!.

How nice of you to ask!!

how nice of you to "pretend"

So here are the PAGE ONE quotes "again" that you claim show that I fell back to the OP subject on Page ONE!

Page ONE, post ONE, Sentence ONE

A question for all. In the case of the debunked horse series - what was the "mechanism' that allowed the half-truths and outright lies in that presentation to start with?

Notice that you start to "gloss over details" starting with the OP Sentence ONE!!!

You have claimed above that this topic in SENTENCE one is what I am "falling back to" after starting out on some "other topic"!!

Your are surely living in a dream world. Why do you spend so much time making stuff up and glossing over inconvenient details UTEOTW?

Why not just engage in the OP topic, Post one, Page one, Sentence ONE!!??

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 21, 2006

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

When pressed, you then claimed that it was just that there were no transitionals in the original horse series.
Click to expand...

#1. "wrong again" (why is this subject so hard for you to "even state" much less resond too?)

#2. you "once again" do not provide a QUOTE from me that makes your point. you are simply trying to "misdirect". My own statement has been "from page one, post one, sentence one" that your OWN atheist darwinists ADMIT that the debunked horse series was a story "told as IF it was fact". My point is to do a "lessons learned" exercise on that debunked sequence that EVEN YOU claim is discredited!!

Your attempts at revisionism recently - notwithstanding.

The question is -- when do you engage in actual discussion of the subject at hand?

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 21, 2006

UTEOTW
You said that you were not making any claims at all about the modern series.

Now I have pressed the issue further.
Click to expand...

Indeed you keep "trying" to flee the topic of this thread and jump onto a debate about "the modern horse series".

One could "never" deny that!!

UTEOTW

So where have you retreated to now?

Now you are reduced to trying to claim that it was the ideas about pace and direction that you were referring to all along.
Click to expand...

Again this is "just you quoting YOU" (as usual) in your ceaseless efforts to talk about the "story corrections" INSTEAD of the failed and DEBUNKED SEQUENCE that was PRESENTED "As though it were fact"!!

How "suprising"

Since PAGE one, POST ONE, SENTENCE ONE the point has BEEN THE SAME!! (Get it??!!)

The FAILED and DEBUNKED horse SEQUENCE that was "presented as though it were FACT" that "NEVER happened in nature" that is in fact "LAMENTABLY" promoted STILL in the late 1980's is the SUBJECT of the "post mortem".

How many times does this same thing have to be said before stop ducking and dodging?!!

You cannot say that it was ever a lack of transitionals any more.
Click to expand...

I CAN SAY that the DEBUNKED and discredited SEQUENCE (discredited EVEN by your OWN previous confessions on THIS thread) - the sequence PRESENTED as "though it were FACT" -- lamentably - is the subject of the thread!

The sequence debunked EVEN by Atheist Darwinist evolutionists!!

So what is the "LESSON" that we learn when we study HOW that debunked, discredited, lamentable SEQUENCE came into being?

(Just trying to get you to the PAGE one, POST one, SENTENCE ONE -- point that you so desperately gloss over)

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 22, 2006

UTEOTW said
So where have you retreated to now?

Now you are reduced to trying to claim that it was the ideas about pace and direction that you were referring to all along. .
Click to expand...

Wrong "again".

NOW I can SHOW that the fraudulent sequence that "NEVER happened in nature" in fact Never happened in nature.

NOW I can show that the fraudulent sequence is just "Story presented as though it were Discovered FACT"

NOW I can ask that we engage in a "lessons learned" exercise on HOW something that NEVER HAPPENED in nature is presented AS IF it did.

This leaves you in a very unenviable position.

Your claim is now that the scientists who advovated for straighline, steady, gradual change leading to the modern horse were committing a heinous fraud.

Let's all think about that for a moment.
Click to expand...

WOW - how "unenviable" to point out that it is "fraudulent" to present "story as IF it is discovered fact".

Having said that - I truly do hope you DO follow up on your promise actually discuss that fossil sequence PRESENTED as though it were discovered fact!

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 22, 2006

UTEOTW

They proposed a theory to fit the data they had. Now their theory, based on scant evidence comparitively, was correct on most major points.
Click to expand...

Wrong "again".

They presented "the data to FIT the story they ALREADY HAD". The smooth transitional idea already existed. Certainly by the time of the fraudulent arrangement. Certainly by the time the text books showed what they claimed as the "BEST EXAMPLE FOUND" of the theory they were ALREADY promoting for smooth transitionals.

EVEN DARWIN expected the smooth transitional sequences "ONCE enough fossils were found".

Your bogus revisionism dies before it gets started!

In Christ,

Bob

UTEOTW · Feb 22, 2006

Now you have me really confused.

Can you succinctly and clearly tell us just what it is that you think was fraudulent? Because I have no idea.

If you think they said that there were trnasitionals when you think that there were none, spell that out specifically.

If you think that it was that they the tempo wrong, spell that out specifically.

Because I have no idea on earth what it is that you think was done that you have a problem with. I see that you can say repeatedly that you claim that there was "Story presented as though it were Discovered FACT."

But I don't know what part of the story that you are speaking of.

So please, spell it out for us. Tell us exactly what it is that was done incorrectly and then tell us what truth was later discovered. (Actually, since you claim fraud, I suppose that you should show that they knew the truth and said something different. There is a difference between being wrong and committing fraud you know.)

No catch phrases. No generalizations. Specifics. Because without specifics, it is really hard to know where you are going. (It is often hard to know where exactly you are going anyhow with your ... ah-hem ... unique posting style.)

BobRyan · Feb 22, 2006

And the ideas they presented were consistent with the data they had on hand.
Click to expand...

In the SPECIFIC case of the ARRANGED fossils in the horse series - the data was made to FIT the theory AS IF it was "discovered fact"!

This is one of the facts you will need to avoid, misdirect, revise and edit.

Yet they missed one crucial detail. Because they lacked sufficient data, they were unable to correctly to correctly say at what path and pace evolution took.
Click to expand...

Wrong "again".

THEY SHOW evolution taking place in the DATA they show (with horse size changing immediately) in the SMOOTH transitional sequence data they ARRANGED!

INSTEAD of claiming "we have a theory but we do not have enough data yet to know how to ARRANGE these fossils" they make the claim "WE DISCOVERED FOSSILS in NATURE in the very arrangment that our smooth transitional hypothesis predicts. In fact this is the BEST EXAMPLE IN nature of that hypothesis".

And sure they were right - that such an ARRANGED set of fossils - IF TRUE - IF actual FACT instead of contrived FRAUD -- would in FACt be the best DISCOVERED DATA in support of their theory!!

Sadly "contrived fraud" simply "REMAINS contrived fraud" as more data is actually found in the fossil record!!

They thought that the evolution was a straightline A to B to C to D process. It was actually a highly branching process. They thought that the physical changes happened at a steady pace throughout the process.
Click to expand...

So they ARRANGED disconnected nodes to SHOW the A-B-C sequence their view NEEDEd. They presented "story as if it were discovered FACT" with the arranged horse series SHOWING steady and even transitions - smooth sequences between individuals supposedly in the same hierarchy!

They CONTRIVED what they had not yet discovered - in fact they contrived "what never happened in nature"!!

In Christ,

Bob

UTEOTW · Feb 22, 2006

It is such a simple question.

Just tell us what part of the story never actually happened and tell us what actually did happen.

Or do you even know? (Or want to commit to something specific?)

BobRyan · Feb 22, 2006

UTEOTW

Now, because they missed that bit, based on insufficient data, you say that they were lying and that they were deliberately perpetrating a fraud.

Come on.
Click to expand...

Wrong at "every step" so far.

"NOW - because they ARRANGED a sequence to fit their story... because they ARRANGED a sequence that NEVER happened in nature... because they ARRANGED a sequence and then PRESENTED it as though it were DISOVERED FACT" their methods are fully "exposed"!

What is "even more instructive" is that your own foxhole mentality here - in defending the fraud as "standard practice" is making the VERY POINT I argued on PAGE ONE!.

This practice of fraud is considered "good science" within the pseudoscience halls of evolutionism!!

In Christ,

Bob

Post Mortem on the debunked horse series

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Petrel New Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Useful Searches

Post Mortem on the debunked horse series

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Petrel New Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member