[_ Old Earth _] The Junk-Science pillars used to prop up Darwinism

[BobRyan]

In my posts I have repeatedly referenced the fact that atheist darwinism is a junk-science religion of myth and story telling. As Colin Patterson said regarding the endless game of imagining "how one thing came from another - they are stories easy enough to tell but they are NOT SCIENCE".

The question is how has that "NOT SCIENCE" core of Darwinism manifest itself? Surely a religion such as Atheist Darwinism that is essentially "not science" at it's core would be EXPECTED to be loaded with junk-science hoaxes, frauds and just plain "story telling" rather than an honest factual presentation of the "data".

Simpson's Horse Series -- Published 1951.

Used in children's texts books for almost 50 years (might still be in some) and is still on display at the Smithsonian "as IF the SERIES (sequence of smooth transitional forms) actually happened in nature".

As it turns out - the horse series fraud is a hoax that was born directly out of Darwinian junk-science “first principles used to promote the beliefs of evolutionism -- i.e. "story telling".


First I want to start with the claims IN FAVOR of Simpson's sequence -- showing the level of "support" that atheist darwinism was drawing from this fraud.

Moving up the stratigraphic column, fossils reveal a main line of evolution progressing continuously from Eohippus [hyracotherium] to Equus

The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution."
G.G. Simpson, Horses, 1951, pg 215.

Those bold claims were still being “echoed†by publishers even 30 years later.

"Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development."â€â€World Book Encyclopedia (1982 ed.), p. 333.

"The development of the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the evolution of living things."â€â€Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.

Now here is something interesting – even AFTER Simpson’s horse series was debunked it was being hailed as THE BEST that atheist Darwinism had!!

". . [On February 14, 1981] in California he (Dr. Eldredge) was on a network television program. The host asked him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the best available example of a transitional sequence."â€â€L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.

Having been told “repeatedly†to pay attention to this particular example of Darwinists telling a story – we are well advised to examine it closely as “the best example†of what they have to offer and also the methods they use to offer it.

Next -- the "debunking" of Simpsons "smooth transitional form sequence" so impressive to school children and visitors at the Smithsonian.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Don't ya just love a "good build up" to a bebunking of atheist darwinism?? :

 

[BobRyan]

First - -why are frauds so easy to come by in propping up atheist darwinism?

So what is the truth about Archaeopteryx? Perhaps the late Colin Patterson, while serving as senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that Archaeopteryx has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no:

There is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).

Ok - so we know now the principle that some atheist darwinists themselves admit to being embedded in the arguments for Darwinism.

Here are the challenges that atheist darwinists wanted to solve going into that publishing of Simpson's fraudulent series

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."â€â€*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

No valid basis in Nature (the fossil record) for the fraudulent “lamentable†fossil exhibit by Marsh

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."â€â€G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

SIMPSON reveals the problem just TWO years after the initial fraud was published – but it was too late to stop the train – “the horse was out of the barnâ€Â!!

(“Obviously†the claim we make here is NOT that Simpson is no longer an atheist Darwinist evolutionist.). No doubt he clings to evolutionism “anyway†and as a true devotee to Darwinism faithfully hopes for another “best example†to come along

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."â€â€George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. 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 Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."â€â€*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

[quote:96624]
"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.

"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.

[/quote:96624]

Junk science is apparently ALIVE AND WELL in the temples of atheist darwinism and in this case even though a few have tried to stop this one junk-science juggernaut from rampaging all over museums and children's texts books -- it still has some life in it propping up atheist darwinism "as if" it was science not religion.

 

[jwu]

So let's take a look.

First off, i don't care about archaeopteryx in the context of this thread. If you wish to discuss archie, then please make a different thread about it.

Here are the challenges that atheist darwinists wanted to solve going into that publishing of Simpson's fraudulent series

[quote:10301]"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."â€â€*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

[/quote:10301]
1944 is a bit old, methinks. I also reject any quotations which are taken out of context. I always want at least one sentence to either side of the quotation to see how the text around it progresses the line of reasoning.

[quote:10301]
"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."â€â€G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

SIMPSON reveals the problem just TWO years after the initial fraud was published – but it was too late to stop the train – “the horse was out of the barnâ€Â!!
[/quote:10301]
Isn't that quite the opposite of fraud, if Simpson himself speaks like this? If anything you can accuse the textbook writers (who have nothing to do with the validity of the ToE) of sloppy research. Textbook writers however are not necessarily part of the scientific community.
Besides, here we also see why i insist on the surrounding sentences for quotation. This is the full context:

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)

[creationist quotation italicized, bold mine]
Simpson didn't cast doubt on the general lineage. He just argued that it wasn't all that "uniform and continuous". Instead he argued for what later would be called punctuated equilibrium.

If there is an outright fraud here, then it is on the side of the creationist literature which takes Simpson's statement out of context to make it seem as if he'd question the evolution of the horse in general, when in reality he did no such thing.

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."â€â€George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

It's the same here, the context of the first quotation explains this one as well. Simpson argues for punctuated equilibrium, he does not reject the evolution of the horse. Not the bolded parts, but the part between them is what is important here.
Simpson doesn't reject the sequence, but argues that it is not a monophyletic and orthogenetic sequence.
Just reading the bold parts turns Simpson's statement into something that he didn't actually say.

"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. 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 Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."â€â€*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

That's just a nice example how science corrects its own mistakes.

"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.

Elredge basically confirms Simpson's opinion that textbook writers need to do more careful research, and that the horse didn't evolve as gradual as some displays make it seem.

So what do we have? A blatantly dishonest quote mine on side of the creationist literature, and sloppy research of text book editors.

You brougth up accusations of fraud. Where is it? Which of the textbook editors published the horse series with out implications of punctuated equilibrium despite of knowing better? I'm all for correcting them "the hard way". The scientific community seems to have quite a clean slate here - after all Elredge clearly pointed out that textbook authors need to be more careful, and the less gradual details of the evolution of the horse have been pointed out already by Simpson.

 

[BobRyan]

So let's take a look.

First off, i don't care about archaeopteryx in the context of this thread. If you wish to discuss archie, then please make a different thread about it.

You missed the point again.

The issue is not "arcaeopteryx" the issue is the "more general statement" from the British Museums senior paleontologist about "story telling regarding how one thing came from another" NOT being "science" but rather "stories easy enough to tell.

That point is key to the entire thread.

You could call it "the salient point" of the quote gave from Colin Patterson -- one that is still waiting for a substantive response.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here are the challenges that atheist darwinists wanted to solve going into that publishing of Simpson's fraudulent series

SIMPSON
"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."â€â€*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

This is where it helps to pay attention to the point of "Context", Simpson is showing a problem in 1944 that "The SEQUENCE" of the horse series published in 1951 "Appears to address".

When we speak of "context" we typically mean to refer to statements made just prior to the event of 1951 -- so the objective unbiased reader will note that 1944 comes before 1951.

jwu --
1944 is a bit old, methinks.

As I said "the objective unbiased reader will note..."

SIMPSON
"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."â€â€G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

SIMPSON reveals the problem just TWO years after the initial fraud was published – but it was too late to stop the train – “the horse was out of the barnâ€Â!!

jwu -
Isn't that quite the opposite of fraud, if Simpson himself speaks like this? If anything you can accuse the textbook writers (who have nothing to do with the validity of the ToE) of sloppy research. Textbook writers however are not necessarily part of the scientific community.

NO - "Fraud" is when data is contrived -- arranged to "tell a story" AS IF that "sequence of smooth transitional forms" were FOUND in the fossil record when in fact the SEQUENCE WAS NOT found -- only large numbers of fossils carefully picked over to contrive the sequence.

That is the "fraud part" of the METHODS used to support atheist darwinism trying to make it "look like it is real science" and that it has evidence in nature proving it's predictions -- indeed solving the problem outlined in 1944.

Your point of trying to distance yourself from the texts books forced on school children might be interesting. Should we delete Darwinism from the children's texts books until ALL THE HOAXES can be edited out of them?

I might go for that.

jwu
Besides, here we also see why i insist on the surrounding sentences for quotation. This is the full context:
[quote:86a56]

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. ...

[/quote:86a56]

Indeed the "SEQUENCE" presented does not indicate any of the more "refined story telling" that should have replaced it in the science text books.

But as Colin Patterson notes -- all that story telling "is not science".

JWU
If there is an outright fraud here, then it is on the side of the creationist literature

This is a second key component of the argument for junk-science methods used to prop up atheist darwinism.

JWU you have done more than you share to prove the junk-science methods right here in this thread.

1. Pretend that the fault is on the publishers of the text books - not on the atheist darwinists that provide the fraudulent series to them.

2. Pretend that anyone who exposes this hoax with darwinism "is the real culprit" .

This is exactly the kind of religious devotion that we expect for a junk-science religion but it is NOT the much expected self-correcting SCIENTIFIC reponse that WOULD have been of the form...

"Oh my-- a fraud was inserted into our otherwise pristine science of darwinian evolution -- that degrades the science AND those who work so hard to refine it. What was the ROOT CAUSE analysis? HOW can we improve the quality of our methods to ensure that it never happens again? How do we open the doors more broadly to correction and how do we avoid EVER publishing mere STORY TELLING again AS IF it were actual SCIENCE?"

notice that your "circle the wagons" approach and "oh oh never mind it is ALL good -- ALL good just go back to sleep no problem here" style response is exactly the kind of devotion and religious zeal we expect when this simple hoax is mentioned. But that is because we already KNOW this is a junk-science RELIGION and not actual science.

Your response is "perfectly predictable" and in fact a helfpul componant in proving my point that this is in fact "junk-science".

jwu
which takes Simpson's statement out of context to make it seem as if he'd question the evolution of the horse in general, when in reality he did no such thing.

You are "reaching" in that story telling model you are using. I never argue that "Simpson became a Christian".

I have always insisted on all threads that "Atheist darwinists MUST remain devoted to their story telling because they have no other option".

That is true with Patterson and it is true with Simpson.

Please focus.

jwu --
It's the same here, the context of the first quotation explains this one as well. Simpson argues for punctuated equilibrium, he does not reject the evolution of the horse. Not the bolded parts, but the part between them is what is important here.

I see...

"Ignore the sequence presented.... alll is well... all is good... be convinced that horse evolution happened no matter what sequence they showed you"

No problem -- I already predicted this as your response.

jwu
Simpson doesn't reject the sequence, but argues that it is not a monophyletic and orthogenetic sequence.

That is the kind of nonsense we get from a religious argument fostering atheist darwinism.

When they PRESENT a SEQUENCE SHOWING smooth monophyletic transitional forms and then ADMIT that the sequence SHOWN " NEVER happend in NATURE" -- a truly devoted practitioner of that religion COULD concievably spin himself around to say that even "The SEQUENCE" that never happened is "not to be rejected" just because it NEVER happened but that it should be viewed in a kind of "fuzzy logic way" AS IF the sequence HAD PRESENTED a bushy-kind-of-tree INSTEAD with roots and leaf nodes but NOT a LINE of transistional forms.

And to tell you the truth -- I can see a truly devoted believer in that system possibly squinting his eyes and holding the book just far enough way -- to get your result above.

"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. 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 Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."â€â€*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

jwu

That's just a nice example how science corrects its own mistakes.

Indeed it is "still all good" as you say.

But the objective unbiased reader will NOTICE that "What athiest darwinian scientists THOUGHT IT TO BE" is EXACTLY what was SHOWN in the 1951 SEQUENCE you now seem to want to pretend that Simpson did not reject!!

how sad that your spinning and dancing on this leaves you so exposed in your motives and determined methods.

"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.

jwu

Elredge basically confirms Simpson's opinion that textbook writers need to do more careful research, and that the horse didn't evolve as gradual as some displays make it seem.

Didn't you just say that Simpson DID NOT reject "that SEQUENCE" shown in 1951??

Which is it?

And when you look at this fraudulent SEQUENCE "lamentable" even by atheist darwinist standards -- a "sequence that NEVER happened in nature" EVEN by atheist darwinist standards -- what is your "conclusion"?? That it is Christians who are to blame for what atheist darwinist DO to prop up their junk science religion?

jwu -
So what do we have? A blatantly dishonest quote mine on side of the creationist literature,

How predictable!

How helpful in illustrating my point!

You may feel like you have failed at this point -- but cheer up - you illustrated the problem perfectly.

Thanks!

JWU
You brougth up accusations of fraud. Where is it?

I am sure you are hoping that the object unbiased reader of this thread will immediately suppose

"Can't possibly be "in the SEQUENCE that NEVER HAPPENED in NATURE" and yet was forced onto school children by atheist darwinists themselves -- who even after the event continued to tout the horse as the best example illustrating darwinian evollutionism --"

I can even imagine you thinking "it is working... it is working... the unbiased reader won't remember what -- NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE -- means"

The fault for the Simpson horse series that NEVER happened in nature and that is in reality NOT as atheist scientists at first supposed -- Must be the fault of those dirty rotten Christians that exposed the problem of making Children believe that atheist darwinism was "Actual science" by making them learn fraudulent sequences for the horse series for 50 years -- a SEQUENCE for the horse "that NEVER happened in nature"!

Oh no wait -- "it was an accident" that they remain in the text books for 50 years and at the Smithsonian for decades as well. -- Yeah -- "that's the Ticket!"

Bob

 

[jwu]

[quote:e26d9][quote:e26d9]

[/quote:e26d9]
This is where it helps to pay attention to the point of "Context", Simpson is showing a problem in 1944 that "The SEQUENCE" of the horse series published in 1951 "Appears to address".

When we speak of "context" we typically mean to refer to statements made just prior to the event of 1951 -- so the objective unbiased reader will note that 1944 comes before 1951.[/quote:e26d9]A lot can happen in seven years.

And the "context" of a statement quite generally includes the context of the text in which it was found.

SIMPSON reveals the problem just TWO years after the initial fraud was published – but it was too late to stop the train – “the horse was out of the barnâ€Â!!

What problem? That it's not all that "uniform and continuous" as the sequence implies to a reader, when it's not commented any further?

NO - "Fraud" is when data is contrived -- arranged to "tell a story" AS IF that "sequence of smooth transitional forms" were FOUND in the fossil record when in fact the SEQUENCE WAS NOT found -- only large numbers of fossils carefully picked over to contrive the sequence.

That is the "fraud part" of the METHODS used to support atheist darwinism trying to make it "look like it is real science" and that it has evidence in nature proving it's predictions -- indeed solving the problem outlined in 1944.

So where did this happen, despite of knowing better, and without further comments? A direct quotation please.

Your point of trying to distance yourself from the texts books forced on school children might be interesting. Should we delete Darwinism from the children's texts books until ALL THE HOAXES can be edited out of them?

I might go for that.

ISBNs of such textbooks, please! Let us write to the publishing house so that they include a remark in them that the actual evolution of the horse is thought to be much more complicated and not the "uniform, continuous" transition which eventual diagrams may imply. That'd reflect Simpson's statement, doesn't it? That of course assumes that they don't already explain the diagrams appropiately.

And there is a difference between a simplification and a hoax. All the fossils in the sequence exist, and all are thought to be part of the evolutionary lineage of the horse, aren't they?

1. Pretend that the fault is on the publishers of the text books - not on the atheist darwinists that provide the fraudulent series to them.

So where exactly were they supplied with that data? If today's textbook publishers don't even know what happened since 1953 at least, then they are very clearly to blame. And you haven't even made your case that Simpson's original book of 1951 doesn't already mention these things.

2. Pretend that anyone who exposes this hoax with darwinism "is the real culprit" .

Oh, i'm all for exposing frauds - on either side. A quote mine that makes Simpson appear to say something which he didn't actually say, in combination with bolded text which puts the emphasis of the statement away from where Simpson actually put it, well, that looks like quite a fraud to me.

I see...

"Ignore the sequence presented.... alll is well... all is good... be convinced that horse evolution happened no matter what sequence they showed you"

No problem -- I already predicted this as your response.

If you want to convince me that the sequence is false, then you need to come up with actual evidence against it - papers which argue against it. Selectively quoting people to distort what they actually said doesn't cut it, i'm afraid.

That is the kind of nonsense we get from a religious argument fostering atheist darwinism.

When they PRESENT a SEQUENCE SHOWING smooth monophyletic transitional forms and then ADMIT that the sequence SHOWN " NEVER happend in NATURE" -- a truly devoted practitioner of that religion COULD concievably spin himself around to say that even "The SEQUENCE" that never happened is "not to be rejected" just because it NEVER happened but that it should be viewed in a kind of "fuzzy logic way" AS IF the sequence HAD PRESENTED a bushy-kind-of-tree INSTEAD with roots and leaf nodes but NOT a LINE of transistional forms.

One can draw a line from root to leaf through a tree/bush. The given sequence does exactly that. It's a simplification.

[quote:e26d9]"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. 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 Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."â€â€*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

That's just a nice example how science corrects its own mistakes.

Indeed it is "still all good" as you say.

But the objective unbiased reader will NOTICE that "What athiest darwinian scientists THOUGHT IT TO BE" is EXACTLY what was SHOWN in the 1951 SEQUENCE you now seem to want to pretend that Simpson did not reject!!

how sad that your spinning and dancing on this leaves you so exposed in your motives and determined methods.[/quote:e26d9]You're jumping to conclusions. There is dissent all over the scientific community. What exactly was Prof. Westoll argueing for? What papers did he publish to support his point of view? Did he perhaps argue against a precursor of the sequence that was published by Simpson? We cannot conclude this from that quotation.

Opinions without evidence are just that - opinions. You need to do better than that. If Prof. Westoll had a case against Simpson's sequence, then provide the evidence which he provided against Simpson's sequence.

Elredge basically confirms Simpson's opinion that textbook writers need to do more careful research, and that the horse didn't evolve as gradual as some displays make it seem.

Didn't you just say that Simpson DID NOT reject "that SEQUENCE" shown in 1951??

Which is it?

He didn't reject it, and i didn't say anything to the contrary above either. What i said is that Eldredge and Simpson reject the implications of gradualism of certain drawings/displays. That is not the same as rejecting the drawings/displays themselves - all it takes are a few explanative notes below them.
But you seem to like to read things into people's statements which they didn't actually say...

And when you look at this fraudulent SEQUENCE "lamentable" even by atheist darwinist standards -- a "sequence that NEVER happened in nature" EVEN by atheist darwinist standards -- what is your "conclusion"?? That it is Christians who are to blame for what atheist darwinist DO to prop up their junk science religion?

You're doing it again - selective reading and taking statements out of context. How dishonest.

[quote:e26d9]You brougth up accusations of fraud. Where is it?

I am sure you are hoping that the object unbiased reader of this thread will immediately suppose

"Can't possibly be "in the SEQUENCE that NEVER HAPPENED in NATURE" and yet was forced onto school children by atheist darwinists themselves -- who even after the event continued to tout the horse as the best example illustrating darwinian evollutionism --"[/quote:e26d9][red mine]
Yes, indeed - the unbiased reader will see where the actual fraud is in this thread.

Here is the full quotation again:

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."â€â€George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

[bolded as in the creationist quotation, red mine]

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)

[creationist quotation in bold, red mine]
So what do we have? You further butchered the statements, you mixed the two quote mines together. One contains the word "sequence", the other "never happened in nature". I've reddened the respective parts.

Neither of these quotations actually says that the sequence is wrong. Both only argue that it shouldn't be understood as a simple gradual transition, that it is not a " simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence" - that it's just more complicated in detail.
The second quotation explains the actual deviations from a simple interpretation of the sequence in great detail. All of this is omitted in the creationist literature in a blatant display of dishonesty.

The "objective, unbiased" reader quite certainly can see who really is trying to deceive him here...

 

[BobRyan]

Here are the challenges that atheist darwinists wanted to solve going into that publishing of Simpson's fraudulent series

SIMPSON
"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."â€â€*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

Bob said
This is where it helps to pay attention to the point of "Context", Simpson is showing a problem in 1944 that "The SEQUENCE" of the horse series published in 1951 "Appears to address".

When we speak of "context" we typically mean to refer to statements made just prior to the event of 1951 -- so the objective unbiased reader will note that 1944 comes before 1951.

jwu --
1944 is a bit old, methinks.

As I said "the objective unbiased reader will note..."

[/quote]

JWU
A lot can happen in seven years.

As stated - blind faith claims on your part are welcomed as "the answer for the transparent methods used" to prop up atheist darwinism.

that was a good one.

Thanks.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

here is another example of deep religious devotion to "a sequence that NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" by JWU as seen in his post above -

Bob said --
SIMPSON reveals the problem just TWO years after the initial fraud was published – but it was too late to stop the train – “the horse was out of the barnâ€Â!!

What a contrast! A sequence that SHOWS straightline smooth transitional form sequence when in fact the "shell game" of atheist darwinists "needed" an agile SWITCH to a TREE structure -- no in fact a BUSH-structure with leaves and root-nodes only with in fact SOME of the fossils REMAINING the SAME or GETTING SMALLER.

As even our atheist darwinist sources note "that was lamentable" -- but for the deeply devoted follower of atheist darwinism no problem is "a problem" in fact "all is gooood ... all is goood".

What problem?

That it's not all that "uniform and continuous" as the sequence implies to a reader, when it's not commented any further?

Again this is the kind of a-factual faith-based-statement we would EXPECT in dealing with the myth of a junk-science religion and those who adhere to it.

Thanks again JWU - you are the greatest!

Can I "pay you" for this? you have been too kind for happenstance.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Well, you can argue forever by quote lists. How about let's look at the evidence? BTW, the error discussed by Eldridge was that horse evolution was presented as a ladder, instead of a bush, with many different lines, only one of which survives today.

Rob, if I can show you a sequence of organisms from Hyracotherium to Equus, with no more differences from one to the other than can be seen within many species alive today, would you accept that the evidence does indeed show the evolution of horses?

And if you think that there are no evolutionary transitions in the fossil record, feel free to pick two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find you a transitional.

Willing to put your beliefs to a test?

 

[BobRyan]

Here is the quote from JWU that JWU gives on April 28 -- the quote that JWU claims provides "The full context for us".

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)

next we see what JWU does not like about HIS OWN block quote

Here is the full quotation again:
[quote0c54]"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."â€â€George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

[bolded as in the creationist quotation, red mine]

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)

[creationist quotation in bold, red mine]
So what do we have? You further butchered the statements, you mixed the two quote mines together. One contains the word "sequence", the other "never happened in nature". I've reddened the respective parts.

[/quote0c54]

And of course - we see the revisionist hisotry bit there trying to pretend that HIS block quote is mine.

Still all good when it comes to transparent religious methods that care nothing for the actual PROBLEM being addressed about straightline sequences VS bushy-leaf-node ones.

Oh well!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Well, you can argue forever by quote lists. How about let's look at the evidence? BTW, the error discussed by Eldridge was that horse evolution was presented as a ladder, instead of a bush, with many different lines, only one of which survives today.

Indeed. Some fossils in that leaf-node sequence (instead of the straightline smooth transitional form sequence PRESENTED to children in Simpsons 1951 publication) -- stay the same while others "get smaller".

Rob, if I can show you a sequence of organisms from Hyracotherium to Equus, with no more differences from one to the other than can be seen within many species alive today, would you accept that the evidence does indeed show the evolution of horses?

If you can turn a bush-leaf-node set of sequences into the straightline transitional format above - I would be most interested indeed.

And if you think that there are no evolutionary transitions in the fossil record, feel free to pick two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find you a transitional.

I see -- you have yet another story about "how one thing came from another"? Is it "science"?

BTW -- returning to the point of the OP -- are you claiming that we should not "notice the difference"?

Or that we should not "notice the problem" EVEN if we see the difference between Simpsons "straightline smooth transitional form sequence" vs the "bushy leafe-node sequence with some members staying the same the entire time while others get smaller instead of increasingly larger"??

OR are you saying that simply ARRANGING straightline sequences for Hyrax-becomes-horse is "good science"??

I offer these options because I recognize religious fervor when I see it -- and wanted to give you some options for glossing over this first example of "hoax" on this thread.

Bob

 

[jwu]

JWU
A lot can happen in seven years.

As stated - blind faith claims on your part are welcomed as "the answer for the transparent methods used" to prop up atheist darwinism.

that was a good one.

Thanks.

So where is the blind faith part in it? I've hardly ever seen anyone try to weasel around an issue like you do.

What a contrast! A sequence that SHOWS straightline smooth transitional form sequence when in fact the "shell game" of atheist darwinists "needed" an agile SWITCH to a TREE structure -- no in fact a BUSH-structure with leaves and root-nodes only with in fact SOME of the fossils REMAINING the SAME or GETTING SMALLER.

You've yet to produce evidence that such displays don't have explanative notes which indicate that they are a simplified view only of the actual lineage of one species. And getting smaller meanwhile is supposed to be a problem how? It doesn't need to be a constant increase. A display implying so should have explanative notes which clarify this, but that's it then.

next we see what JWU does not like about HIS OWN block quote

[snip]


And of course - we see the revisionist hisotry bit there trying to pretend that HIS block quote is mine.

Huh? What the heck are you talking about? Where am i pretending that my block quote is yours? I have directly shown how you assembled a quotation that never was made from two different block quotes in order to suggest them to the reader in a rhetorical device.

These are your words:

I am sure you are hoping that the object unbiased reader of this thread will immediately suppose

"Can't possibly be "in the SEQUENCE that NEVER HAPPENED in NATURE" and yet was forced onto school children by atheist darwinists themselves -- who even after the event continued to tout the horse as the best example illustrating darwinian evollutionism --"

The "sequence" terminology and the "never happened in nature" phrase - nicely highlighted by you - originate from two different block quotes.
Neither of the block quotes however makes a statement to the effect that you tried to suggest to the reader. That's quite cheap.

I'll wait for the Barbarian to respond to his part.

 

[BobRyan]

JWU
The "sequence" terminology and the "never happened in nature" phrase - nicely highlighted by you - originate from two different block quotes.

Question JWU when do the facts of the matter become more important to you than the number of quotes from which those facts come?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

JWU ---- do you have a problem admitting that this block was first posted by you on this thread?

If so -- explain it for us -- 'cause it looks a lot like post 4 on this thread

JWU
Isn't that quite the opposite of fraud, if Simpson himself speaks like this? If anything you can accuse the textbook writers (who have nothing to do with the validity of the ToE) of sloppy research. Textbook writers however are not necessarily part of the scientific community.
Besides, here we also see why i insist on the surrounding sentences for quotation. This is the full context:
[quote:b2b0e]
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)

[/quote:b2b0e]

 

[BobRyan]

Here are the challenges that atheist darwinists wanted to solve going into that publishing of Simpson's fraudulent series

SIMPSON
"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."â€â€*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

[quote:ca692]Bob said
This is where it helps to pay attention to the point of "Context", Simpson is showing a problem in 1944 that "The SEQUENCE" of the horse series published in 1951 "Appears to address".

When we speak of "context" we typically mean to refer to statements made just prior to the event of 1951 -- so the objective unbiased reader will note that 1944 comes before 1951.

jwu --
1944 is a bit old, methinks.

As I said "the objective unbiased reader will note..."

[/quote:ca692]

JWU
A lot can happen in seven years.

As stated - blind faith claims on your part are welcomed as "the answer for the transparent methods used" to prop up atheist darwinism.

that was a good one.

JWU
So where is the blind faith part in it? I've hardly ever seen anyone try to weasel around an issue like you do.

Tell us the part where 1944 and 1951 are sooooo far apart that the unbiased objective reader should ignore the problem SIMPSON outlines in 1944 (see first quote above) as compared to the solution SIMPSON publishes in 1951

This has just "gotta be good" dear readers. enjoy!

Bob

 

[jwu]

JWU
The "sequence" terminology and the "never happened in nature" phrase - nicely highlighted by you - originate from two different block quotes.

Question JWU when do the facts of the matter become more important to you than the number of quotes from which those facts come?

Bob

Well, i happen to prefer "facts" that are not based on quotations that are so grossly taken out of context that their entire meaning is turned on its head. And you haven't even produced anything but quotations yet - no ISBNs of the textbooks which you claim contain wrong information, scans of book pages with actual illustrations that lack further explanations etc.

JWU ---- do you have a problem admitting that this block was first posted by you on this thread?

It's obvious to anyone that i posted this block. I even posted it not just once, but twice. So why should i have a problem with it? It highlights how you posted a quotation that was dishonestly taken out of context to make it seem as if its author said something which he didn't actually say.

Tell us the part where 1944 and 1951 are sooooo far apart that the unbiased objective reader should ignore the problem SIMPSON outlines in 1944 (see first quote above) as compared to the solution SIMPSON publishes in 1951

Lots of fossils can be found in seven years. Which one of the fossils on which his 1951 publications is based doesn't actually exist? Or Simpson was mistaken in 1944. Or his quotation was out of context, like the other. Your point?

 

[BobRyan]

You are still dancing around trying to avoid the question -- here it is again

------------------------------------------------------

JWU ---- do you have a problem admitting that this block was first posted by you on this thread?

If so -- explain it for us -- 'cause it looks a lot like post 4 on this thread

JWU
Isn't that quite the opposite of fraud, if Simpson himself speaks like this? If anything you can accuse the textbook writers (who have nothing to do with the validity of the ToE) of sloppy research. Textbook writers however are not necessarily part of the scientific community.
Besides, here we also see why i insist on the surrounding sentences for quotation. This is the full context:
[quote:84de9]
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)

[/quote:84de9]

 

[jwu]

You are still dancing around trying to avoid the question -- here it is again

------------------------------------------------------

JWU ---- do you have a problem admitting that this block was first posted by you on this thread?

If so -- explain it for us -- 'cause it looks a lot like post 4 on this thread

I already have stated the obvious in my previous post:

It's obvious to anyone that i posted this block. I even posted it not just once, but twice.

If it is the word "first" that is the crux of the matter, then obvious answer to that is yes as well. I was the first to provide the full block - much to your embarassment, as it shows that your quotation was blatantly out of context. What is your point?

 

[BobRyan]

The quote -- in post 4 -- has the part in "red" that you are so unhappy with --

So is this "you" unhappy with "you"??


Bob