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

[BobRyan]

Oh no wait -- it is because I included the SAME inconvient quote in post 3 that you are so uhappy about --

"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.

"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.

 

[jwu]

What is your point? The quotations by Simpson already have been shown to be mined and taken out of context. If i were in your shoes, i'd be embarassed to repeat them, as they highlight the dishonesty of your sources.

Elredge points out that textbook authors need to do better research. Big deal...so which particular textbook should we start with?

The Westoll quotation needs further details. Which exact ancestral tree is he argueing against? What evidence does he use? What other sequence does he propose?

Personal opinions are worthless unless supported by evidence. You brought in the quotation, so it's your burden to provide the supporting evidence.

 

[BobRyan]

1. NO quote of Simpson that I have given here has been shown to be in error at all. RAther you quoted your OWN post-4 and then proceeded to complain about it.

What part of that tactic on your part is supposed to negate anything I have posted? It is just a case of your having lost track of point entirely.

2. The problem REMAINS - that the sequence is admitted EVEN by Simpson to have been in error. When you are not busy trying to deny it -- you actually turn back on yourself and ADMIT that it is true and that it is a sign of science and the fault of the SCIENCE text Publishers AFTER Simpson admits to the blunder.

What is your point? The quotations by Simpson already have been shown to be mined and taken out of context. If i were in your shoes, i'd be embarassed to repeat them, as they highlight the dishonesty of your sources.

Elredge points out that textbook authors need to do better research. Big deal...so which particular textbook should we start with?

Your transparent efforts to deny Simpson's rejecting of the series AND to then embrace Elredge's claim that it really IS a debunked fossil series -- (as you try THEN to shift blame to Science text publishers -- ) is clear to all as your trying to "have it both ways".

If your rejection of Simpson is correct then Elredge is wrong. If your acceptance of Elredge is correct THEN SO ALSO is my quote of Simpson.

Substance please jwu -- simply dodging and dancing around the point in a "deny-all" defense for atheist darwinism is not a "compelling" form of debate ... and remember this whole exercise IS for the benefit of the unbiased objective reader. You can't just post in the form "I said no to everything you said Bob" and "hope against hope" that the unbiased objective reader will consider your position to be "compelling".

3. How can you look at those ATHIEST DARWINIST admitting boldly to the horse series problem and yet cling blindly to it "anyway"?? What in the world kind of thinking are you using there?

Why do you leave it to ME to agree with the atheist Darwinists on this glaring fact?

The sections highlighted -- and bolded -- and underlined and in quotes remain for you to address.


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Simpson in Bob's quote of Simpson

"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.

Simpson from Jwu's quote of Simpson

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.

 

[BobRyan]

Notice that in jwu's "deny all" and "cling to atheist darwinist doctrine no matter what the hoax" approach here -- also leads jwu to another very telling behavior. Not once does jwu attempt to "learn" what it was that RESULTED in that fraudulent horse series that SHOWED smooth transitional forms from tree-dwelling Hyrax to modern horse.

Why in the world would the SOURCE of the hoax not be of interest to anyone with a "genuine" interset in protecting and improving science? Turning blindly from the problem and "believing anyway" is good for devotees to that particular religion we know as atheist darwinism but it is terrible science, it shows total disconcern for both the origin of the hoax AND for the way it was perpetuated. Hence the label of "Junk-science" assocated with atheist Darwinism.

Fortunately we DO have some atheist darwinists themselves that ARE willing to come clean on some of the details of the hoax - as I have already shown.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Stop calling it atheist darwinism. It's stupid, and I've explained why.

 

[BobRyan]

Stop calling it atheist darwinism. It's stupid, and I've explained why.

Where did you "explain why"??

I see a thread title coming up -- hopefully this gives you all the space you need to explain that position. I for one would like to see you do it.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Stop calling it atheist darwinism. It's stupid, and I've explained why.

Where did you "explain why"??

I see a thread title coming up -- hopefully this gives you all the space you need to explain that position. I for one would like to see you do it.

Bob

Since you ignored my explanation (it was the post above yours in another thread), I'll gladly repost it in a new thread for you so you can't miss it.

 

[BobRyan]

Well then enjoy -- I started an entire thread for you to make your case on that one point.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

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

No problem. All you have to do, is focus on the particular line that led to modern horses. The only twig on the bush that has survived to the present day.

Let's get started:

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sci ... xonomy.htm

Scroll down to figure 9. There's a primitive condylarth, alongside a somewhat more advanced Hyracotherium. Notice that they have all the same features, just modified a bit. So the horses are anchored in stem herbivores.

Barbarian suggests:
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"?

I gather this means you aren't willing to test your assumptions. But if I'm wrong, pick two major groups said to be evolutinarily connected, and let's take a look. If you don't want to test it, just say so, and I'll stop asking.

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

I think that you should accept the evidence. There were a good number of different lines of horses, each going it's own way.

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

I'm saying we should look at the fossils and see. Let me know about the condylarth I showed you, and then we can go on. Meantime, if you really want to test your beliefs about transitionals, give us two, and we can take a look. BTW, Hyracotherium isn't even remotely like a hyrax. It's a misleading name, which has tripped up many creationists.

This is Hyracotherium (in skeleton)

And a Hyrax skeleton:

I offer these options because I recognize religious fervor when I see it

I know it's hard for you because you have so much belief tied up in it. And I'm not unsympathetic. But it would be good for you to at least think about it, and to take a look at the evidence. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

BTW, notice the anatomical markers that show Hyracotherium is descended from condylarths. (the particular one I noted is rather close to the line that gave rise to Hyracotherium, even down to miniature hooves)

 

[BobRyan]

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

No problem. All you have to do, is focus on the particular line that led to modern horses. The only twig on the bush that has survived to the present day.

Let's get started:

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sci ... xonomy.htm

[/quote]

You missed the point.

My argument is not that believers in atheist darwinism can not "shell-game" their way from "one story about how one thing came from antoher" straightline-transitional form-sequence presented in Simpson's book -- "to ANOTHER story about how one thing came from another" bushy-leaf-node sequence with almost nothing in between.

My argument is that THE SEQUENCE published in 1951 was fraudullent -- it was "contrived" it was "simply arranged and then a story wrapped around it" (kinda like you're doing now).

And My point is that EVEN Simpson ADMITS that the sequence published " never happened in nature" AND it does not show up in your link as "the new story for how it happened" either!

Why do you think we are going to "miss" this inconvenient detail?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As Colin Patterson said "telling stories" about how one thing came from another "stories easy enough to TELL but they are NOT science".

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


The enormous increase in fossil evidence since Simpson's time has allowed paleontologists .... to falsify this view. In other words, bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.
S. J. Gould, Full House 1997, pg 67-69.

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown[/b].
B. Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, Nov 5, 1980, sec. 4 pg 15.


"Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years."
S. Gould, Full House, p. 69.

"High schoool textbooks propose that, ..., the rabbit sized Eohippus commenced his move up through the evolutionary ranks, one incremental step after another. ... The high school progression is an artifact; .... The facts are discrete. There is no hint of gradual change, no hint either of selective advantages accumulating."
D. Berlinski, review of Full House, O&D 18(1), pg 30.

While these sources ALL reject the now debunked discredited 1951 horse series (even Simpson rejects it) -- and they ALL support the new "bush story" in the never-ending shell game... they ALSO point out WHY you can not simply INSERT Simpson's debunked series INTO THE bush AS IF it still happened according to that series.

Note for example the "inconvenient details" that both Gould and Berlinski raise.

Instead of avoiding them -- it is better to address them.

Bob

 

[Dunzo]

The Edit Button. Use it.

 

[Jayls5]

Wait, so let me get this straight....

Guy pulls quotes out of context on one scientist. In full context, he more accurately explains the mechanism of evolution that took place. Out of context, it's a misleading assertion that makes it sound as though it was entirely false.

This same person criticized a textbook for being scientifically inaccurate. Yet... someone's being fraudulent? At worst, it seems like the scientific community went out of its way to clarify a mistake made by someone who didn't do enough research in a textbook.

Where is this fraud precisely? Why are people in this thread continuing to assert the misleading quote as though it were something substantial? If anything, it single-handedly works against the title of the thread, "Junk-Science pillars to prop up Darwinism."

 

[BobRyan]

"There is an interesting discrepancy in the skeletal development of this [horse] series: the anatomy of the various models does not compare.

"For example, the rib court varies back and forth from 15 to 19: Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs; Orohippus had only 15 pairs; then Pliohippus jumped to 19; and Equus scoff! is back to 18.

"Also, the lumbers of the backbone vary back and forth from 6 to 8. Therefore, many eminent scientists disagree on the theoretical chain of fossil horses." â€â€Howard Path, Blind Faith (1990), p. 119.

Kinda makes you wonder about the "story telling" and the "wrappering job" they do when they CONTINUE to "assemble unrelated fossils" as a "series".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Wait, so let me get this straight....

Guy pulls quotes out of context on one scientist. In full context, he more accurately explains the mechanism of evolution that took place. Out of context, it's a misleading assertion that makes it sound as though it was entirely false.

This same person criticized a textbook for being scientifically inaccurate. Yet... someone's being fraudulent? At worst, it seems like the scientific community went out of its way to clarify a mistake made by someone who didn't do enough research in a textbook.

Here is "the point" you are missing -- Marsh NEVER FOUND that sequence!!

It was MADE up to start with -- and the reason nobody is blaming Marsh in all of this is that "making up sequences" is STILL what they do today!

In their bold rush to admit that this 'sequence" was never found by anyone EVER "in the rocks" they are unwittingly exposing the underlying METHODS of Darwinism in simply "assembly to make story".

Where is this fraud precisely?

As you point out - the fact that they are so happy with such methods is "telling".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

"Each genus is itself a bush of several related species, not a rung on a ladder of progress. These species often lived and interacted in the same area at the same time (as different species of zebra do in Africa today.) One set of strata in Wyoming, for example, has yielded three species of Meeohippus and two of Miohippus, all contemporaries.

"The species of these bushes tend to arise with geological suddenness and then to persist with little change for long periods. Evolutionary change occurs at the branch points themselves, and trends are not continuous marches up ladders, but concatenations of increments achieved at nodes of branching on evolutionary bushes.

"Bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.

"The model of the ladder is much more than merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution as progressive and triumphant, for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages." â€â€*Steven Jay Gould, "Life's Little Joke," in Natural History April 1987, p. 2425.

But the efforts to "assemble" in a storytelling fashion - simply "continues"

 

[Jayls5]

Here is "the point" you are missing -- Marsh NEVER FOUND that sequence!!

Wait, before I respond, who is Marsh? I thought we were talking about "G.G. Simpson"


Edit:

OHHH I see. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that Simpson didn't correct him quickly enough... that argument seems air tight there... that's a pretty clear cut case of fraud right?

 

[BobRyan]

[quote:673d6]"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.

"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. [b]So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."[/b] in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.
â€â€*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

[/quote:673d6]

"Darwins problem with the fossile record has NOT been aleviated" -- fire da bumb!! How dare he admit to that!!

censor...censor...

calling all to pogrom meeting this evening at 11!! ;-)

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is "the point" you are missing -- Marsh NEVER FOUND that sequence!!

Wait, before I respond, who is Marsh? I thought we were talking about "G.G. Simpson"


Edit:

OHHH I see. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that Simpson didn't correct him quickly enough... that argument seems air tight there... that's a pretty clear cut case of fraud right?

Marsh assembled his series in the 1800's - Simpson PUBLISHED 1951 so yeah I guess you could say "not soon enough".

But the point is that the METHOD was "assemble" and "arrange" then "Wrap in a story" in the case of Marsh he did it for Huxley.

Bob