I am assuming that your silence on all the examples of fictional junk put out in the name of YE means that you agree that it is all lies, too.
"
Oh brother did you ever just give a bad quote of Simpson or what?!!
Your bad quote of the CONTINUOUS line of evolution is EXACTLY what was debunked!
Did you not pay attention to the details? Again?"
No, Bob, for you see, my quote of Simpson is in line with what he was saying in the broader quote. You could not possibly go back and make a case that Simpson meant something other than what I was claiming he said. When you quote him, that is not so much true.
You then have your quote beginning ""This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . ." You say this is at odds with the claims of the horse series. Prove it! As has been pointed out to you, these are talking about two different things. The horse series is known down to the detailed level of individual genera and species. This is a far cry from the level of order. All of the horses are of the order Perissodactyla, the odd toed ungulates.
The quote is talked about puncuated equilibrium and how often big jumps occur in geologically short periods of time. Often shoort enough for the fossil record to only capture the period of stasis on either end. This is not the case with the horses.
The other key thing to note is that your quote is from
1944!!! We have dug up quite a few fossils since then. Since we are talking about horses, let's look at the appearance of the order Perissodactyla. You will find that it is better known now than it was
sixty years ago. We can trace the origin of Perissodactyla through such creatures as Loxolophus, Tetraclaenodon, and Radinskya. MAybe you should check to see if we have learned anything new in the intervening years before you pull out such an ancient quote.
"
Indeed - as already pointed out - "details are never the friend of wild evolutionist speculation".
Notice that the sequence of ancestors was wrong - in fact - SUCH a continuous sequence is denied by all evolutionsts today promoting phyletic evolution.
That means - GOODBYE horsey!"
Nope, wrong again. This only means that the series was less complete in the past than it was later after additional specimens were found.
Let's give an anology. Let's say you know nothing of English or its alphabet. I take the letter of the alphabet and put them in a sand box and tell you to dig. After a few minutes you have an A an H an N and a Z so you put them in the order "A H N Z." It that wrong? As time goes by, you find more and more of the letters. Let's say at a nother point in time you have 20 of the letters. You are able to fill in many of the gaps between the other letters. Does this mean that the prevous ordering was wrong? Not really, it was just incomplete. Even the twenty letter ordering is still in complete but it is more correct. When you find the 21st letter and put it in place, you will have a better series then you did before but it does not make it wrong.
So it is with the horse series. The ideas about it when only a few specimens were known was correct as far as they could go but it was very incomplete. We now know the series much more completely. We did not have to throw out any finds as not really being horses. We did not have to radically change the order. We just filled in the gaps and got a more complete picture.
"
Notice that in the bushy phyletic model YOU HAVE NO SUCH SERIES as the horse series showing a continuous line of ancestor-ancestor-ancestor."
We have a very detailed set of genera and species with many side branches and dead ends. It is possible to pull out the ones most likely on the path and make a continuous (though not steady or smooth) series if you wish with a reasonable amount of certainty. But the whole point of all these guys you have been quoting is that such thinking is lacking. You need to look at the complete picture with all the bushines intact. To not do so gives a distorted view of what happened.
As for your next quote, you left the name off. It is Gould I believe. If this is supposed to be against the fossil record the nwhy did he also say
But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy.
That was also from Natural History.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
I think your tactics may be the kind he is "infuriat[ed]" by.
"
Dead wrong!
Eldredge was NOT arguing for an EVEN LONGER CONTINUOUS LINE like the EXISTING CONTINUOUS line of ancestors shown in the horse series!!"
Huh? You offer no support for this assertion. He lamenting the simple progression still being presented when a much more complete picture was known at the time.
Then you quote Raup again. Did you even read your own quote?!? "
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."
"
In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: "
I would suggest that you go look up some of the details of what we know before you embarass yourself with such claims. Pliohippus was no "early horse." Equus is the modern horse genus. The genus before was Dinohippus. Pliohippus was a side branch that came about at roughly the same time as Dinohippus. It would not be surprising to find all three of these in the same location. You really ought to read a little more closely.
"
"Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains." Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?"
I am guessing that is supposed to be a quote and a comment. I actually think that you have plagarized both from somewhere else. You didn't go through copying word for word without at least giving a link to where you copied from, did you? You are not adding plagerism to misquoting as a tactic are you?
Anyhow, just like in the Pliohippus claim above, you would expect to find many species living together and even some overlap in genera. Have you not learned anything from all you quotes so far? The evolution is not a simple progression of one to another to another. It is complex. Bushy. Jerky.
