Are creationists purposely misquoting evolutionists?

[BobRyan]

It would be nice if you would actually read all the way through my posts before responding, too.

I have now posted three times that you are misstating my gender and yet you continue to do so.

Please read the whole posts before you respond.

Sorry about that - I noted your relactance to post a first name and your profile's mention of ballroom dancing and just drew a conclusion that was apparently a bad guess.

 

[UTEOTW]

And after comparing the ancient tree dwelling Hyrax to the modern tree dwelling hyrax - we go on to compare the wolf skeleton to that of the modern Shetland Sheep dog!

And there is no comparison.

Hyracotherium, the typical starting point for horses. (Before that are general hooved animals. Hyracotherium is about where the split ocurred where one lineage led to horses and the other led to rhinos and tapirs.)

And the Hyrax.

 

[UTEOTW]

And thank you for going through Simpson quotes and highlighting all the places where he makes it clear that it was "uniform continuous" change that he says "never happened." You highlighted for us quite well that you can't support your assertions that the "transition" itself is what did not happen nor can you support your assertion that he says the fossils were in the wrong order nor can your support your assertion that he was indicating any kind of fraud.

Your highlights do a wonderful job of showing how is saying only that the mode and tempo of the evolution of the horse had to be modified with additional data.

 

[UTEOTW]

Sorry about that - I noted your relactance to post a first name and your profile's mention of ballroom dancing and just drew a conclusion that was apparently a bad guess.

I really don't care. Those sorts of mistakes are inevitable online.

My point is that it took a fourth time for me to post that you were getting my gender wrong for you to notice the problem.

It makes it clear that you do not read responses to your posts before you launch another round of posts.

 

[BobRyan]

I have posted so many "unanswered posts" to you UTEOTW that it is encouraging to see you pretend that you are reading everything --

 

[UTEOTW]

I am just interested in seeing you take Simpson or Gould's larger quotes for context, the context of their other writings and the context of the accepted science of the areas in question to try and show that you are doing a better job than I am of preserving the original intent and opinion of these two with the quotes you have provided.

 

[BobRyan]

Since some would argue for taking larger chunks of Simpson’s position and dissecting them – here is one. *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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:

In the history of the horse family there is no known trend that affected the whole family. Moreover, in any one of the numerous different lines of descent there is no known trend that continued uniformly in the same direction and at the same rate throughout. Trends do not really have to act that way: there are not really orthogenetic.

(The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups[/b] of organisms, but it is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented…)

*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

#1. The uniform continuous transformation from start to end SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence NEVER happened in nature.
#2. The Gradual reduction of side toes SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence NEVER happened.
#3. The Single line of descent (with many generations between each line node admittedly) NEVER happened.
#4. Individuals often “RETAINED their foot with NO FURTHER CHANGES” – unlike the fraudulent sequence “Story”.
#5. The TRENDS affecting the whole horse family as SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence – DO NOT HAPPEN! In fact “No known trend affected the WHOLE horse family”
#6. THE NEW improved “story” is still accepted as “an example” of evolution but the old discredited debunked story “IS NOT”!!

By contrast some devotees to the cult of evolutionism STILL CLING to the old story to this very day AT LEAST in this form –

UTEOTW –

Quote:
All of these together show us that Simpson was pointing out that horse evolution was not "uniform" and "continuous" as had been previously thought. He was not at all suggesting that there was something fundementally wrong with the old horse series
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=792474&postcount=206

Sad but true! UTEOTW really does gloss over the facts JUST as he states above!

 

[BobRyan]

Exposing the desperate “believe anyway” response of UTEOTW to the facts Simpson identifies about the failed version of the infamous “Horse Series”

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=792746&postcount=214

UTEOTW by contrast “clings to the failed horse series anyway” claiming that NOT only are all the individuals related – BUT they are in the exact ancestral line and order as initially contrived with the only difference being that the “magic” goes here boxes have MORE individuals and more changes IN The “magic” than first “imagined”. But of course that sad desperate fallacy of UTEOTW’s ignores the obvious fact that even in the initial failed series they did not say how many generations occur between A-and-B.

Here we see UTEOTW in what is perhaps the saddest “believe anyway” statements that any cult member could be expected to utter –

UTEOTW
The fossil horse from before Simpson's time were in the correct order, just there were few of them. The limited number of fossils led to an incorrect assumption of monophyletic evolution. Also called orthogenetic. This is where evolution happens in a straight line, with little or no branching, and at a fairly stead pace.

By Simpsons time, enough fossils had been discovered to show that the actual pattern was phyletic, or highly branching. Hence the quote from Simpson that "[h]orse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations." And the statement that the "line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution"

All of these together show us that Simpson was pointing out that horse evolution was not "uniform" and "continuous" as had been previously thought. He was not at all suggesting that there was something fundementally wrong with the old horse series. Just that the mode and tempo of change was misunderstood because the record was not complete at the time.

The starting and endpoints were correct even in the original series. The known fossils in the original series were even in the right order, contrary to Bob's claims. They just didn't have all of the data. And as that data came in, nothing about the horse series changed except the pace
of change and the depth of knowledge.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=792474&postcount=206

So “ALL WRONG” (as evaluated by atheist Darwinists themselves) gets transposed by UTEOTW into “Nothing fundamentally wrong with”.[/

“Had to be Discarded” (as evaluated by atheist Darwinists themselves) gets transposed by UTEOTW into “Nothing changed but the pace…”.

“Never happened” (as evaluated by atheist Darwinists themselves) gets transposed by UTEOTW into “Fossils in the right order..”.

Truly that “is Lamentable”

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

No matter how many times you attempt such, I am not interested in a role reversal with you. You seem to be forgetting that I am the one saying that all Simpson was suggesting in the quote is that the tempo of evolution in the horse series was never smooth and gradual as was once thought. You are the one who is asserting far greater.

I appreciate your effort, but I have already made a very good case that shows that it was only the tempo that SImpson says "never occurred in nature." It is nice of you to keep posting more quotes from Simpson highlighting the parts that show him discussing explicity different changes that were not smooth, but I have already made that case convincingly.
Perhaps we should review again what you claimed that Simpson was admitting. Back on your very first post on this thread where you used this quote, you said

Specifically HOW did a series that "never happened in nature" get put into the text books? Answer - it was ARRANGED in fossil order sequence and then published AS IF that arrangement had actually been found IN THAT SEQUENCE in the fossil record! When in fact - it had not!

A few posts later you said

First the objective thinking mind NOTES that Simpson (atheist darwinist icon for evolutionists) is HIMSELF admitting that what they spewed out to the public was false when it comes to the exact fossil series they published!! He ADMITS that the "Series" the "SEQUENCE" did not HAPPEN in nature"

He does not claim that all of the fossils were "faked" just that the SEQUENCE - the ORDER they were placed in was a fake and then the STORY wrapped around that FAKED order.

You also speak of speak of "the fraudulent, failed, debunked horse series that now stands fully and blatantly discredited EVEN by Atheist darwinists that CONTINUE to believe in evolutionism."

Now these are the claims that you must support.

You claim that you have quoted Simpson honestly. Fine. Use the wider context of his quotes to show where his original intent was to show that Simpson was trying to say that the original set of horse fossils were purposely and fraudulently placed into an incorrect and fake order.

It does you no good to keep putting up Simpson quotes that show what I have said all along. Simpson is only saying that as the horse fossil record became better filled in that the gradual, smooth transition that was accepted when there were only a few fossils was found to be a jerky, bushy transition when more fossils became known. The gradual part is all that he says "never happened." Not the transition itself. He never speaks of fossil put into the wrong order. He never speaks of fraud. He never speaks of any of the things that you assert.

We are all still waiting patiently for you to justify your interpretation of Simpson to be closer to his original intent and opinion than what I have presented.

 

[UTEOTW]

And while we are at it, on the other thread, you claimed that the following post on this thread was a "devastating case ... that has totally debunked your obfuscation and use of Simpson."

Let's look.

Fraudulent story History: summarized –

Original myth:

Atheist Darwinists started with the ancient tree-dwelling Hyrax (similar to the current tree dwelling Hyrax closer than the way a Wolf is similar to a Shetland Sheep Dog) and end up with the modern day Horse after showing straightline smooth orthogenic transition after transition.

Hyrax – (Magic)- A-(Magic)-B-(Magic)-C-(Magic)-D-(Magic)…-Modern Horse

In the initial mythical lie presented “As if fact” each of the “magic goes here” boxes are comprised of an unknown number of generations.
(Bible Believing Christian scientists of course denied that the fossil record ever showed such transitions taking place in nature – Obviously. They claimed this was all just “story telling” within the cult of atheist Darwinist believing “faithful”)

Of this contrivance – somewhat honest atheist evolutionists now say
“Never Happened in Nature”
“Fewer examples today of evol transition than in Darwin’ day – for example (the initial) Horse series Had to be totally discarded”
“Lamentable”

Bob observes – the obvious

More than that – it is apparent that “The stories” have been claiming that they DO find transitions and smooth change from A-to-B-to-C but “What is ACTUALLY found” is “highly uneven” with Species “APPEARING – Suddenly – VERY Suddenly”

[snip a 65 year old quote from a letter to the editor from someone who is not even a biologist]

[snip a quote that says just what I have been saying, that it was necessary for a large number of fossils to be discovered before the true, bushy nature of the horse tree became apparent]

Notice the presentation was “all wrong”. HOW could an “ALL wrong” presentation be concocted WITHOUT the evidence for it?? Answer: With LESS data and fewer example there is room for “more story telling”!!. Their “Story” was better with less data!! (And so it is with “all stories”!!)

[snip a quote from Eldredge that says that it is "lamentable" that a museum display has not been updated in 50 years with new data]

[snip a reapeat of the original Simpson quote]

Not to suggest that the many-storied tactics of evolutionism are JUST confined to the discredited discarded Horse Series. We find another point on “stories told by Evolutionists”

So this is your "devastating case." I am underwhelmed to say the least.

Let's remember that the issue here is whether you correctly conveyed the original intent and opinion of Simpson in your quote of him. No where in these assertions do I see anywhere in which you try and convince me that Simpson was trying to tell us "the ORDER [the fossils] were placed in was a fake and then the STORY wrapped around that FAKED order."

Instead you go off with more unfounded assertions, none of which having any bearing on whether you correctly reflected Simpson's intent and opinion.

So you say that

Atheist Darwinists started with the ancient tree-dwelling Hyrax (similar to the current tree dwelling Hyrax closer than the way a Wolf is similar to a Shetland Sheep Dog) and end up with the modern day Horse after showing straightline smooth orthogenic transition after transition.
Hyrax – (Magic)- A-(Magic)-B-(Magic)-C-(Magic)-D-(Magic)…-Modern Horse

Where is your evidence?

Your first mistake is that the beginning of the series is Hyracotherium and not the Hyrax.

This is a Hyracotherium.

And this is a hyrax.

Do those look alike to you?

But, hey, this is your assertion. If you want to continue with it then maybe you can provide some references showing that they are indeed the same animal. A detailed comparison of morphology perhaps. But if you cannot make such a case, perhaps you should stop calling them the same thing.

You then list "A," "B," "C," "D" and "Modern Horse" as your series. Are you just making stuff up now?

I think I saw a modern horse yesterday. I don't know what A, B, C or D are.

If you want to make a case that there really was some fossils placed in a "FAKED order" then make a case. Don't just make up nonexistent fossils. The few fossils that were originally found were put in the right order even after the record was filled in with many more finds. The original fossils were correctly connected from Hyracotherium to Equus as was later confirmed by the additional fossil finds and by genetics. The only change to the horse series that the new fossils was a better understanding of the mode and tempo involved. If this is your idea of fraud and of something being discredited then you set an awfully low bar.


Fill in the gaps. Tell us the fossils that made up that incorrect order. Document for us what fossils they were, who found them and how they were ordered. Then document for us who found what and when that tells us that the order was "faked."

You can't just make stuff up. Give us the documented facts or quit making the claim if you cannot.

You then say

More than that – it is apparent that “The stories” have been claiming that they DO find transitions and smooth change from A-to-B-to-C but “What is ACTUALLY found” is “highly uneven” with Species “APPEARING – Suddenly – VERY Suddenly”

Many transitions are, in fact, found.

Now they are not generally "smooth" because little evolutionary change is smooth. The "highly uneven" nature of the rate of change is well documented and has been recognized for many decades. Why you would propose this is a problem I cannot imagine.

And, as we saw in the Gould quote, it is only "species APPEARING - Suddenly." And we know why, too. Because most change takes place in relatively small populations over relatively shory periods of time. The geological record simply is not finely enough graduated to find many examples of change within a species though there still are quite a few of these documented.

If you get above the level of species, then the issue goes away. Transitions between higher taxa are well documented and are just the kind of findings that YEers say should not be there.

The horse fossil record provides an excellent example. There are at least 60 known fossil horse genera on the line from Hyracotherium to Equus if you count the branches. Some of these are so finely graduated that it becomes hard to properly classify where one genus ends and another begins.

Suggesting that there should be "smooth change" and then using quotes to show that this is not the case is nothing more than a strawman fallacy. The theory does not suggest that you should find a lot of gradual change. Indeed, the theory suggests the opposite. So you are not accomplishing anything by by building your strawman and then knocking it over by using quotes that show what is actually found is what is expected to be found.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob

No matter how many times you attempt such, I am not interested in a role reversal with you. You seem to be forgetting that I am the one saying that all Simpson was suggesting in the quote is that the tempo of evolution in the horse series was never smooth and gradual as was once thought. You are the one who is asserting far greater.

I appreciate your effort, but I have already made a very good case that shows that it was only the tempo that SImpson says "never occurred in nature."

#1. Wrong "again".

#2. Simply "pronouncing victory over yourself" is not the same thing as paying attention to the details in the discussion. Give it another try - I just know you can do better.

#3. Simpson says that NOT ONLY did that SEQUENCE NOT exist - but the REAL sequence would show DIFFERENT STRAINS in which NO CHANGE AT ALL is seen in the foot - NOT just "a different PACE of change"!!

Your bogus revisionist approach to facts plainly posted is so transparent I am suprised you keep doing it "as if" it is working!

 

[BobRyan]

*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic.

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[/b] of organisms, but it is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented…)

*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

#1. The uniform continuous transformation from start to end SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence NEVER happened in nature.
#2. The Gradual reduction of side toes SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence NEVER happened.
#3. The Single line of descent (with many generations between each line node admittedly) NEVER happened.
#4. Individuals often “RETAINED their foot with NO FURTHER CHANGES” – unlike the fraudulent sequence “Story”. UTEOTW insist that "NO FURTHER CHANGE" is to be blindly transposed into "just a change in the pace but SAME sequence as the initial failed fossil sequence"
#5. The TRENDS affecting the whole horse family as SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence – DO NOT HAPPEN! In fact “No known trend affected the WHOLE horse family”
#6. THE NEW improved “story” is still accepted as “an example” of evolution but the old discredited debunked story “IS NOT”!!

By contrast some devotees to the cult of evolutionism STILL CLING to the old story to this very day AT LEAST in this form –

UTEOTW –

All of these together show us that Simpson was pointing out that horse evolution was not "uniform" and "continuous" as had been previously thought. He was not at all suggesting that there was something fundementally wrong with the old horse series

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=792474&postcount=206

Sad but true! UTEOTW really does gloss over the facts JUST as he states above!

 

[UTEOTW]

Thank you again for pointing out that it was only the unevenness of the rates of change of different part of the anatomy that Simpson was talking about. You continue to point this out and highlight the parts of his statement that support my assertion almost as well as I have done myself.

Unfortuneately for you, you still are not supporting your case that he said anything about any fossils being in the wrong order or anything about fraud or anything remotely like what you have asserted.

Thank you again for continuing to highlight just how it is that my interpretation of SImpsons quote remains more true than yours with regard to his intent and opinion.

This could be considered progress. Escept that you seem to think that by highlighting his comments on differening rates of change that you are harming my assertinpn that he was talking about unsteady change.

You ever going to list the fossils that you assert were in the wrong order for us? Or do you only know them as A, B, C and D?

 

[BobRyan]

having exposed UTEOTW's transparent and glaring contradictions to the "inconvenient facts" listed above while he "clings to his favorite story anyway" UTEOTW continues to attempt to obfuscate and misdirect.

UTEOTW

Back on your very first post on this thread where you used this quote, you said


Quote:
Specifically HOW did a series that "never happened in nature" get put into the text books? Answer - it was ARRANGED in fossil order sequence and then published AS IF that arrangement had actually been found IN THAT SEQUENCE in the fossil record! When in fact - it had not!

A few posts later you said


Quote:
First the objective thinking mind NOTES that Simpson (atheist darwinist icon for evolutionists) is HIMSELF admitting that what they spewed out to the public was false when it comes to the exact fossil series they published!! He ADMITS that the "Series" the "SEQUENCE" did not HAPPEN in nature"

He does not claim that all of the fossils were "faked" just that the SEQUENCE - the ORDER they were placed in was a fake and then the STORY wrapped around that FAKED order.

You also speak of speak of "the fraudulent, failed, debunked horse series that now stands fully and blatantly discredited EVEN by Atheist darwinists that CONTINUE to believe in evolutionism."

Now these are the claims that you must support.

how "insightful" UTEOTW - you merely show how MY own comments benefit from the "inconvenient points" listed in Simpson's quote - you know the "ones you gloss over"!!

 

[BobRyan]

Thank you again for pointing out that it was only the unevenness of the rates of change

Your "Consistent failure" to actually respond to "the details" in the post above has you "continuing" to call "NO CHANGE AT ALL" a "change in the RATE of Change" in your totally bogus response on this page.

How sad that you think such revisionist tactics "work"!!

It is OBVIOUS TO ALL that the fraudulent series DID SHOW change AT EVERY STAGE in a SINGLE line instead of disconnected lines WITH NO CHANGE AT ALL within lines -- a fact easily SEEN!

 

[BobRyan]

ANY fraudulent series trying to show MULTIPLE disconnected lines with many of those lines showing NO CHANGE in the foot AT ALL-- as ONE line having CHANGE at EVERY STAGE -- would be "lamentable" just as the Atheist darwinists SAID it was!

For "IT NEVER HAPPENED in NATURE"

#1. The uniform continuous transformation from start to end SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence NEVER happened in nature.
#2. The Gradual reduction of side toes SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence NEVER happened.
#3. The Single line of descent (with many generations between each line node admittedly) NEVER happened.
#4. Individuals often “RETAINED their foot with NO FURTHER CHANGES” – unlike the fraudulent sequence “Story”. UTEOTW insist that "NO FURTHER CHANGE" is to be blindly transposed into "just a change in the pace but SAME sequence as the initial failed fossil sequence"
#5. The TRENDS affecting the whole horse family as SHOWN in the initial fraudulent sequence – DO NOT HAPPEN! In fact “No known trend affected the WHOLE horse family”
#6. THE NEW improved “story” is still accepted as “an example” of evolution but the old discredited debunked story “IS NOT”!!

By contrast some devotees to the cult of evolutionism STILL CLING to the old story to this very day AT LEAST in UTEOTW's form where he claims that "NO CHANGE AT ALL" is merely a "CHANGE in the PACE of CHANGE".

How sad.

How transparently desperate on UTEOTW's part.

How "revisionist".

How "fact intolerant".

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Change for a while then no change for a while then change again ARE differences in the rate of change of different parts of horse morphology over time. I don't know how you can pretend otherwise.

I am still waiting for you to even attempt that what Simpson was saying was anything along the lines of what you specifically asserted.

You have not shown us anywhere where he talks of fossils being fraudulently put out of order. Not have you anywhere told us what fossils were put out of order, by whom, when and the details of how the right order was found.

You have not shown us anywhere where Simpson talks of the order being faked.

All you have managed to do with your last several posts is go through and highlight parts of things Simpson said where he talks about differing rates of change of different parts of horse morphology. This is what I have been saying he was talking about all along.

You should really try and support your case instead of mine. Unless you now agree with me.

It does you no good to argue my side and then put a few turns of phrase in there that makes it sound like you are challenging me smoewhere. You are not in reality.

But, please, keep making posts highlighting how Simpson intent and opinion were what I have said all along. I am quite enjoying you being unable to make a case for your claims of what he meant. Even if you can never pull yourself out of your delusions, I feel quite confident that if there is anyone left reading this thread that they should have absolutely no doubts as to who has the correct interpretation of the SImpson quote now that we are both highlighting the same parts and giving the same interpretation, none of which has anything to do with what you have alledged all along.

 

[BobRyan]

All agree that each individual of any group today has a straight-line micro-evolutionary path going back to “the beginning” because EACH individual has exactly 1 set of parents. So it is easy to see how evolutionists “assumed” straightline evolution in a system comprised of straight line ancestory-descendent chains. It is easy to understand how it is that all the evol-stories told in the early 1900’s were in the form of straight line models. But what is unique – is that only ONE of those stories is labeled by Atheist Darwinist Evolutionists as “Lamentable”! Only ONE has the breaks slammed on in the form of blunt statements in the form of “Never Happened in Nature” AND “Had to be discarded” AND “ALL WRONG”.

Obviously the thinking objective mind will ask “So what is so “unique” about the failed fraudulent Horse Series that these atheist Darwinists should single IT out in that way”.

Obviously that means that true devotees to the cult of evolutionism (like the case of UTEOTW above) would NOT ask such an obvious quesition.


My quotes of Simpson and Patterson and Raup and others on this thread were initially directed to exploring that very point!


UTEOTW is still "digging the hole" for himself claiming that "NEVER HAPPENED in nature" and "ALL WRONG" and "NO further CHANGEs" and "lamentable" can be "spun" into "nothing actually wrong with" "CHANGE but at a different pace", " no change but just FOR A WHILE" "GOOD fossil SEQUENCE".

The objective thinking reader not already stuck in the cult of evolutionism could never make such blind fact-intolerant claims for evolutionism. But I fully understand why UTEOTW thinks he has to go there.

But in terms of our "Actual topic" the Quotes I provided for SIMPSON AND for Patterson are SHOWN to be exact, accurate, full of "added context" and fact tolerant -- as contrasted to UTEOTW's approach above.

Thankfully that is easily demonstrated.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
The fossil horse from before Simpson's time were in the correct order, just there were few of them. The limited number of fossils led to an incorrect assumption of monophyletic evolution. Also called orthogenetic. This is where evolution happens in a straight line, with little or no branching, and at a fairly stead pace.

By Simpsons time, enough fossils had been discovered to show that the actual pattern was phyletic, or highly branching. Hence the quote from Simpson that "[h]orse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations." And the statement that the "line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution"

All of these together show us that Simpson was pointing out that horse evolution was not "uniform" and "continuous" as had been previously thought. He was not at all suggesting that there was something fundementally wrong with the old horse series. Just that the mode and tempo of change was misunderstood because the record was not complete at the time.

The starting and endpoints were correct even in the original series. The known fossils in the original series were even in the right order, contrary to Bob's claims. They just didn't have all of the data. And as that data came in, nothing about the horse series changed except the pace
of change and the depth of knowledge.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=792474&postcount=206

So “ALL WRONG” (as evaluated by atheist Darwinists themselves) gets transposed by UTEOTW into “Nothing fundamentally wrong with”.[/

“Had to be Discarded” and "No Further CHANGE" in some lines (as evaluated by atheist Darwinists themselves) gets transposed by UTEOTW into “Nothing changed but the pace…”.

“Never happened” (as evaluated by atheist Darwinists themselves) gets transposed by UTEOTW into calims that this straightline fossil sequence presented as if it shows the fact of evolutionism, arranged to show A-magic->B was indeed “Fossils arranged in the right order..”.

Truly that “is Lamentable”

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW -
I am still waiting for you to even attempt that what Simpson was saying was anything along the lines of what you specifically asserted.

I SHOW the detailed facts in Simpson's quote that you "spin and transpose" AND STILL you claim to NOT see the huge GAP I am exposing between Simpsons statements and YOUR pure imagination?

Do you not SEE how your OWN spin is NOT CONTAINED IN the actual EXACT quote with massive context added?

I can't believe your ability to "pretend" goes that far UTEOTW!

Amazing!