Evolutionism's appeal to junk science

[BobRyan]

"Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes, as well as chemical and physical processes."

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

There is no doubt that entropy applies to all systems. But you are talking about something other than thermodynamic entropy. If you are not talking about "a change in the number of accessible energy eigenstates," you are not talking about thermodynamic entropy.

#1. I AM talking about the total decrease in USUABLE energy which results in disorder and decay.

#2. I am talking about "What the 2nd law is ALL about".

Here is "another example" for you..

(Since this bit of "good science" seems so new to you).

Further, you know now that all the chemical catastrophes that hit us are similarly caused because the substances involved in the disaster obey the second law.

Whether forest fire, or Hindenburg explosion, or dangerous corrosion of a car part, blocking of brain patterns by Alzheimer's factors, or bacteria that interfere with a critical feedback system in the body -- these are just examples of concentrated energy spreading out

UTEOTW
And whatever else you may try to confuse us with, whatever other science fiction writer whose analogy you may quote out of context,

Ahhh there is the expected revisionism and misdirection so necessary in junk science. Thanks for showing us that you would prefer to see this PHD in Chemistry and assoc professor of chemistry at the Univ of Boston as "nothing more than a science fiction writer" and that you would "prefer" to revise the statement about a legitimate way to STATE the 2nd law as "just an analogy".

The problem "remains" -- the "massive DECREASE" in entropy that Asimov claimed is NEEDED for molecule to brain evolution - was needed AT ALL LEVELS NOT just at the level of random collisions of atoms.

The "story" that evolutionism tried to tell about molecule-to-brain evolution - fell flat.

UTEOTW Pick a step that is not allowed and tell us. Is it mutations? Is it selection? What specifically is it?

Again your argument is of the sad form "Tells us WHY ASIMOV is correct. Tell us WHERE the MASSIVE DECREASE is needed. If the Atheist Evolutionist Asimov is not fully explained to us - we refuse to believe him or any Christian that understands the point".

Fascinating UTEOTW!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said -- "Asimov (associate professor at Boston University and PHD in Chemistry) describes the fact that we SEE the 2nd law at work all around us. The loss of efficiency (loss of usuable energy) is SEEN in the decay and disorder affecting everything and SPECIFICALLY seen in human biology as Asimov notes."

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Asimov is giving the same flawed analogy

AS I stated from the very start - your argument is of the form "Asimov is wrong".

My point has been from the very start - that you have to deny the integrity and honesty of your OWN Atheist Evolutionist scientists (PHD in Chemistry in this case) to make your appeals to junk science.

My point is that ASIMOV is CORRECT when he says that EVERYTHING wears down -- that the loss in efficience is seen in everything and PARTICULARLY in human biology.

He is correct when he claims that IN THIS way of stating entropy the mythical molecule-to-human-brain fairytale NEEDS a "MASSIVE DECREASE" in entropy to be true -- EVEN though Asimov (in that SAME context) shows us that we are SEEING only INCREASE in entropy exhibited at the LOCAL level in human biological systems.

You have such a huge problem to solve on behalf of junk science. Do you think that further attacks on your own atheist evolutionist will help?

UTEOTW These things used in the analogy are not examples of "a change in the number of accessible energy eigenstates." Therefore they are not entropy. No matter how many times you repeat the analogy will not make it literal.

Hmm. I see.

So let me guess. You would not say "THEY ARE what the 2nd LAW IS ALL ABOUT".. Correct?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"#1. I AM talking about the total decrease in USUABLE energy which results in disorder and decay."

So you do not understand thermo. Loss of useable energy means just that. Energy that was once available to do work is no longer available. Processes are not 100% efficient. This has nothing to do with "disorder and decay."

"#2. I am talking about "What the 2nd law is ALL about"."

Nope. You are talking about a bad analogy that ignores the real statments of thermodynamics that you have been presented with.

"Again your argument is of the sad form "Tells us WHY ASIMOV is correct. Tell us WHERE the MASSIVE DECREASE is needed. If the Atheist Evolutionist Asimov is not fully explained to us - we refuse to believe him or any Christian that understands the point"."

Nope, just pointing out that your problem does not seem to have any consequences.

But, tp play your game, why don't you tell us why Asimov, you supposed expert, is wrong when he tells you that local decreases are allowed and when he tells you why entropy is not a problem. Come on Bob, if you are going to pick and choose which statements of YOUR expert to believe, then you owe us an explanation of why you do so.

 

[UTEOTW]

"AS I stated from the very start - your argument is of the form "Asimov is wrong"."

Nope. He is using a flawed analogy, though. BUt, while we are at it, I guess your excuse is that Asimov is wrong, your expert, when it comes to the part of the statement where he tells you that local decreases are allowed and the entropy is not a problem for evolution.

"So let me guess. You would not say "THEY ARE what the 2nd LAW IS ALL ABOUT".. Correct?"

Correct. They are not examples of "a change in the number of accessible energy eigenstates."

But they are a useful analogy in the proper context. I doubt many people have a clue what an "accessible energy eigenstate" is, but they recognize a messy room.

 

[BobRyan]

"AS I stated from the very start - your argument is of the form "Asimov is wrong"."

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Nope. He is using a flawed analogy, though.

Hmmm - he says "THIS is what the 2nd law is ALL about" You are already quoted as rejecting that.

Biological SYSTEMS driven to DECAY are in fact suffering from the entropy that you deny.

Further, you know now that all the chemical catastrophes that hit us are similarly caused because the substances involved in the disaster obey the second law. Whether forest fire, or Hindenburg explosion, or dangerous corrosion of a car part, blocking of brain patterns by Alzheimer's factors, or bacteria that interfere with a critical feedback system in the body -- these are just examples of concentrated energy spreading out
…

A fractured leg in a ski accident, a spark in the fuel tank of TWA Flight 800, a broken timing gear in a Corvette, a fire in a fraternity house started by a forgotten cigarette, a California freeway collapse in an earthquake, a fall from a horse that results in a broken spine and quadriplegia – all these are examples of activation energies being exceeded, whether in chemical reactions or physical fractures. Together with the thousands of illnesses that can destroy our functioning as whole persons, they constitute "things going wrong" in people's lives.
But activation energies that obstruct undesirable chemical and physical events almost always protect us and our prized objects even from disastrous change that the second law predicts. Bodily feedback systems almost always protect us from bacteria and malfunctionintg human biochemistry.
Almost always.
Shouldn't "Why me?" be our near-constant question of wonder and delight at being alive and being able to move and think and create – in a second law world that favors dispersed energy and inert sand? Knowledge of the second law makes unrealistic the human cry of "Why me?" that is so frequent at times of tragedy. At such times, the only rational response is "Why not me?", even though then it is emotionally quite unacceptable.

Hmm.

This point is left as exercise for the reader.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

BobRyan - if you want to have a local decrease of entropy in your posts to the point that they actually make sense you are going to have to exert more work than you did in that last post . .

 

[The Galatian]

Maybe we can make it simpler. The first directly observed case of macroevolution was reported by DeVries in 1915 in the case of a new species of evening primrose by polyploidy.

Rob (or anyone else) can now explain how this event could not have happened because of the 2nd law, or "entropy."

How about it Rob? What about "entropy" makes this event impossible?

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

You ignored most of the words of your first expert, Asimov, when he told you that local decreases in entropy were allowed and when he told you why entropy does not pose a problem for evolution. And you never bothered to tell us why you find him an expert in the subject but you are unwilling to accept all that he said in his statement that you cut up and present to us. You also, despite all the recitations of the 2LOT from texts on the subject, never seem to have figured out that he was using an analogy and that the things which he was talking of were not really thermodynamic entropy.

Now you post from a new source. Don't worry, I tracked down the URL without you bothering to post it. But I have to ask, did you read the whole site? For that matter, I am not entirely sure that you read the entire section from which you pulled your quotes because I question the applicability.

But, any how, I have a point. If you had read the whole site you would have come across this

http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

The second paragraph of which is

Most disquieting to chemists who are interested in thermodynamics are the misleading statements about the second law and chemistry that creationist spokespeople have made. A few emphases from previous pages in the present Web site and from www.secondlaw.com that bear on this unfortunate situation are developed below. At the end of this page are superior links to presentations of the second law of thermodynamics and its irrelevance to creationists’ arguments against evolution.

I will not bother to quote extensively from the site. I just want to point out, again, that you have oddly picked as your expert someone who does not agree with you. YOu have once again attributed words from someone that you claim supports your position when if you look more completely, you find that they do not, in fact, agree. Actually, in both cases, there are nearby statements to what you pick and choose to present that explicity tell us why your assertion is wrong. Yet you leave this out and pretent that these people support your assertion.

Who is depending on "junk" science?

 

[UTEOTW]

"Engineering Computer Science. (which just means a lot of calculus, chemistry and physics in addition to the normal EE and software courses)"

From my time in engineering school, I have always appreciated those who chose to go the engineering route to get a CS degree rather than Arts & Sciences or even the buisness route (MIS). Compared to the A&S route, you have to take all the computer stuff, but you also have to take the core engineering stuff, too. It is a lot of work.

 

[BobRyan]

It has been pointed out that my post had too much information in it.

Ok --- small bits at a time.

in a second law world that favors dispersed energy and inert sand?

Knowledge of the second law makes unrealistic the human cry of "Why me?" that is so frequent at times of tragedy. At such times, the only rational response is "Why not me?", even though then it is emotionally quite unacceptable.

Does anyone "notice" the bit about the second law world we live in??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[QB] Bob
You ignored most of the words of your first expert, Asimov, when he told you that local decreases in entropy were allowed and when he told you why entropy does not pose a problem for evolution.

That observation is wrong on several counts.

#1. Asimov is an atheist evolutionist NOT a YEC source. So this is a case of AN EVOLUTIONISt saying things that "you" keep insisting "are wrong".

I simply show a level of critical thinking and objectivity in using YOUR side of the isle - that far exceeds anything you have been willing to attempt so far, when I quote Asimov.

But then - "evolutionism" is the weaker position so we don't really expect you to step up to the plate on this one.

#2. I have repeatedly pointed out that Asimov is an atheist and has NO CHOICE but evolutionism.

So when HE says we SEE the entropy INCREASE at the LOCAL LEVEL - the VERY level that we NEEDED to see decrease - he then has to "patch up" his evolutionism story.

The "patch" in this case is to speculate a reason WHY he could have "Hoped" to see "DECREASE" at the local level INSTEAD of the INCREASE that he SAW.

A pathetic argument on his part "GIVEN" what he said that he actually SEES in real life at the local leve, but then evolutionism IS the weak argument here - so we really did not expect better of him. And he is an atheist after all which means "evolutionism no matter WHAT the contradictions" with good science is his only option.

So no surprise here - for anyone using critical thinking, indepenent thought and objectivity to contrast what Asimov says we SEE vs what evolutionism NEEDS us to have seen.

(I keep posting these two points and you keep asking for them to be posted again. You must enjoy them as much as I do).

UTEOTW
And you never bothered to tell us why you find him an expert

That's the part where I mention that he was assoc professor chemistry at Boston Univ and that he held a phd in Chemistry and oh by the way wrote about a dozen science texts.

Your point that he ALSO wrote other texts of science fiction is simply the "standard evolutionist ploy" of misdirecting from the salient "Details" of a given topic when things are not going well for evolutionism.

I don't fault you for it - after all, evolutionism is the weaker argument so you don't really have much of an option for a response in this case.

And as pointed out - Asimov is in the "boat" of ONLY having atheist evolutionism to base his faith on -- and yet he is confronted by the "INCREASE" in entropy at the local level of "human biology" that he says we SEE - vs the much NEEDED "massive DECREASE" in entropy that he claims we "needed to see" for molecule-to-brain stories to be told.

UTEOTW
You also, despite all the recitations of the 2LOT from texts on the subject, never seem to have figured out that he was using an analogy

I 'see' why "you need" to say that Asimov "is wrong" and that the INCREASED entropy that he said we "SEE IN everything" EVEN human biological systems is "WHAT the 2nd law is ALL about" is --- wrong.

I don't envy you the corner that places evolutionism in - but as I said, you have to come to expect that since in fact evolutionism is the weaker argument. You should be getting used to those problems by now - problems coming from your OWN evolutionist camp.

You know -- like the one that Richard Dawkings presented you on the claims of evolutionism.

UTEOTW --
Now you post from a new source. Don't worry, I tracked down the URL without you bothering to post it.

And of course it TOO was NOT a YEC source!!

Oops! There I did it "AGAIN"! I used an ATHEIST evolutionist SOURCE - and found that our entire WORLD is a "2nd law world" that is driven to disorder and "SAND" by the 2nd law on an "Every day basis".

So what is the "evolutionists" response to that "problem"? - It is "yes but... it is an EVOLUTIONIST site".

UTEOTW --
I just want to point out, again, that you have oddly picked as your expert someone who does not agree with you.

Ya think?

(I think we all get that part.)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
It has been pointed out that my post had too much information in it.

Ok --- small bits at a time.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> in a second law world that favors dispersed energy and inert sand?

Knowledge of the second law makes unrealistic the human cry of "Why me?" that is so frequent at times of tragedy. At such times, the only rational response is "Why not me?", even though then it is emotionally quite unacceptable.

Does anyone "notice" the bit about the second law world we live in??

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Then maybe you can tell us how this supports you, since you cut it up into small bits assumingly so that we can all understand it.

The whole purpose of the page you were quoting from was to point out how energy tends to disperse. Sand is inert because there is not a lower energy state for it to go to.

 

[UTEOTW]

"That observation is wrong on several counts.

#1. Asimov is an atheist evolutionist NOT a YEC source. So this is a case of AN EVOLUTIONISt saying things that "you" keep insisting "are wrong".

I simply show a level of critical thinking and objectivity in using YOUR side of the isle - that far exceeds anything you have been willing to attempt so far, when I quote Asimov."

No, I am not saying he is wrong. I am saying that he is using the same analogy that just about every other person uses when trying to explain entropy. What he is talking about is not true thermodynamic entropy, but it is a useful analogy in the proper context.

I am saying you are misrepresenting what he says by ignoring the part of the quote where he tells you that local decreases are possible and cutting out the part where he tells you specifically why entropy is not a problem.

"#2. I have repeatedly pointed out that Asimov is an atheist and has NO CHOICE but evolutionism.

So when HE says we SEE the entropy INCREASE at the LOCAL LEVEL - the VERY level that we NEEDED to see decrease - he then has to "patch up" his evolutionism story. "

Come now, let's be honest here. Do you really think that if he thought that entropy in any system could only increase, and he thought that this posed any real problem for evolution, that he would have phrased things in the manner he did? No. He was expressing the universal trend towards increased entropy and pointing out that local decreases are possible.

You quoted me as saying "And you never bothered to tell us why you find him an expert " and then added "That's the part where I mention that he was assoc professor chemistry at Boston Univ and that he held a phd in Chemistry and oh by the way wrote about a dozen science texts."

Now you are misquoting me. I said several pages ago that I knew that Asimov was also a chemist, so I was not discounting that. But my actual statement was "And you never bothered to tell us why you find him an expert in the subject but you are unwilling to accept all that he said in his statement that you cut up and present to us." This was to point out that you are using him as an expert but discounting most of what he said without providing us a factual reason why you find it necessary to do so. You seem to think that pointing out that he was an evolutionists and therefore must discount such things is sufficient. Not by a longshot. If you want to assert he was wrong, then present the proofs of why.

"I 'see' why "you need" to say that Asimov "is wrong" and that the INCREASED entropy that he said we "SEE IN everything" EVEN human biological systems is "WHAT the 2nd law is ALL about" is --- wrong."

Not in any corner. Any reader should be able to see at this point that what you are saying about the second law has absolutely nothing to do with what thermodynamics itself has to say about the second law. Your best, and I use that term loosely, is that his analogy should be taken literally despite its clear contradictions with the real 2LOT and that we must dismiss two-thirds of what he had to say on the matter because you do not like it.

"You know -- like the one that Richard Dawkings presented you on the claims of evolutionism."

About that quote. The last time you posted that quote, I turned it around on you to show how that expert of your choosing disagreed with you on the claims you make about abiogenesis. You have not reused the quote then even though you usually like tothrow it out every fourth or fifth post.

 

[UTEOTW]

And of course it TOO was NOT a YEC source!!

Oops! There I did it "AGAIN"! I used an ATHEIST evolutionist SOURCE - and found that our entire WORLD is a "2nd law world" that is driven to disorder and "SAND" by the 2nd law on an "Every day basis".

So what is the "evolutionists" response to that "problem"? - It is "yes but... it is an EVOLUTIONIST site".

You failed to address the best part of my earlier post. Let's look at it again.

But, any how, I have a point. If you had read the whole site you would have come across this

http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

The second paragraph of which is

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Most disquieting to chemists who are interested in thermodynamics are the misleading statements about the second law and chemistry that creationist spokespeople have made. A few emphases from previous pages in the present Web site and from www.secondlaw.com that bear on this unfortunate situation are developed below. At the end of this page are superior links to presentations of the second law of thermodynamics and its irrelevance to creationists’ arguments against evolution.

I will not bother to quote extensively from the site. I just want to point out, again, that you have oddly picked as your expert someone who does not agree with you. YOu have once again attributed words from someone that you claim supports your position when if you look more completely, you find that they do not, in fact, agree. Actually, in both cases, there are nearby statements to what you pick and choose to present that explicity tell us why your assertion is wrong. Yet you leave this out and pretent that these people support your assertion.

Who is depending on "junk" science?</font>[/QUOTE]The page you copied from has a section explicitly telling why the 2LOT is not only not a valid argument against evolution, but is actually a driving force towards evolution.

In fact, I think we have been down this raod before where I was forced to point out that a paper actually said that entropy was a driving force towards evolution. Maybe I'll have to look for that again some day.

 

[UTEOTW]

I get the feeling that you go down this useless entropy reasoning in this thread to either distract from all the actual examples of lying and misrepresentation done by the YEC leadership or in order to make the thread so long that no one will find them.

 

[The Galatian]

Perhaps it would be useful for Bob to post exactly what Asimov said, in context.

Then we could all see for ourselves.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Gina L:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So it's now up to me to decide who's right and who has the hidden agenda.

What's the hidden agenda, and who has it?
Gina </font>[/QUOTE]The hidden agenda of evolution in the science community is simple, it is to drive out of the minds of those in the secular scientific communities, drive out of the minds of our children from grammar school to college, the thinking of any concept of Divine special creation as the Bible reveals to us though the Bible. The success of this so far is why science has long enjoyed a universal success in the secular world; unless you reject Creation and embrace evolution, you’re mocked at and will never gain any recognition in the secular community nor matter what your qualifications or experience level is.

My wife, a committed Christian was told by an organic chemistry professor that unless she unconnected herself with the belief of any special creation and embraced evolution as fact she would not get a recommendation into Dental school from him or anyone else. Imagine, my wife who busted her butt studying and doing very well in organic chemistry (which on a university level, is very tough), only to find out that her dreams was in jeopardy, b/c of some liberal atheistic professor with an ego problem, wanting to play God and force his will upon her for the sole satisfaction of hearing her confess an alliance to his religion of evolution.

Consider Darwin, all the formative influence on his thinking was contrary to the Christian faith. He stated his unbelief in God in his Autobiography very bluntly; even his close associates have given up on their faith and were enemies of those who were creationists. T.H. Huxley an anatomist and close friend of Darwin wrote that he was, sharpening his claws ready to disembowel any clergymen who criticized Darwin’s Origin of Species.

 

[Charles Meadows]

John 6:63.

Your last post sounds a little paranoid. Yes there are people like that in the sciences - but they do not constitute the majority. Most evolutionist scientists are simply lost people who have no other way to see the world. Many ARE contemptuous of creationists because they perceive them to be intellectually dishonest - making up suspect theories because they are afraid to face the facts.

The main point I've been trying to make with Bob and Gup has been that if we choose to believe the bible literally we shouldn't feel like we need proof. Is it not God's word? I would assert however that at this time the weight of our scientific evidence favors an old earth. As such I believe in being honest with students. Sharp young students with analytical minds WILL see through the creationist science, which is full of holes. And if this occurs they may end up seeing the evolutionist professor as the one who was honest!

 

[The Galatian]

The hidden agenda of evolution in the science community is simple,

Indeed, it is nonexistant. My first course in evolution was from the Zoology department head, who was on the board of trustees for the Episcopalian church. The religious diversity of scientists in the schools I've attended and taught in, is very great. There is no great science conspiracy against religion. Most of us are theists.

it is to drive out of the minds of those in the secular scientific communities, drive out of the minds of our children from grammar school to college, the thinking of any concept of Divine special creation as the Bible reveals to us though the Bible.

Nope. In fact, I happen to live near a scientist who is a conservative Southern Baptist, and he accepts evolution.

The success of this so far is why science has long enjoyed a universal success in the secular world;

And here I was thinking that it was successful, because it was so good at helping us understand the world and spawned all that useful technology. I guess I just haven't been properly indoctrinated to see the "truth."

unless you reject Creation and embrace evolution, you’re mocked at and will never gain any recognition in the secular community nor matter what your qualifications or experience level is.

My professor for medical microbiology was a creationist, and a tenured PhD. No one seemed to abuse him, or mock him. I was surprised once when I learned one of the undergraduates didn't like him because he was a creationist. I had never seen anyone else even consider it worth mentioning.

My wife, a committed Christian was told by an organic chemistry professor that unless she unconnected herself with the belief of any special creation and embraced evolution as fact she would not get a recommendation into Dental school from him or anyone else.

He was wrong, of course. In fact, when that happens, it's usually newsworthy. Normally, one's professors aren't even aware of one's religious orientation.

Consider Darwin, all the formative influence on his thinking was contrary to the Christian faith. He stated his unbelief in God in his Autobiography very bluntly;

You've been lied to. He once suggested that he was leaning toward agnosticism. Never denied God, although late in life, he questioned his belief in God.

even his close associates have given up on their faith and were enemies of those who were creationists. T.H. Huxley an anatomist and close friend of Darwin wrote that he was, sharpening his claws ready to disembowel any clergymen who criticized Darwin’s Origin of Species.

He didn't say anything about disembowling clergymen. That, you made up.

"And as to the curs which will bark and yelp — you must recollect that some of your friends at any rate are endowed with an amount of combativeness which (though you have often & justly rebuked it) may stand you in good stead — ...I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness."
http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0504almanac.htm

Huxley was an agnostic. In fact, he coined the word. He freely admitted that he could be wrong.

In fact, Huxley asserted that agnosticism was the only honorable position for unbelievers, since one could never be sure there was nothing to religion.

 

[UTEOTW]

There were some examples of quote mining that came up on one of the other threads. I thought that they were such great examples of YEC "junk" that I am going to continue the quote mining theme here using some of them.

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

The preeminent evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson believed that horses evolved. But, he was honest enough to admit that the “Horse Series” drawn up a couple of decades earlier, and propagated to this day in textbooks, was a fraud.

“The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.” Life of the Past, 1953, p. 119. [Emphasis added - ed.]

Simpson was not saying that there was a problem with the horse sequence. He was arguing against an outdated idea call orthogenesis. This simply said that evolution proceeded in a straight line. A evolves directly to B without any side branches or intermediates. He was attempting to show that this idea was wrong by showing how jerky the horse series was. It was "uniform, continuous transformation" that he was arguing against.

Let's give the quote in 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)

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

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