Bob
THis gets silly when you continue to post the same things over and over. Even more disturbing is that you post the quotes multiple times after the dishonesty of them has been pointed out to you. You post them once, shame on whoever you are quoting from. But this...
It does give me one more opportunity to expose YE for its "junk" science.
Let's just go through them briefly, full responses are elsewhere.
George Gaylord Simpson: He is not saying the horse sequence is a fraud. There was once an idea called orthogenesis that said that evolution proceeds in a straight, continuous, steady line. He was pointing out that this is not what we actually see in nature and was using the horse series as an example. Look at the date there, 1953. This was a change going on as data was collected. Many of the early people believed that gradualism and orthogenesis was the only way when in reality they are the exception rather than the rule. SO he was pointing out the the series was jerky. Sometimes it goes in one direction, sometimes in another. It is not a straight line, there are all sorts of side branches. The tree is bushy. The parts of the quote you excised contained all sorts of details on different intermediates. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/12.html#000169
Dr. David M. Raup: This is again a discusion of how the horse sequence, and most sequences since he was speaking generally and not specifically, is bushy and jerky. The horse sequence is given as an example of where the gradaulistic ideas of the early part of the last century had to be modified as more data came in and a better picture emerged.
Boyce Rensberger: This is the work of a journalist, not a scientist to begin with. So to begin with you are committing the fallacy of an appeal to authority. Second, this is lifted way out of context. This is again an example used by a wwriter to show the change in thought from simple gradual evolution to bushy jerky evolution once we got more data. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/12.html#000168
Dr. Stephen J. Gould: Gould is famously critical of YEers for just this sort of thing. He was a proponent of puncuated equilibrium. So there are quite a few quotes from him that on the surface appear to be highly critical of Dawinism when in fact he is just setting up to show PE. Furthermore, most of these juicy quotes come not from actual papers, but from his works of entertainment. Such misquoting lead him to say ""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." Since you have been shown this each time you misquote Gould, that eliminates the stupidity option so it must be that you "design" to be dishonest.
George Gaylord Simpson: 1944! Can you get quotes from the last 50 years at least!? This is againg making the same mistake as with Gould. The fossil record is spotty to begin with. Plus most change takes place in small, isolated groups over geologically short periods of time. So you do not have a rich fossil record to deal with. But with what we have, we do have numerous examples of transitional series at each level. We have found a few things in the last 60 years to fill in the gaps he saw.
Dr. Colin Patterson: Dr. Patterson was only pointing out that when looking at a particular specimen, you can never be 100% certain of whether is was on the direct line between two other animals or whether it was a side branch. He was not saying that we have no transitionals. For info on what he thought of this and said see http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/12.html#000165
Now we have seen, again, that YEers have no ability to quote accurately. Oh they generally get most of the words right, But without the context, they present them in a way to make them appear to say something completely different. Unfortunately, we are also seeing that they have no problems repeating the flawed quotes, even after they have been exposed as dishonest.
THis gets silly when you continue to post the same things over and over. Even more disturbing is that you post the quotes multiple times after the dishonesty of them has been pointed out to you. You post them once, shame on whoever you are quoting from. But this...
It does give me one more opportunity to expose YE for its "junk" science.
Let's just go through them briefly, full responses are elsewhere.
George Gaylord Simpson: He is not saying the horse sequence is a fraud. There was once an idea called orthogenesis that said that evolution proceeds in a straight, continuous, steady line. He was pointing out that this is not what we actually see in nature and was using the horse series as an example. Look at the date there, 1953. This was a change going on as data was collected. Many of the early people believed that gradualism and orthogenesis was the only way when in reality they are the exception rather than the rule. SO he was pointing out the the series was jerky. Sometimes it goes in one direction, sometimes in another. It is not a straight line, there are all sorts of side branches. The tree is bushy. The parts of the quote you excised contained all sorts of details on different intermediates. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/12.html#000169
Dr. David M. Raup: This is again a discusion of how the horse sequence, and most sequences since he was speaking generally and not specifically, is bushy and jerky. The horse sequence is given as an example of where the gradaulistic ideas of the early part of the last century had to be modified as more data came in and a better picture emerged.
Boyce Rensberger: This is the work of a journalist, not a scientist to begin with. So to begin with you are committing the fallacy of an appeal to authority. Second, this is lifted way out of context. This is again an example used by a wwriter to show the change in thought from simple gradual evolution to bushy jerky evolution once we got more data. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/12.html#000168
Dr. Stephen J. Gould: Gould is famously critical of YEers for just this sort of thing. He was a proponent of puncuated equilibrium. So there are quite a few quotes from him that on the surface appear to be highly critical of Dawinism when in fact he is just setting up to show PE. Furthermore, most of these juicy quotes come not from actual papers, but from his works of entertainment. Such misquoting lead him to say ""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." Since you have been shown this each time you misquote Gould, that eliminates the stupidity option so it must be that you "design" to be dishonest.
George Gaylord Simpson: 1944! Can you get quotes from the last 50 years at least!? This is againg making the same mistake as with Gould. The fossil record is spotty to begin with. Plus most change takes place in small, isolated groups over geologically short periods of time. So you do not have a rich fossil record to deal with. But with what we have, we do have numerous examples of transitional series at each level. We have found a few things in the last 60 years to fill in the gaps he saw.
Dr. Colin Patterson: Dr. Patterson was only pointing out that when looking at a particular specimen, you can never be 100% certain of whether is was on the direct line between two other animals or whether it was a side branch. He was not saying that we have no transitionals. For info on what he thought of this and said see http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/12.html#000165
Now we have seen, again, that YEers have no ability to quote accurately. Oh they generally get most of the words right, But without the context, they present them in a way to make them appear to say something completely different. Unfortunately, we are also seeing that they have no problems repeating the flawed quotes, even after they have been exposed as dishonest.