Post Mortem on the debunked horse series

[UTEOTW]

"Others have questioned inclusion of Hyracotherium in this grouping
In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse”.
G. A. Kerkut, Implications of evolution, 1960, pg 149.
Matthew has shown and insisted that Hyracotherium (including Eohippus) is so primative that it is not much more definitely equid than tapir, rhinocerotid, etc, but it is customary to place it at the root of the equid group.
G.G. Simpson, as quoted by Kerkut in Implications of evolution
H. Nilsson maintains that while Hyracotherium does not resemble present-day horses in any way, they were remarkably similar to the present-day Hyrax."

You don't find it the leat bit important to address responses to your posts before you simply repeat the same things again, do you?

And always without any supporting references.

To review, first you say that Hyracotherium cannot be a horse ancestor because it is a rhino ancestor. (Ignoring that the two are not mutualy exclusive and that in fact the fossil record suggest that both are true. With genetics to back it up.) Then you say that it cannot be a horse ancestor because it is a hyrax.

Can you please make up your mind! YOu cannot just take a bunch of mutually exclusive speghetti, throw it on a wall and hope something sticks.

Use of mitochondrial DNA sequences to test the Ceratomorpha (Perissodactyla:Mammalia) hypothesis, C. Pitra and J. Veits, Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research, Volume 38 Issue 2 Page 65 - June 2000., or something very, very closely related (likely different species of that genera) really is the ancestor of both horses and rhinos and tapirs.

["Use of mitochondrial DNA sequences to test the Ceratomorpha (Perissodactyla:Mammalia) hypothesis", C. Pitra and J. Veits, Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research, Volume 38 Issue 2 Page 65 - June 2000.]

And a hyrax is nothing like Hyracotherium. Here are their skulls.

Again.

Hyracotherium

Hyrax

""The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."—H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195."

Nice try. But not in your favor.

You must be more specific and tell us wheret he impossible transitions alledgedly are.

The "slender face" and "diastema" gradually changed as a result of the teeth geting larger and deeper in the transition from a browsing to grinding animal.

I am not sure where the impossible loss of the canines is said to have occurred nor why the loss of these teeth is impossible.

The "arched back" was part of the gradual change to a galloping animal. Many parts of the proto horses became less flexible and/or fused.

""Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31."

This is the same claim as addressed above with the skulls which look nothing alike.

"Daman" is another name for "Hyrax."

As we can see by the images of the skulls, these are nothing alike.

In addition, you are not contradicting yourself by claiming that both Hyracotherium and Eohippus are a hyrax.

Make up your mind.

 

[UTEOTW]

So now we see why Bob has avoided any committemnt to facts for so long. He gets destroyed when he actually commits to something concrete.

Yes, Bob knows this. He is much happier to hide behind his quotes. It does not matter to him that his revisionist interpretation of the quotes does not agree with what the authors were trying to say. At least with his quotes, he can pretend that they meant something else than what they did. He can pretend that there is some deep admissions there when he slices and dices the quotes without restraint. He can even ignore the fact that most people see right through his facade. It sounds good in his mind and he has no shame about lying about what people were trying to convey.

Now he never will try and provide evidence that he isn't really changing the meaning. And he certainly will never go looking for any facts that support his alternative reinterpretation of quotes. Nope, he is content to lie to us and ignore where this is pointed out.

But let's look at what happenes when he instead commits to facts.

He told us that that "the modern Equus and Hyracotherium co-existed at the same time, since they are often found together in the same rock layers." Now he cannot tell us who found them together nor where they found them nor when they found them nor where they published their reports. But this has not stopped him from repeating the claim.

He told us that the change from three toed to oe toed is "is completely absent in the fossil record." Never mind that I provided a list of such animals that show the transition.

He told us about anomolies in the number of pairs of ribs. Never mind that the only two specific fossils he mentioned were at the beginnig and end and had the same numbers of pairs of ribs. We don't know which ones supposedly varied nor why it is a problem for them to have varied up or down a pair or two.

He told us that there were no transitionals shwing the change from browsing teeth to grazing teeth. Never mind the long list of such changes I provided.

He told us that horses could not have come from Hyracotherium because rhinos did. Never mind that the fossil record actually shows both to be true and that genetic testing confirms it.

He then, in the same paragraph, switched gears and instead told us that Hyracotherium could not be a proto horse because it was really a hyrax (or rock rabbit). Never mind the posting of the skulls of each which no one would confuse. He even repeated these for us.

No, the facts are not good for Bob at all.

I can safely predict that in his next flurry of posts that Bob will go back to his delusional safe harbor of quote mining. But he will not provide any support that his creative reinterpretation of the quotes has any basis in fact. At the very least, he may recycle the same "facts" without ever addresing what was found to be wrong with them.

Must be so hard to sleep at night for YEers reduced to peddling this nonsense.

 

[BobRyan]

So far we see UTEOTW trying derail this thread in page after page - albeit unsuccessfully!

The point of the OP remains unchallenged. The fossil sequence that Marsh ARRANGED was NEVER found AS such a sequence In the fossil record. Marsh's practice of ARRANGING what was not FOUND as an actual sequence has not been challenged by DarwinistS -- rather they "embrace" the fraudulent practice "to this day".

This was page one, post one sentence one and still UTEOTW struggles with the concept.

How can you promote such failure as if blunders of that nature are "compelling arguments"??

Why do that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW said
He told us that horses could not have come from Hyracotherium because rhinos did.

Once again UTEOTW 'quotes himself' in his never ending efforts at "revisionism".

UTEOTW magnifies his own revisionism by saying ath my refusal to go along with "every derailing twist and turn" UTEOTW invents for this thread is because "I can not find sources" for my views. (How absurd!!)

How sad that darwinist evolutionists must constantly resort to such fraudulent tactics.

Is there not one point of actual integrity for UTEOTW to stand on in this thread??

Surely you can do better!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Petrel:
There's the additional hitch that rib numbers are not always constant in a species. Most people have 12 pairs, but some people have one pair more or less.

There are NO cases of species adding then subtracting then adding as an entire group. So you simply "imagine" it as "needed".

This is the fraudulent work of Marsh as he "imagines the fossil sequence" that he did not FIND AS A SEQUENCE in the fossil record!!

Page one, post one, sentence one still going unanswered.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86 (May 1977): p. 14. [Emphasis added - ed.]

Here the “methods” of our atheist Darwinist opponents are exposed. It is “shown” that they do not simply “report the sequences they have in the fossil record” rather they rely heavenly on “inference” to imagine transitions that don’t appear “in the fossil record” – worse yet they “arrange fossils in an order to fit the current story-telling and to suggest they have discovered something”

Smooth intermediates between Baupläne [the German word meaning basic morphological designs or different types of creatures—BH/BT] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments. There is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)” [Gould and Eldredge, 1977, 3:147, parenthetical comment in orig.].

“Just so” stories “easy enough to tell” euphemistically called “thought experiments”. Marsh graphically illustrated his “thought experiment” when he “arranged fossils” in an order to suggest there was validity to the “story Darwinists were telling about natural selection and smooth transitional change. The resulting “artifact” (pseudo-fact) was so compelling that atheist Darwinism finally gained credibility “as if “ Marsh had actually discovered a sequence IN the fossil record that in fact he merely “arranged

But this “practice” of “arranging the evidence to FIT the current story’ is not limited to Marsh or to horse evolution. We find the fraudulent practice is “S.O.P.” for atheist Darwinian “stories” – l

So what is the truth about Archaeopteryx? Perhaps the late Colin Patterson, while serving as senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that Archaeopteryx has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no:

There is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).

The atheist Darwinian “pseudoscience” industry is so rife with this problem of simply telling stories. That Patterson comes out with the previous lament about “stories easy enough to tell but they are not science”

Simpson points to the claims about “origin” of “EVERY ORDER of mammal “ (and it can be confidently asserted that many Darwinists consider the horse to be a mammal) as being “speculative and much disputed”

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

Lets take the current practics of claiming that the ancient Hyrax (Hyracotherium) is the acnestor of horses.

Others have questioned inclusion of Hyracotherium in this grouping
In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse”.
G. A. Kerkut, Implications of evolution, 1960, pg 149.
Matthew has shown and insisted that Hyracotherium (including Eohippus) is so primative that it is not much more definitely equid than tapir, rhinocerotid, etc, but it is customary to place it at the root of the equid group.
G.G. Simpson, as quoted by Kerkut in Implications of evolution
H. Nilsson maintains that while Hyracotherium does not resemble present-day horses in any way, they were remarkably similar to the present-day Hyrax.

- Calling a badger a horse. The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern hyrax, or rock badger Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts who cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse. (The hyrax foot looks like a hoof, because it is a suction cup so the little animal can walk right up vertical trees! Horses do not have suction cups on their feet!)

"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."—H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.

"Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[BobRyan]

As long as our darwinist evolutionists have no answer for these points - I get to post them waiting for at least one response.

SHOW that the fraudulent methods used to create Marsh's debunked horse series are not still being used.

 

[UTEOTW]

The hilarity continues.

"So far we see UTEOTW trying derail this thread in page after page - albeit unsuccessfully!

The point of the OP remains unchallenged. The fossil sequence that Marsh ARRANGED was NEVER found AS such a sequence In the fossil record. Marsh's practice of ARRANGING what was not FOUND as an actual sequence has not been challenged by DarwinistS -- rather they "embrace" the fraudulent practice "to this day"."

YOu have yet to show where any thing about the order in which he arranged the fossils was even wrong, much less fraudulent.

How I am supposed to respond to a problem which has not been shown to exist?

I said "He told us that horses could not have come from Hyracotherium because rhinos did."

Bob responded "Once again UTEOTW 'quotes himself' in his never ending efforts at "revisionism"."

Do you not even understand your own posts? (Would not be surprising since no one else can figure out what you're getting at.)

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/131/12.html#000173

Matthew has shown and insisted that Hyracotherium (including Eohippus) is so primative that it is not much more definitely equid than tapir, rhinocerotid, etc, but it is customary to place it at the root of the equid group.

"There are NO cases of species adding then subtracting then adding as an entire group. So you simply "imagine" it as "needed"."

Do you try and see how many fallacies you can get in?

The change would not happen in every member at once. It would happen in one member and spread.

And you still did not give us any burden that could not be easily overcome to adding or substracting a pair of ribs.

"he extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

DO you even know what he was trying to say?

Maybe another picture is worth a thousand words. (I had hoped that the skulls would make you stop saying that Hyracotherium was a rock rabbit.)

http://net.unl.edu/artsFeat/wildhorses/wh_origin/wh_origin2.html

Go look at the tree. You mainly get the tips of the tree. YOu have to fill the branches in.

"Smooth intermediates between Baupläne [the German word meaning basic morphological designs or different types of creatures—BH/BT] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments. There is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)”"

Blah blah blah. IS quoting out of context all that you know how to do.

Smooth transitions are rare. Remember your Simpson quote about how the continuous orthogenetic horse transition never existed? Rmember what he did say existed in your other quote? "Continuous phyletic" evolution!

This is the subject of the quote. Orthogenetic change is rarely seen. Most change is phyletic. Which should be obvious since you are quoting from an advocate of punctuated equilibrium talking about PE.

"So what is the truth about Archaeopteryx? Perhaps the late Colin Patterson, while serving as senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that Archaeopteryx has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no:

There is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102)."

Back to the tree. YOu get the tips mainly. Patterson is saying that when looking at a specific fossil, you can never tell for sure whether it is the actual ancestor or a closely related side branch. That's all.

 

[UTEOTW]

More hilarity!

"As long as our darwinist evolutionists have no answer for these points - I get to post them waiting for at least one response."

Did you fail to read this page before you started posting?

"Matthew has shown and insisted that Hyracotherium (including Eohippus) is so primative that it is not much more definitely equid than tapir, rhinocerotid, etc, but it is customary to place it at the root of the equid group. "

That is exactly right. IT is not a problem for me but for you!

Horses, tapirs and rhinos all have the same ancestor according to the fossil record. And genetics has confirmed the link. My, how you continue to ignore this bit and just repeat the same nonsense.

I'll bold it for you this time.

["Use of mitochondrial DNA sequences to test the Ceratomorpha (Perissodactyla:Mammalia) hypothesis", C. Pitra and J. Veits, Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research, Volume 38 Issue 2 Page 65 - June 2000.]

"H. Nilsson maintains that while Hyracotherium does not resemble present-day horses in any way, they were remarkably similar to the present-day Hyrax. "

and

"Calling a badger a horse. The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern hyrax, or rock badger Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts who cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse. (The hyrax foot looks like a hoof, because it is a suction cup so the little animal can walk right up vertical trees! Horses do not have suction cups on their feet!)"

Let's look at the skulls. Again!

Hyracotherium

Hyrax

These anything like the same thing to you?

 

[UTEOTW]

"As long as our darwinist evolutionists have no answer for these points - I get to post them waiting for at least one response."

Apparently you ignore responses.

""The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."—H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195."

Nice try. But not in your favor.

You must be more specific and tell us wheret he impossible transitions alledgedly are.

The "slender face" and "diastema" gradually changed as a result of the teeth geting larger and deeper in the transition from a browsing to grinding animal.

I am not sure where the impossible loss of the canines is said to have occurred nor why the loss of these teeth is impossible.

The "arched back" was part of the gradual change to a galloping animal. Many parts of the proto horses became less flexible and/or fused.

""Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31."

This is the same claim as addressed above with the skulls which look nothing alike.

"Daman" is another name for "Hyrax."

As we can see by the images of the skulls, these are nothing alike.

In addition, you are not contradicting yourself by claiming that both Hyracotherium and Eohippus are a hyrax.

Make up your mind.

 

[UTEOTW]

How about a few more of your assertion to which you have ignored the responses?

"Imaginary, not real. The sequence from small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three."

Completely false. For this transition see

Merychippus primus
M. sejunctus
M. isonesus
M. intermontanus
M. stylodontus
M. carrizoensis
Dinohippus spectans
D. interpolatus
D. leidyanus

Once again a YEer has claimed that something never existed which is well known to have existed.

 

[UTEOTW]

Thanks! Can I do another?

" No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types of teeth between these two basic types. of teeth between these two basic types."

There seems to be a pattern developing.

Hyracotherium had very generalized browsing teeth. It had 3 incisors, 1 canine, 4 distinct premolars and 3 molars used in grinding foos which had cusps which were slightly connected with low crests.

In Orohippus, the last premolar had turned into a molar and the crests were more pronounced indicating a change to tougher plant material in its diet.

In Epihippus another premolar had become a molar which gave it 5 teeth for grinding.

Next, in Mesohippus, yet another premolar had become a molar giving it 6 grinding teeth. The shape of the molars was still much like that of Orohippus with slightly more raised crests than Hyracotherium.

In Miohippus, an extra crest began to appear. This would become a defining trait of horse teeth.

In Parahippus we saw a change in the cusps of the teeth, a series of stronger crests for grinding and taller tooth crowns.

In Merychippus, we see the teeth become very high crowned and a continuation of the grazing crests that we saw devloping in Parahippus.

We could continue but your assertion has been shown to be completely baseless.

Again.

 

[UTEOTW]

And finally...

You told us that "the modern Equus and Hyracotherium co-existed at the same time, since they are often found together in the same rock layers."

Do you ever plan to tell us who found them together, where they found them, when they found them and where they reported their find?

Never is the answer I'd bet.

Another of Bob's "facts" made up from whole cloth.

Like all of YEism.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86 (May 1977): p. 14. [Emphasis added - ed.]

Here the “methods” of our atheist Darwinist opponents are exposed. It is “shown” that they do not simply “report the sequences they have in the fossil record” rather they rely heavenly on “inference” to imagine transitions that don’t appear “in the fossil record” – worse yet they “arrange fossils in an order to fit the current story-telling and to suggest they have discovered something”
</font>[/QUOTE]Response from UTEOTW: glossed over details: dead silence

Bob posted
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Smooth intermediates between Baupläne [the German word meaning basic morphological designs or different types of creatures—BH/BT] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments. There is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)” [Gould and Eldredge, 1977, 3:147, parenthetical comment in orig.].

“Just so” stories “easy enough to tell” euphemistically called “thought experiments”. Marsh graphically illustrated his “thought experiment” when he “arranged fossils” in an order to suggest there was validity to the “story Darwinists were telling about natural selection and smooth transitional change. The resulting “artifact” (pseudo-fact) was so compelling that atheist Darwinism finally gained credibility “as if “ Marsh had actually discovered a sequence IN the fossil record that in fact he merely “arranged
</font>[/QUOTE]Response from UTEOTW: glossed over details: dead silence

Bob posted
But this “practice” of “arranging the evidence to FIT the current story’ is not limited to Marsh or to horse evolution. We find the fraudulent practice is “S.O.P.” for atheist Darwinian “stories” – l

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So what is the truth about Archaeopteryx? Perhaps the late Colin Patterson, while serving as senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that Archaeopteryx has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no:

There is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).

The atheist Darwinian “pseudoscience” industry is so rife with this problem of simply telling stories. That Patterson comes out with the previous lament about “stories easy enough to tell but they are not science”

</font>[/QUOTE]Response from UTEOTW: glossed over details: dead silence

Bob Posted -
Simpson points to the claims about “origin” of “EVERY ORDER of mammal “ (and it can be confidently asserted that many Darwinists consider the horse to be a mammal) as being “speculative and much disputed”

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

</font>[/QUOTE]Response from UTEOTW: glossed over details: dead silence

Bob posted
Lets take the current practics of claiming that the ancient Hyrax (Hyracotherium) is the acnestor of horses.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Others have questioned inclusion of Hyracotherium in this grouping
In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse”.
G. A. Kerkut, Implications of evolution, 1960, pg 149.
Matthew has shown and insisted that Hyracotherium (including Eohippus) is so primative that it is not much more definitely equid than tapir, rhinocerotid, etc, but it is customary to place it at the root of the equid group.
G.G. Simpson, as quoted by Kerkut in Implications of evolution
H. Nilsson maintains that while Hyracotherium does not resemble present-day horses in any way, they were remarkably similar to the present-day Hyrax.

- Calling a badger a horse. The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern hyrax, or rock badger Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts who cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse. (The hyrax foot looks like a hoof, because it is a suction cup so the little animal can walk right up vertical trees! Horses do not have suction cups on their feet!)

"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."—H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.

</font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]Response from UTEOTW: glossed over details: dead silence on the majority of authors quoted - to be fair UTEOTW did whine that he "saw" a quote from a scientist that was also a dirty rotten Bible Believing Christians so "of course" we can not believe "anything they say".

But the point remains - a number of authors all serve to "illustrate" the problem that Simpson already identified with the fraudulent practices and claims of evolutionists. Simpson is right when he said "the origin of the order is speculative"[/b]

Patterson is right when he calls these "just so stories" -- "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science".

But this point IN THE CONTEXT of this thread is simply to point to the SAME practice of story telling in general as Marsh was practicing. Something even UTEOTW admits to while falling on is sword defending the debunked horse series and while "denying that there is air".

Bob posted
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.

</font>[/QUOTE][/QB][/QUOTE]Response from UTEOTW: glossed over details: dead silence

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
And finally...

You told us that "the modern Equus and Hyracotherium co-existed at the same time, since they are often found together in the same rock layers."

Do you ever plan to tell us who found them together, where they found them, when they found them and where they reported their find?

I already answered that. The context of this thread is the AGREED points between Bible believing Christian scientists and atheist darwinists. I was merely illustrating the truth of Simpsons charge that the fraudulent practices of evolutionists begins with the speculative nature of their claims for origins of any of the 32 primary mammal sequences.

I agree that ANOTHER THREAD would likely want to pursue the general points of "DIFFERENCES" between Bible believing Christian scientists and atheist darwinians ( a place you seem to want to go without ceasing on this thread as we all notice)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[UTEOTW]

Oh Bob,

YOu will never answer factually will you.

I gave you facts and pictures and links to support my assertions above. You blow them off by saying that I glossed over the details.

Horse feathers!

I gave detailed responses which you have ignored.

You want to keep posting that junk, address what I have said.

But right now you are just spitting in the wind.

Come back when you have something factual.

Come back when you learn to address the things that have been posted in response to your claims.

Come back when you develop a less grating posting style that can actually be followed.

Come back when you learn how to quote for context.

In the mean time, good bye.

 

[The Galatian]

Dr. Eldredge [curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City] called the textbook characterization of the horse series ‘lamentable.’

Yeah, early books treated horse evolution like a ladder. The American museum, on the other hand, shows that it's really a bush, with a number of different lines that separated, only one of which survives today.

And now for the "clever deception":

When scientists speak in their offices or behind closed doors, they frequently make candid statements that sharply conflict with statements they make for public consumption before the media. For example, after Dr. Eldredge made the statement [in 1979] about the horse series being the best example of a lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it were literal truth

". . [On February 14, 1981] in California he was on a network television program. The host asked him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the best available example of a transitional sequence."—
Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.

Sunderland knew that Eldredge was speaking of two different representations. But he correctly guessed that you wouldn't.

And so you swallowed the scam whole.

Make you upset? It should. You're a sucker only as long as you let them do this to you.