Post Mortem on the debunked horse series

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
[QB] OK I'll try to explain a third time.

All wrong isn't an accurate represetation of the so-called "problem". All that happened was there were so many candidates for the line of fossils that one couldn't be sure which was in the direct line and which was only a side line.

How many times do I have to say that before you understand? Oh - I think I already know the answer never mind.

By the way UTEOTW's posts are completely consistent with what I am saying

In your oft repeated statement above (that has completely ignored the response that exposes your blunder and asks you for a cogent substantive response "to the point raised") you "once again" assert that the debunked discredited "never happened in nature" horse series is in fact a valid series among many valid sequences that DID happen -- but are just not the "most direct" sequence.

BY CONTRAST - the Atheist Darwinists show that "IT NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" and UTEOTW says it is totally debunked, discredited and in fact a STRAW MAN sequence that should not even get mentioned.

You call that "the same" as what you have said above??

What kind of blinders do you use when reading this thread?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW on Paul's valid horse sequence --

What they are saying never existed or never happened or was wrong was the 19th century ideas on horse evolution based on a very limited sample of fossils.

...

You then knock over your strawman by using quotes from scientists telling us that the 19th century view was wrong

...

Having knocked over your strawman based on something that no one today even advocates

Let's see "all wrong" and "strawman" and "no one today even advocates"...

But Paul claims that this is all good stuff - a valid sequence that DID happen in nature -

And then glosses over all these "inconvenient details" as if BOTH the UTEOTW statements and Paul are AFFIRMING that debunked horse series?

Is there any limit to the glossing over of inconvenient details that will be demonstrated by true believers in atheist darwinist evolutionism on this thread??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So Paul you deny ALL the iconvenient quotes here?

"Never happened in nature"

"all wrong"

"lamentable sequence PRESENTED AS IF it was FACT"

ALL of them you simply "turn a blind eye to"??

What kind of blinders are you using there?

 

[BobRyan]

I only ask that you try to read the "details" in the quotes below and pay attention to what it actually says.


Try not to "blame me" for what the atheist darwinians are saying in these quotes

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Here is some "data" when researching the "origin" of the debunked horse series presentation.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks[/b]."—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.
)

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”!!)

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."— *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

</font>[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[BobRyan]

So now going beyond Paul's blind devotion to the discredited horse sequence and beyond UTEOTW's habitual ad hominem and vaccuous attempts to divert to OTHER horse stories instead of the one in focus here -- (Though these two diversions have been a lot of fun so far)

POST MORTEM note 1:

Were the atheist darwinist doctrines on evolutionism "science" instead of bad religion disguised as pseudoscience we would EXPECT to find that scientists would be saying "We discovered MORE data than we had before which showed that the earlier assumptions/guesses were incorrect".

If they could GET to that level of actual "SCIENCE" they would have abandoned the false doctrines of evolutionism long ago.

What we have in historic fact is that the pseudoscience high priests of evolutionism "ARRANGED the fossils to FIT their doctrines and then presented the psuedoscience arrangement AS IF it were fact".

There was no "We predict that this arrangment will be found IN the fossil record some day" - rather they took ACTUAL fossils already found and already KNOWN not to be in the "sequence contrived for their purposes" and simply "arranged it to fit their doctrines" presenting it "As though it were fact" according to the Atheist darwinists that now discredit and debunk that fabricated sequence.

NOTE: No NEW informatin "came in" to debunk their story "presented as IF it were fact". All the bogus assumptions were KNOWN at the start to show that it was "guesswork not actual FACTUAL sequences".

What was not fully known by the authors was that this level of "fabrication" could be as easily detected as it was!! That simply glossing over the facts THEY ALREADY knew - to the level they were doing it - would not fly long term.

In other words to do the post mortem is to do a study on the "art of deception" practiced "as a matter of policy" within the sacred halls of the priesthood of evolutionism's faithful devotees.

I am sure your knee jerk reaction is to dismiss the inconvenient details now and oversimplify this into something like "Only Bob could know that". But in fact these are published facts by atheist darwinians themselves. I am simply connecting the dots they have provided in their confessions about the duplicity and fabrication that went into making the series in the first place.

 

[BobRyan]

How is it that something that "never actually happened" is presented "A though it were true"?

It happens because the presentation uses ACTUAL fossils and ARRANGES them to fIT the story being told!! Then the presentation is stated AS IF this was actually found in the very sequence presented! The subject of the "guesswork" that went into presenting the "bogus series" and the contrived arranging that goes into it - are all carefully hidden from the text books when presenting evolutionism. Just S.O.P. for evolutionists.

In other words it is the "practice" of this particular pseudoscience to "engage in the art of deception". Marshall did not consider anything he was doing as "out of line" or dishonest! He was just sticking to the established policies of contrived sequence presentations without full disclosure!!

 

[BobRyan]

Post Mortem observation 2

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 experiements”

"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.

The authors that put the contrived series together did not KNOW that IN THE FUTURE the sequence they presented would never be found and would be continually discredited with each successive find. ALL they had to do is say "we PREDICT that future finds will confirm this suggested sequence" and they would have been just fine EVEN if future discovery did NOT confirm their guesswork.

But the practice of dishonestly presenting "guesswork as though it were actual fact" is S.O.P. for evolutionists! THAT is the unique aspect to this artifact of their pseudoscience.

The underlying principle in atheist darwinist evolutionism is simply - lying.

"Presenting Guesswork AS THOUGH it were actual fact"[/quote]

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."—*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

The popularly told (story) example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct.[/b] Transitional forms are unknown.
B. Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, Nov 5, 1980, sec. 4 pg 15.

"Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years."
S. Gould, Full House, p. 69.

More "Facts to gloss over" in the post mortem?

 

[UTEOTW]

So, Bob, you still cannot do any better. This is sad really.

I asked above if you had any quotes that addressed the ectual modern ideas on horse evolution, rather than the strawman version from the early part of the LAST century and the last part of the century before that. You apparently do not.

You again just requoted the same deceitful, out of context quotes again. Is that your only ability? It has been pointed out an incredible number of times that ALL of your horse quotes are merely selective quotations of scientists describing how the old straightline, gradual model of horse evolution was replaced with the actual highly branching, jerky version that the fossil recorded revealed as it became more and more detailed.

You have yet to even attempt to back up your lying quotes by either providing independent facts that show what you are asserting to be true or by trying to provide some context that would show that the authors really intended the quotes to mean what you are claiming and not what I am claiming.

There is a good reason why you have done neither. It would be impossible for you to do so. You KNOW that you are misrepresenting these guys. And you KNOW that there are no facts to support your claims. If there were, you would have long ago provided them.

The closest to my request thatyou came was to point out the the the "lamentable" quote was from the 80's. Unfortunately for you, that still does not change the fact that what was being discussed was an old museum piece that still mistakenly showed the now supplanted view of orthgenetic evolution that had been shown to be incomplete several decades ago by that point.

You continue your poor quoting in your more recent posts. It can only be an attempt to distract from your inability to argue from facts.

Just look at your last quote. You cannot even get the author right! It was from Prothero and Shubin. [Prothero, D. R. & Shubin, N. in The Evolution of Perissodactyis (eds Prothero, D. R.& Schoch, R. M.) 142-175 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford,1989).]

Not only did you get the author wrong, you once again cut out context and dishonestly change the meaning. Let's add that context back for the reader.

This is contray to the widely held myth about horse species as gradualistically varying parts of a continuum, with no real distinction between species. Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years. At high resolution, the gradualistic picture of horse evolution becomes a complex bush of overlapping, closely related species.

I bolded the last sentence for you. That is just to point out that this is one more quote talking about how the horse fossil record was found to be phyletic instead of orthogentic. In other words, with a few fossils it was thought to be straight and gradual. With many fossils, those ideas were modified to show the real highly branching and jerky change that lead to horses.

I think that you have just about got that hole deep enough. I wish you'd stop digging. It is embarrassing.

 

[UTEOTW]

So I guess the question has not been answered yet.

Since you started athread entitled "Post Mortem on the debunked horse series" do you even plan to present any evidence that actually debunks the modern horse sequence?

Or you instead to continue down this strawman of yours where you "debunk" something that no one accepts?

If you are going to claim that the modern horse series is debunked, then you should corroborate it with some evidence. If that evidence is going to take the form of more quote mining, then you should corroborate the quotes with supporting evidence and with evidence that shows that the author was really talking about the modern horse sequence and that the author really intended the meaning as it is presented in your quote.

But I will not be holding my breath.

I do have a prediction, though. I predict a string of several posts from you in hich you just repeat your previous claims, repeat your previous discredited quotes and maybe even pull up a few more out of context quotes that are discussing the old ortgenetic view of horse evolution.

But you will not be able to present anything against the modern sequence. If you could, you would not have been playing this game of three card monte all this time.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
So Paul you deny ALL the iconvenient quotes here?

"Never happened in nature"

"all wrong"

"lamentable sequence PRESENTED AS IF it was FACT"

ALL of them you simply "turn a blind eye to"??

What kind of blinders are you using there?

OK I'll try to explain again for the fourth time

All wrong isn't an accurate representation of the so-called "problem". All that happened was there were so many candidates for the line of fossils that one couldn't be sure which was in the direct line and which was only a side line.

How many times do I have to say that before you understand? Oh - I think I already know the answer never mind.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
Since you started athread entitled "Post Mortem on the debunked horse series" do you even plan to present any evidence that actually debunks the modern horse sequence?

Are you "alegergic" to the OP or are you simply tied to "Story hopping"???

You ask "This thread is on subject A so are we going to be talking about subject B now?"

Are you following the "details" here UTEOTW?

Are ever going to be able to actually discuss a post mortem on the "debunked horse series" (subject "A" which is THE topic of this thread) or are you stuck asking that we NOT talk about subject "A" and only talk about "B"??

Why is this concept so difficult for you??

I just know you can do better UTEOTW!

Try to engage in the topic rather than continually dodging and ducking "the lessons learned" focus here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

I asked above if you had any quotes that addressed the ectual modern ideas on horse evolution, rather than the strawman version from the early part of the LAST century and the last part of the century before that. You apparently do not.

here we see the schizoid approach being used by UTEOTW and Paul.

UTEOTW wants to complain that this embarrassing topic is even being discussed and as he refuses to discuss "Topic A" which is the LESSONS LEARNED from the DEBUNKED horse series -- he still has the common sense to state it as a discredited "read debunked" horse series.

But Paul is STILL stuck falling in his sword defending the strawman "debunked" horse series!!

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

All wrong isn't an accurate representation of the so-called "problem". All that happened was there were so many candidates for the line of fossils that one couldn't be sure which was in the direct line and which was only a side line.

Pretty funny Paul. Falling on your sword over debunked series that UTEOTW is abandoning and even your own atheist darwinist icons call "lamentable" and a story "presented as though it were fact" a story that "NEVER happened in nature".

But of course these inconvenient details are just glossed over in your oft-repeated dodge. Is it any wonder that I asked you --

Originally posted by BobRyan:
So Paul you deny ALL the iconvenient quotes here?

"Never happened in nature"

"all wrong"

"lamentable sequence PRESENTED AS IF it was FACT"


ALL of them you simply "turn a blind eye to"??

What kind of blinders are you using there? [/qb]

Is it any wonder that you failed to respond?!!



In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Or you instead to continue down this strawman of yours where you "debunk" something that no one accepts?

You mean NNE accepts the debunked horse series that is "ALL wrong" that "NEVER happened in nature" that is story "presented as though it were fact"??

You have clearly NOT been reading Paul on this thread --!

Paul falls on his sword on this one declaring it to be one of MANY VALID sequences that DID happen

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

All wrong isn't an accurate representation of the so-called "problem". All that happened was there were so many candidates for the line of fossils that one couldn't be sure which was in the direct line and which was only a side line.

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


Clearly you and Paul need to get your act together.

Having said that "I obviously" agree that the horse series has been "debunked" just as the evidence here shows.

I am asking for a "Post Mortem" a "lessons learned" review of the bogus atheist darwinist METHODS that PRODUCED the bogus horse series.

Now WHY would I want to do a "lessons learned" on something that ALL CAN FINALLY AGREE TO?? Hmm lets think about that for second.

Oh WAIT!! I know!! How about so we do not Do It Again!!

(Such a goal of course is never the objective of the evolutionist -- hence the dodging and ducking)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I predict that UTEOTW will continue to run, to dodge to avoid the point of this thread.

Paul apparently is stuck "defening a debunked horse series that EVEN atheist darwinists and UTEOTW no longer support"

But BOTH will dodge "the details" ducking the entire focus on "lessons learned" as they fear "lessons learned" more than any other topic!!

How "instructive".

How interesting that the atheist darwinians would have to take the same "Avoidance" approach to the entire concept of "LESSONS LEARNED" when it comes to THEIR OWN DEBUNKED STORIES!!

No "why" do you suppose they have that in common?

Guesses anyone?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You again just requoted the same deceitful, out of context quotes again. Is that your only ability? It has been pointed out an incredible number of times that ALL of your horse quotes are merely selective quotations of scientists describing how the old straightline, gradual model of horse evolution was replaced

The "same" tired old "misdirection" from UTEOTW "again".

Why not "read" and see that I have fully agreed to the "Story hopping" Model of evolutionists?

Why not actually think before you post misdirection after misdirection.

The point of this thread and of the quotes WAS NEVER "this is THE LAST story every told about horses by atheist darwinists".

Your failed attempts to build that kind of strawman could never be considered "credible" by either evolutionist or creationist that actually "read" the details of the post on "LESSONS learned"!!

Why not engage in actual conversation UTEOTW instead of talking with yourself about points that were never raised and then calling those points "deceitful"???

Your failed tactics are simply old and tired at this point. Try doing better. Try getting beyond atheist darwinist avoidance policies. Try actually engaging in the topic!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Mercury]

It seems to me that the gradual model of horse evolution was wrong the same way Newton's theory of gravitation was wrong. Both were incomplete, and were supplanted by better explanations that dealt with (and predicted) further evidence.

If BobRyan's point is that scientific explanations adapt to account for all the known evidence, then yes, science is guilty as charged.

 

[UTEOTW]

You mean...

Are you trying to...

Am I reading this right?

Let me see here, Bob. What you are telling me is this. You are telling me that you had absolutely no interest at all, from the beginning, of dealing with the modern horse sequence. You were ONLY interested in examining the hypothesis on horse evolution as it existed a century ago, a hypothesis to which no one holds to today.

For that is what you have said in your last series of posts. In your first post yesterday, you quote me and bold the part where I talk about the "the modern horse sequence." And you follow that by saying

You ask "This thread is on subject A so are we going to be talking about subject B now?"

Are you following the "details" here UTEOTW?

Are ever going to be able to actually discuss a post mortem on the "debunked horse series" (subject "A" which is THE topic of this thread) or are you stuck asking that we NOT talk about subject "A" and only talk about "B"??

It is quite clear that you consider the century old version to be "subject a" and the modern sequence to be "subject b."

You then follow that up by saying

The point of this thread and of the quotes WAS NEVER "this is THE LAST story every told about horses by atheist darwinists".

So it is now clear that you are only wishing to discuss something to which no one ascribes. I still cannot understand exactly why you would want to do such a thing. I will take up this subject further in my next post, but I am not done with you yet on this post trying to figure out exactly what you were trying to talk about for 5 pages plus.

Back on page one you said

No doubt [Simpson] clings to evolutionism “anyway” and hopes that punctuated equilibrium will be the “excuse” needed for lack of transitional forms

So let's see here. First off, you were talking about the old series and not the new series. Fine.

But Simpson WAS talking about the new sequence. So you can see how this might get confusing for the reader and why your motivations would be questioned. You were only trying to assert that the original sequence lacked transitional forms, right. You were making no assertions whatsoever about the modern sequence.

Well then you should have been much more clear in your post. Because it reads as if you think that there are no horse transitionals AT ALL. If you are going to talk ONLY about a hundred year old hypothesis then you should be precise enough in your prose to make that clear.

But even that assertion would be wrong. Back in those early days they still had trnasitional horse fossils, just not as many as they do today (or when Simpson was writing).

And with even that assertion of your being wrong, the point of your pages of posts becomes cloudy.

(BTW, I must stick my standard chanrge in here. Using that quote as you did from Simpson was still taking him out of context and misrepresenting what he was talking about.)

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Blah "blah" BLAH. . .

All of the random quotation marks and capitalization make my eyes bleed. I find it almost impossible to read BobRyan's posts because of the distracting syntax (well, and the lack of content helps as well). I'm not sure why some people write like this.

 

[BobRyan]

Petrel - in your constant efforts to gloss over the details in every subject area that you post - - you finally provided a "quote" out of context and spun it to your imaginative misdirection -- but are you actually "making a point" with such tactics?

No - You simply reveal the motives of your posts.

How about actually engaging in substantive dialog instead?

Is there really "no substance" that the doctrines of evolutionism will "allow you" to cogently respond to ...???

I just can't believe your system is this vaccuous.

Surely you guys can do better!

In Christ,

Bob