Not for part two.
Mercury makes a good analogy which it is worth exploring.
There was nothing wrong with the horse series even from the beginning other than it was incomplete.
Even with all the new data that has been collected and even with all of the language regarding the original series that you so gleefully post, the fact remains that it was at worst incomplete.
The basic facts have never changed.
In both cases horses evolved from the same small browsing animal with generalized teeth, a flexible body, pads on the feet instead of hooves and three toes on one pair of feet and four on the other pair.
In both case the teeth specialized into a set optimized for grazing over a period of time.
In both, the feet changed such that the pads disappeared and the animals began to run on their tiptoes with the nails becoming hooves.
In both, the feet were reduced to a single toes per foot.
In both, the two toes to either side became shin splints.
In both, there was a great increase in size.
In both, the skelton became less flexible and more suited to galloping.
And the fossils originally discovered to be part of the series are still a part of the series.
The main differene between the two is the tempo and mode of evolution.
The original series had few fossils. The few transitionals they had were simply arranged in order. A simple, steady, gradual progression through each was assumed.
At the time, this is how all such sequences were assumed to have happened. Gradual series were all that was known. But with time, an increasing number of fossils were discovered. It became apparent, not just in horses, that evolution was generally anything but steady and gradual.
So back to the horses. As the family tree was filled out, it was found that there were quite a few side branches. It was found that many of the major changes happened over geologically short periods of time and were stable at other times instead of a gradual change. It was found that sometimes traits would trend in one direction and then the other.
But was it "wrong?"
Well, that depends. Back to Mercury's analogy. For centuries, we had a dominant theory to describe the actions of gravity. But in that time, we also found that there was somethings which it could not explain. These were resolved when Einstein came along and supplanted the older theory with relativity.
But was classical gravity "wrong?" Well it was certainly incomplete. And it certainly had some wrong answers. So it could conceivable be described as "wrong." But it also must be pointed out that it was a close approximation and sreved us well during its time. No one really goes around talking about Newton being "debunked."
And this is the same situation with which we find ourselves with the horses. The original series was far from complete. Was it "wrong" in that sense? Some apparently characterize it that way.
But the original series still served us well. It still got the basic facts right. It still lead to the research which fleshed out the details.
So was there some sort of deceit at work? Not at all. They were going with that they had. And like all good science, they modified the details as new material became available. And in the case of horse evolution, those details had to do with the pace and with the exact path that was taken. The general story and path was known even in what you are calling a "debunked" series.
So was it "lamentable" for a museum to still be showing the old path decades after better information became available? You seem to have found a couple of people who think so. But so what? Is it lamentable for textbooks today to teach classical gravity instead of just starting with relativity? It, too, gets the story largely right while missing a few of the details.
But we get back to the question of the point of this thread. Why do you do the strawman thing and attack a hypothesis which has been out of favor for decades? Why do you not step up and discuss modern theory? Real science is too hard to knock over, isn't it?
Mercury makes a good analogy which it is worth exploring.
There was nothing wrong with the horse series even from the beginning other than it was incomplete.
Even with all the new data that has been collected and even with all of the language regarding the original series that you so gleefully post, the fact remains that it was at worst incomplete.
The basic facts have never changed.
In both cases horses evolved from the same small browsing animal with generalized teeth, a flexible body, pads on the feet instead of hooves and three toes on one pair of feet and four on the other pair.
In both case the teeth specialized into a set optimized for grazing over a period of time.
In both, the feet changed such that the pads disappeared and the animals began to run on their tiptoes with the nails becoming hooves.
In both, the feet were reduced to a single toes per foot.
In both, the two toes to either side became shin splints.
In both, there was a great increase in size.
In both, the skelton became less flexible and more suited to galloping.
And the fossils originally discovered to be part of the series are still a part of the series.
The main differene between the two is the tempo and mode of evolution.
The original series had few fossils. The few transitionals they had were simply arranged in order. A simple, steady, gradual progression through each was assumed.
At the time, this is how all such sequences were assumed to have happened. Gradual series were all that was known. But with time, an increasing number of fossils were discovered. It became apparent, not just in horses, that evolution was generally anything but steady and gradual.
So back to the horses. As the family tree was filled out, it was found that there were quite a few side branches. It was found that many of the major changes happened over geologically short periods of time and were stable at other times instead of a gradual change. It was found that sometimes traits would trend in one direction and then the other.
But was it "wrong?"
Well, that depends. Back to Mercury's analogy. For centuries, we had a dominant theory to describe the actions of gravity. But in that time, we also found that there was somethings which it could not explain. These were resolved when Einstein came along and supplanted the older theory with relativity.
But was classical gravity "wrong?" Well it was certainly incomplete. And it certainly had some wrong answers. So it could conceivable be described as "wrong." But it also must be pointed out that it was a close approximation and sreved us well during its time. No one really goes around talking about Newton being "debunked."
And this is the same situation with which we find ourselves with the horses. The original series was far from complete. Was it "wrong" in that sense? Some apparently characterize it that way.
But the original series still served us well. It still got the basic facts right. It still lead to the research which fleshed out the details.
So was there some sort of deceit at work? Not at all. They were going with that they had. And like all good science, they modified the details as new material became available. And in the case of horse evolution, those details had to do with the pace and with the exact path that was taken. The general story and path was known even in what you are calling a "debunked" series.
So was it "lamentable" for a museum to still be showing the old path decades after better information became available? You seem to have found a couple of people who think so. But so what? Is it lamentable for textbooks today to teach classical gravity instead of just starting with relativity? It, too, gets the story largely right while missing a few of the details.
But we get back to the question of the point of this thread. Why do you do the strawman thing and attack a hypothesis which has been out of favor for decades? Why do you not step up and discuss modern theory? Real science is too hard to knock over, isn't it?
