So let's see just what we did get from you by way of response.
#1. The smooth transitional sequence they CLAIMED to have DISCOVERED - did not happen in nature at all. They simply took existing specimens and ARRANGED THEM to "fit the story"!
#2. They PRESENTED MERE STORY as though it were "DISCOVERED FACT" in the fossil record - presenting parent-child SEQUENCES that were not valid! They presented specimens that did not show the link in the fossil record that they "needed" so they simply ARRANGED them to show what they needed.
#3. They ARRANGE the fossils showing smooth transitional sequences - with smooth contiguous size and shape changes SHOWN specimen by specimen starting with the very earliest sequences! They created arrangements - rather than discovering the sequence IN the fossil record!!
Now this leaves not much clear to knowing what you are talking about, but it does seem to narrow it down to two possibilities.
1.
The first possibility is that you think that they really did not have a transitional sequence. In other words, you think that the series they proposed was wrong. OK.
Now, if this is the case, then you need to build your case for us. You need to tell us what animals that they had in their original series and then show how those animals ended up to not be a part of the modern series.
So which animals were mistakenly and deliberately (since you are alledging not just that they were wrong but that they were frauds) put into the series only to be removed later?
Is that not it? Well that leaves one other possibility.
2.
Your problem may be that the original sequence was smooth and continuous while the modern is anything but. This possiblity may be bolstered by you later statement that "
Their fraudulent "arranging of the data" was a problem with data going all the way back to Darwin -- Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record."
Now in this case, you really have your work cut out for you to try and prove fraud. For what you are trying to show is that the scientific method itself, perhaps even the human learning process as a whole, is a fraudulent way of doing things. Let's review.
The scientific method. Basically you collect some data. You hypothesize an explanation. You then test that hypothesis by collecting more data. You modify your hypothesis if it still seems valid but incomplete. And then keep repeating these steps for a while.
So what happened?
We had a few fossils. A hypothesis was made. We got more fossils. We made a few changes but left most of the original hypothesis intact.
The salient point to remember here is that most of the details were correct even in the original hypothesis. This is key.
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 thing that did change from the original hypothesis was the tempo and mode of horse evolution.
Now if you want to say that this was fraudulent, you are going to have to build a better case than simply slecting a few quotes that highlight the small changes from the original hypothesis. The scientific method is not a fraudulent process. Yet that seems to be what you are asserting here.
At the time of the original hypothesis, there were enough fossils to correctly make the connection from Eohippus to Equus. There was enough data to correctly figure out the changes that took place. But the resolution of the data was not fine enough to correctly determine the tempo and mode.
In fact, the same change happened to the opinion of most of the fossil record. In the 19th century, orthogeneic ideas predominated. Today, phyletic ideas dominate. It is because the scientific method is being followed. Newdata leads to a refinement of ideas. There is no fraud involved.
For all you repeated quoting of things that "never happened in nature" it is the solitary detail of the tempo of evolution in the original hypothesis that "never happened." The rest of the hypothesis has been confirmed.
Not much of a fraud, eh?
