"
See? You not only obfuscated what was shown - you misrepresented the facts entirely.
You make it "appear" that they represented a NON-uniform "bushy" sequence but mistakenly CALLED it uniform with smooth transition."
Who are you quoting as saying "appear?"
I am not changing my challenge. Here is the full quote. Again. Try and tell us where in it you get the idea that Simpson thinks that the horse sequence does not exist.
The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic. The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature. Increases in size, for instance, did not occur at all during the first third of the whole history of the family. Then it occurred quite irregularly, at different rates and to different degrees in a number of different lines of descent. Even after a trend toward larger size had started it was reversed in several groups of horses which became smaller instead of larger. As already briefly noted, the famous “gradual reduction of the side toes” also is something that never happened. There was no reduction for the 15 or 20 million years of the history. There was relatively rapid reduction from four front toes to three (the hind foot already had only three toes). Many horses simply retained the new sort of foot without further change. In one group there was later another relatively rapid change of foot mechanism involving some reduction in size of the side toes, which, however, remained functional. Thereafter most horses retained this type of foot without essential change. In just one group, again, another relatively rapid change eliminated functional side toes, after which their descendants simply retained the new sort of foot. (Fig. 39)
In the history of the horse family there is no known trend that affected the whole family. Moreover, in any one of the numerous different lines of descent there is no known trend that continued uniformly in the same direction and at the same rate throughout. Trends do not really have to act that way: there are not really orthogenetic.
(The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms, but it is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented…)
Did you miss the part where he talks about the changes we see in the horses the first few times I posted this? His whole point was "
Trends do not really have to act that way: there are not really orthogenetic."
"
IN FACT what they DID is to NOT present a bushy sequence - but rather they DID present a SMOOTH transitional sequence and no amount of obfuscating will change that "inconvenient fact"."
Where exactly? He says right there "
The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature." He is claiming that the sequence was not smooth.
"
So you "need" to bend that around to "WE discovered that the SEQUENCE WE WERE SHOWING was more bushy than we first thought"."
Nope. No bending necessary. He said it himself.
"
Such a wrenching of the "inconvenient facts" will "probably" slide right past an already devoted believer in evolutionism reading your post - but HOW did you expect it to survive objective, critical thinking UTEOTW??"
I guess I will have to continue to wait before I will see an example of good critical thinking.
"
You jump quickly to "yes but they imagine a DIFFERENT sequence - a bushy one" while conviniently hiding that fact that it is both "imagined" AND it is "NOT like the SEQUENCE they were ACTUALLY SHOWING before"."
I have no need to hide that it is unlike the old sequence beforethey discovered so many more foissils. In fact, that is the point that Simpson is trying to make and that you are trying, unsuccessfully, to twist. The old, smooth sequence was incorrect and this was discovered as new data came in. It was not wrong because the horse did not evolve. It was wrong because it showed a simple, smooth, continuous, gradual sequence. You have given us nothing to contradict that claim using the expanded quote or any factual data.
"
Through most of "what sequence" -- through most of the sequence presented in 1951 as "fact"???
The one presented in 1951 in a book entitled simply 'Horses' published by George Simpson, professor of palaeontology at Harvard??
Is THAT "the sequence" that you believe to show the REAL transition in hooves?"
I believe The Galatian already went through the steps for you. But yes, I imagine, though I have not seen it, that Simpson's sequence was probably fairly close. Certainly much better than the one from the 19th century that he was rejecting in the quote at hand. But probably not as good as what you could find today in an appropriate text on the subject.
"
Hmm. Wouldn't Simpson be delighted to hear that."
Well since SImpson was the one saying that the jerky, bushy series is the right one, I think he already knew this about 50 years ago and woould not bother to be delighted over such old news. News from him. Though I imagine that some of the fossil finds since then and then genetic evidence we have recently obtained confirming the relationships from the fossil record would, in fact, delight him.
"
Simple. Turning the facts on their head so that you claim that the 1951 sequence that was presented by Simpson IS a smooth transitional sequence that DID exist in nature for horse evolution JUST as Simpson originally claimed."
Neither Simpson nor I claim that the sequence is smooth. In fact his quote is showing that it is not the smooth sequence that represents history. It is the jerky one. And I agree.
"
What??" In response to a claim of false assertions.
You assert that Simpson said something other than what he clearly did in the above quote.
You assert that there are no genetics linking horses and rhinos just as the fossil record suggests that there should be in the face of the following reference and without bothering to make a fact based challenge of it.
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.
You assert that there are no genetics linking whale and other ungulates just as the fossil record suggests that there should be in the face of the following reference and without bothering to make a fact based challenge of it.
Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates, Shimamura et al, Nature 388,666 (14 August 1997).
You claim that birds did not evolve without bothering to refute the data presented, from AIG no less, showing the relationship between crocodiles and birds as predicted from science by there decent from the archosaurs.
And the big one. YOu claim that the 1980's conference claimed that archaeopteryx was a bird only and not transitional or related to reptiles despite the eveidence presented in the following links and despite weeks of asking you to support your unsupported assumptions.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/18.html#000258
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/21.html#000302
