A biologist challenges evolution

[Estrid]

Is it your claim that anyone who admits that Othaniel Marsh created a fraudulent sequence -- is then engaged in a fake?

That would be almost all the world-class atheist evolutionists that you are condemning in that case as they all admit to the fact that Marsh's work was fraudulent.

No they don't.

You gonna give us some (more)creo- fakes
or are you too shy?

I won't ask for a fact contrary to ToE, you
know, something, anything to " falsify" it as
I know you cannot deliver that- the only thing that
actually counts.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Is it your claim that anyone who admits that Othaniel Marsh created a fraudulent sequence -- is then engaged in a fake?

That would be almost all the world-class atheist evolutionists that you are condemning in that case as they all admit to the fact that Marsh's work was fraudulent.

No they don't.

yes... they do.

It appears you are not reading anything on the topic we are discussing at the moment. How is that supposed to help?

=====================

But for those who do read --

From: George Gaylord Simpson - Wikipedia

G.G. Simpson -- the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, and a major participant in the modern evolutionary synthesis,

He was Professor of Zoology at Columbia University, and Curator of the Department of Geology and Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History from 1945 to 1959. He was Curator of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University from 1959 to 1970, and a Professor of Geosciences at the University of Arizona until his retirement in 1982.


G.G. Simpson in 1951 – evolutionism is a “done deal” and horse series is one of the clearest and most convincing example.

“The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.” 2 Simpson, George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.


========================== BUT THEN ===============

Outright confession –1953

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium 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.


"I admit that an awful lot of that 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.

 

[Estrid]

yes... they do.

It appears you are not reading anything on the topic we are discussing at the moment. How is that supposed to help?

=====================

But for those who do read --

From: George Gaylord Simpson - Wikipedia

G.G. Simpson -- the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, and a major participant in the modern evolutionary synthesis,

He was Professor of Zoology at Columbia University, and Curator of the Department of Geology and Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History from 1945 to 1959. He was Curator of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University from 1959 to 1970, and a Professor of Geosciences at the University of Arizona until his retirement in 1982.


G.G. Simpson in 1951 – evolutionism is a “done deal” and horse series is one of the clearest and most convincing example.

“The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.” 2 Simpson, George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.


========================== BUT THEN ===============

Outright confession –1953

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium 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.


"I admit that an awful lot of that 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.

No fraud there. Lots of red bold font only
emphsdizes that, Facts could be whispered.


And don't bother insulting my education,
its churlish of you, at best.

You seem indisposed to list some actual
creofrauds. Why is that? Shy?
Can't find them?

But never mind pifflling details.

There is nowhere the data to disprove
ToE.
So you have nothing of any interest or value
to say about its validity.

 

[doubtingmerle]

you have free will and are free to "believe" anything you wish - of course.

You are going to continue to use scare quotes when you reference my phrase "And soon I found myself believing it [evolution]" If this word is a stumbling block, let me rephrase it: "And soon I found myself having the opinion that evolution is true." There. Now do you understand what I am saying?

The decision was not a matter of changing my will. Rather, it was a matter of seeing new evidence, and that new evidence causing my opinion to change.

quotes for emphasis -- you view as "scary"?? seriously?

I didn't say I was scared of your use of scare quotes. It is just odd, that when I say I believe something, you reply back by putting "believe" in scare quotes.

If you are confused about the meaning of the term scare quotes, see Scare quotes - Wikipedia .

Maybe to get the right context you should have started by seeing if you could "believe" the smooth orthogenic transition sequence for the horse hoof still on display at the Smithsonian demonstrating fraud that lasted well over 50 years.

Do you understand that horse evolution obviously happened? There is abundant evolution of this.

Othaniel Marsh came up with that fraud 50 years before it got put in as a Smithsonian exhibit, a purely fabricated fossil sequence showing smooth orthogenic transitions from eohippus to modern horse , which was shortly after Simpson included it in his book.

If the exhibit showed smooth, orthogenic transitions, then it was a simplified view of the path that evolution took. Horse evolution proceeded in many directions, sometimes retaining older features long after more modern features had developed, and sometimes going off in branches that led nowhere.

Are you familiar with atheist evolutionists like Stephen J. Gould and "Punctuated Equilibrium"

Yep. They argued that there is abundant fossil evidence for evolution, but little evidence for each little step. Do you agree with them that there is abundant overall fossil evidence for evolution?

 

[BobRyan]

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium 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.


"I admit that an awful lot of that 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 fraud was simply "arranging fossils' regardless of how they are actually found in the fossil record to "tell a story", never letting the facts get in the way of "a good story" -- merely 'wishing' that it might be true that they would have been found in that emotionally pleasing sequence showing smooth orthogenic transformation over time.

It was a "story easy enough tell" but it certainly was NOT - science.

Thus even the atheist evolutionists themselves can admit "it is LAMENTABLE"

No fraud there.

Believe as you wish.. you have free will.

As a Creationist I do not find that sort of lack of serious attention to detail to be a "compelling argument" for evolution and away from creation.

 

[BobRyan]

If the exhibit showed smooth, orthogenic transitions, then it was a simplified view of the path that evolution took.

It was a convenient "arrangement" setup by Marsh without any regard to the sequence in the fossil record. If "making stuff up" by arranging fossil sequences (regardless of the fossil record itself) to stitch a story together, is all the "science" one needs for supporting "lamentable" evolution examples ... then so be-it - nice to have people admitting to their level of support for what they believe.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It was a convenient "arrangement" setup by Marsh without any regard to the sequence in the fossil record. If "making stuff up" by arranging fossil sequences (regardless of the fossil record itself) to stitch a story together, is all the "science" one needs for supporting "lamentable" evolution examples ... then so be-it - nice to have people admitting to their level of support for what they believe.

Sorry, but the arrangement of the horse fossils in the record was not made up. We date the fossils using reliable methods, and they do indeed show a progression of horse fossils.

See Horse Evolution.

A few quotes out of context does nothing to refute that fact.

 

[Estrid]

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium 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.


"I admit that an awful lot of that 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 fraud was simply "arranging fossils' regardless of how they are actually found in the fossil record to "tell a story", never letting the facts get in the way of "a good story" -- merely 'wishing' that it might be true that they would have been found in that emotionally pleasing sequence showing smooth orthogenic transformation over time.

It was a "story easy enough tell" but it certainly was NOT - science.

Thus even the atheist evolutionists themselves can admit "it is LAMENTABLE"



Believe as you wish.. you have free will.

As a Creationist I do not find that sort of lack of serious attention to detail to be a "compelling argument" for evolution and away from creation.

You show no evidence of knowing what the word fraud
actually means. A dictionary would help.

As for compelling arguments, those exist in great abundance
for evolution. Not one contrary datum point.
For creationism, there is "magic" for, all known relevant data
against.



Did your attention to detail ever bring this
Creo - problem to your "attention'?

The display refer to accurately display an idea,
thatva clear progression over time takes use through
ancestral forms to the present.

Nobody is being sold a bill of goods like trying
to make evolution look real when it isnt.
Unlike creationist garbage like noahs ark park
that is phony from stem to stern.

I've seen Christmas displays of the nativity scene.
Those also display an idea, with nobody saying its
wrong coz the goat should be over there.
Never heard it called a fraud either, though it is pure fantasy
and IT'S INTENDRD TO DECEIVE. Like ark park that way.

Speaking of which, there are more creo-frauds than
there are creo-fact. Easy, there being dozens of the first and
none of the latter.

 

[Estrid]

You are going to continue to use scare quotes when you reference my phrase "And soon I found myself believing it [evolution]" If this word is a stumbling block, let me rephrase it: "And soon I found myself having the opinion that evolution is true." There. Now do you understand what I am saying?

The decision was not a matter of changing my will. Rather, it was a matter of seeing new evidence, and that new evidence causing my opinion to change.


I didn't say I was scared of your use of scare quotes. It is just odd, that when I say I believe something, you reply back by putting "believe" in scare quotes.

If you are confused about the meaning of the term scare quotes, see Scare quotes - Wikipedia .



Do you understand that horse evolution obviously happened? There is abundant evolution of this.


If the exhibit showed smooth, orthogenic transitions, then it was a simplified view of the path that evolution took. Horse evolution proceeded in many directions, sometimes retaining older features long after more modern features had developed, and sometimes going off in branches that led nowhere.


Yep. They argued that there is abundant fossil evidence for evolution, but little evidence for each little step. Do you agree with them that there is abundant overall fossil evidence for evolution?

It is a thing to note how creationists treat
the words of a scientist as Truth if
those words appear to support their
Ideology.
Punctuated equilibrium is far more
complex and less widely applicable than
the facile quick- read from a quote mine
source would suggest. And nothing about
it supports any creationist belief.