The Scientific Method & Macroevolution?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

"The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, or fox-like creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago, to today's much larger one-toe 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. Transitional forms are unknown." "Ideas on evolution Going Through a Revolution among Scientists," - Boyce Rensberger: Houston Chronicle, 5 Nov. 1980, sec. 4, p. 15.

There's the full quote and a citation Lewis. The discussion was over whois claiming that rensberger believed horse evolution to be a fraud. As anyone can see, rensberger claims no such thing.

Perhaps it might help if he uses caps and explains how he arrived at such a conclusion. It is after all his claim, and therefore his right to explain how he arrived at such a claim.

 

[whois]

Because there is no "smooth" transition. He doesn't say fraud. You say he did. You are wrong.

actually boyce is saying the following link has long been known to be not true:
Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

there has to be a reason for this.
and you can't scream "CREATIONIST' whenever something is presented that you can't explain.

 

[crjmurray]

actually boyce is saying the following link has long been known to be not true:
Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

there has to be a reason for this.
and you can't scream "CREATIONIST' whenever something is presented that you can't explain.

The point is that you said rensberger claimed that horse evolution is a fraud. He didn't. Nowhere does he claim FRAUD. You are wrong about him claiming that fraud was committed.

 

[bhsmte]

The point is that you said rensberger claimed that horse evolution is a fraud. He didn't. Nowhere does he claim FRAUD. You are wrong about him claiming that fraud was committed.

That is quite clear, but it appears, the poster has a problem admitting the same.

 

[whois]

Perhaps it might help if he uses caps and explains how he arrived at such a conclusion. It is after all his claim, and therefore his right to explain how he arrived at such a claim.

while you are in the backroom PMing everyone for sources, ask them what niles had to say in the very same article and post it.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

This is uncalled for, if you have something you'd like to draw my attention to, please do so with the appropriate link and quote.

while you are in the backroom PMing everyone for sources, ask them what niles had to say in the very same article and post it.

 

[crjmurray]

"There is abundant fossil evidence showing transitional diversifications among mammals into rodents, bats, rabbits, carnivores, horses, elephants, manatee, deer, cows and many others."

"Perhaps the oldest known transitional sequence involves the horse. It starts about 55 million years ago with a terrier-sized creature that had four toes in front and three in back. This is the famous species once called Eohippus, but now, for technical reasons, renamed Hyracotherium."

"The lineage evolved through at least 14 steps, each represented in the fossil record by a successful species, until the modern horse, a pony-sized Equus, the genus to which modern horses belong, appeared about 4 million years ago."

How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution- Boyce Rensberger, Washington Post Jan 8, 1997

 

[Mr Strawberry]

That is quite clear, but it appears, the poster has a problem admitting the same.

I've noticed conceding any sort of error seems a problem for some creationists. I can only assume it's because they haven't spent much time trying to get to grips with unintuitive scientific concepts and are simply unaware that it saves a lot of time and is far more constructive just to say, oh yes, I haven't got that quite right, never mind, let's move on, than it is to dig your heels in and refuse to budge while slowly turning red.

 

[crjmurray]

actually boyce is saying the following link has long been known to be not true:
Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

there has to be a reason for this.
and you can't scream "CREATIONIST' whenever something is presented that you can't explain.

Rensberger is addressing the concept of a gradual sequential transition. Not all of horse evolution. See my last post.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

"There is abundant fossil evidence showing transitional diversifications among mammals into rodents, bats, rabbits, carnivores, horses, elephants, manatee, deer, cows and many others."

"Perhaps the oldest known transitional sequence involves the horse. It starts about 55 million years ago with a terrier-sized creature that had four toes in front and three in back. This is the famous species once called Eohippus, but now, for technical reasons, renamed Hyracotherium."

"The lineage evolved through at least 14 steps, each represented in the fossil record by a successful species, until the modern horse, a pony-sized Equus, the genus to which modern horses belong, appeared about 4 million years ago."

How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution- Boyce Rensberger, Washington Post Jan 8, 1997

Cool. I did a search, but found that the article was in what looks like Russian. (except for the book links, the others are dried up)

I do like Boyce Rensberger's smile: Boyce Rensberger

 

[whois]

"There is abundant fossil evidence showing transitional diversifications among mammals into rodents, bats, rabbits, carnivores, horses, elephants, manatee, deer, cows and many others."

"Perhaps the oldest known transitional sequence involves the horse. It starts about 55 million years ago with a terrier-sized creature that had four toes in front and three in back. This is the famous species once called Eohippus, but now, for technical reasons, renamed Hyracotherium."

"The lineage evolved through at least 14 steps, each represented in the fossil record by a successful species, until the modern horse, a pony-sized Equus, the genus to which modern horses belong, appeared about 4 million years ago."

How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution- Boyce Rensberger, Washington Post Jan 8, 1997

how do you equate this with what boyce said in 1980?
in my opinion, a microfilm search for NY times issues after 1980 will not reveal any corrections to this article.
BTW the houston chronicle article was a reprint.
the original source was the NY times.

interesting little charade we have here isn't it?

 

[crjmurray]

Cool. I did a search, but found that the article was in what looks like Russian. (except for the book links, the others are dried up)

I do like Boyce Rensberger's smile: Boyce Rensberger

Bulgarian actually. Weird.

 

[bhsmte]

how do you equate this with what boyce said in 1980?
in my opinion, a microfilm search for NY times issues after 1980 will not reveal any corrections to this article.
BTW the houston chronicle article was a reprint.
the original source was the NY times.

interesting little charade we have here isn't it?

This thread is interesting and even a bit entertaining, but for different reasons than you likely think though.

 

[crjmurray]

how do you equate this with what boyce said in 1980?
in my opinion, a microfilm search for NY times issues after 1980 will not reveal any corrections to this article.
BTW the houston chronicle article was a reprint.
the original source was the NY times.

interesting little charade we have here isn't it?

See post 312

 

[whois]

Rensberger is addressing the concept of a gradual sequential transition. Not all of horse evolution. See my last post.

it seems he was indeed addressing the entire line of horse evolution.
he even stipulates a time frame for it.
and he said it was wrong.

 

[crjmurray]

it seems he was indeed addressing the entire line of horse evolution.
he even stipulates a time frame for it.
and he said it was wrong.

"

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, or fox-like creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago, to today's much larger one-toe 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. Transitional forms are unknown." "Ideas on evolution Going Through a Revolution among Scientists," - Boyce Rensberger: Houston Chronicle, 5 Nov. 1980, sec. 4, p. 15.

He is very clearly addressing the concept of a smooth gradual transition. I assume you're done speaking about your false fraud claim?

 

[whois]

"

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, or fox-like creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago, to today's much larger one-toe 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. Transitional forms are unknown." "Ideas on evolution Going Through a Revolution among Scientists," - Boyce Rensberger: Houston Chronicle, 5 Nov. 1980, sec. 4, p. 15.

He is very clearly addressing the concept of a smooth gradual transition. I assume you're done speaking about your false fraud claim?

boyce said in 1980 horse transitional fossils are unknown, then in 1997 says the oldest known transtional forms is the very same thing he spoke against.

you don't have problem with that?
seriously?
no, i don't suppose you would.

 

[crjmurray]

boyce said in 1980 horse transitional fossils are unknown, then in 1997 says the oldest known transtional forms is the very same thing he spoke against.

you don't have problem with that?
seriously?
no, i don't suppose you would.

In the 1980 paper, he's referring to transitionals between the intermediates he just mentioned. He's not contradicting himself if that's what you think.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I've noticed conceding any sort of error seems a problem for some creationists. I can only assume it's because they haven't spent much time trying to get to grips with unintuitive scientific concepts and are simply unaware that it saves a lot of time and is far more constructive just to say, oh yes, I haven't got that quite right, never mind, let's move on, than it is to dig your heels in and refuse to budge while slowly turning red.

It definitely wouldn't work well in a University situation, or would it?

 

[crjmurray]

It definitely wouldn't work well in a University situation, or would it?

It would not