vargo wrote:I just thought you guys/gals would like to have a laugh today.
http://www.cleveland.com/forums/debate/
3660.2.1.1.1.1. Horse Manure
Noah12 wrote "When all is said and done, however, a row of look-alike fossils cannot be proof that one species changed into another; we cannot be sure that the little rock badger of long ago changed into Orohippus, since it is just as likely that they have always been separate species, one still living, one extinct. ... To put the argument another way, if horses and donkeys were only known by their fossils, they might well be classified as variants within a single species, but the experience of breeders shows that, in fact, they are separate species. Acknowledging all the enormous amount of work that men such as Henry F. Osborn and G.G. Simpson have put into the horse series, the sad fact remains that what has actually been done is to select the fossil data to fit the theory, and this cannot be considered scientific proof." (1)
"...over the years fossil horses have been cited as a prime example of orthogenesis ["straight-line evolution"] ...it can no longer be considered a valid theory...we find that once a notion becomes part of accepted scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to modify or reject it" (2)
"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit down-stairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff." (3)
1. I.T. Taylor, "In The Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order," (Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1987), pp. 152-153.
2. B. MacFadden, Fossil Horses, , FL Museum of Natural History & U. of FL, 1994, p.27
3. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, Harper's, p. 60, 1984.
I just found what Quoting Mining is all about.
The above Fundie posted a quote from Colin Patterson.
I then found an artical about creationist misquoting Colin Patterson from Talk Orgins website
It goes like this
Colin Patterson: Noebel quotes Colin Patterson, the late senior paleontologist who (until his death in 1998) worked at the British Museum of Natural History, as follows: "I will lay it on the line--there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one could make a water-tight argument" (p. 279). Noebel clearly intends for the quotation to give his readers the impression that even prominent evolutionists admit there are no transitional fossils. Yet Noebel gives no reference for this quotation in his book; I had to track down the source of this quotation myself. As it turns out, Patterson did write the words Noebel attributes to him; the source of the quotation is a personal letter dated April 10, 1979 from Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland. Here is the full quotation:
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one could make a water-tight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.[39]But does the above statement mean that Patterson rejected the existence of all transitional forms in the fossil record? In the above quotation, Patterson was referring to his 1978 book, Evolution. And, as anyone who has actually read Patterson's book knows, Patterson believed that we do possess several examples of transitional forms in the fossil record. He wrote:
In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . .[40]Patterson goes on to note that "... Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."[41] Thus, when Patterson wrote to Sunderland that there is not one transitional fossil "for which one might make a water-tight argument," Patterson was simply stating that he could not make a "water-tight argument" to show that any living species is descended from any known transitional form. (This interpretation of Patterson's work was confirmed by Patterson in a personal letter to Theunissen, in which Patterson accused Sunderland of misinterpreting him.[42]) By relying upon Sunderland, Noebel has in turn misinterpreted Patterson. At any rate, Noebel's allegation that Patterson admits there are no transitional fossils is completely false. Patterson himself lists several examples of transitional forms in his book; if Noebel had read Patterson's book himself, he would have known this.
In returned noah12 ( fundie ) posted this.
I see that you need to be taught some gradeschool reading comprehension. My quotation of Patterson was not to suggest he did not believe that transitional forms existed. My quotation was to state that he did not believe the evidence presented as horse evolution. My quotation is as follows.
"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit down-stairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."
I hope this has helped your misunderstanding as to not make a fool of yourself in the future.
So after I did some more Google Hunting, I came apond this little website.
This is what I posted back to Noah12
Have you ever heard of Quote Mining. Look it up.
http://www.rae.org/bits24.htm
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History and co-author (with Stephen J. Gould) of the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, had this reaction when asked about the horse series:. in Harper's Magazine, February, 1985, page 60."There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff." (emphasis added)And Yet - - - Now, in spite of the above, we agree that there have been changes in horses since ancient times. These are rather like the differences we see today in domestic dogs -- they go all the way from the tiny Chihuahuas up to Great Danes and beyond. These have been carefully bred for special characteristics, by breeders who understood the workings of genetics. Breeders used 'human selection,' not natural selection. Those various dogs are interfertile, showing that they came from the original created kind. God, the Master Creator, provided an amazing degree of variability in those first 'dog kinds.'
This goes to show you that crazy Fundies blindly find any pro creationist site and post there shit with out even checking if its true or not.
"While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity."
----- #3 on the Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian ( I love this one )
