🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 5 May 1997 wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 4 May 1997 John Gardner wrote:

> >	No FACT of evolution where one species has led
> >to another.  Change within species to an extremely limited
> >degree yes, but nothing that would justify the _miraclulous_
> >transformation of one species into another.
>
> heavens!!! can it be that someone is actually so ignorant so that he's
> never HEARD of the talk.origins FAQ or even the january washington
> post 'horizons' section that makes his statement wrong?...

The horse series was claimed to provide this great evidence for the theory
of evolution, and was cited as evidence for the theory in the W. Post
piece.  I was wondering if you knew why evolutionists continue to tout
this as evidence, when it has been known for years (G.G. Simpson pointed
this out before, say 1950) that the series is fraudulent, and that Marsh
arranged the fossils to lead up to the modern horse, consciously ignoring
the fossil evidence.  Is the evidence for evolution really so weak as to
necessitate continuing to pull this lie over the public in the name of
science, properly called pseudoscience?[see _The Encyclopedia of
Evolution_, by Milner (spelling?), forward by Gould, entry for horse
evolution.]

>  as the
> police chief said in a bugs bunny cartoon...ya might say that, rabbit,
> ya might....