🚀 go-pugleaf

In a previous article, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> 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.
[ ... ]
->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.]

???  Arranging ungulate fossils in linear fashion is "fraudulent",
if they are better presented as a bush?

And if the horse series were as fraudulent as Piltdown, it still
would not even address, let alone refute, the examples given in 
the talk.origins "speciation" FAQ, nor the talk.origins "more 
examples of speciation" FAQ.  Speciation happens.  Deal with it.

Is it somehow *not* fraudulent to misrepresent advances in
understanding?


---mellyrn
----------------------------------------------------------
speaking only for myself