🚀 go-pugleaf

david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes:


>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, 
   
   It _is_ evidence.  It just isn't a simple series.

>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.]

   See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html.  You've got
   it wrong as usual.

++
   Tedd Hadley (hadley@uci.edu)