Evolution

[Ronin]

Where are the fossil records of the animals that we see today? If all living things evolved to something different then how they started, where are their fossils? In museums today there are billions of dinasour bones that we have collected, yet there is not one transitional fossil. For example if we all evovled what did a lion look like before it became what it is today? There should be examples of all the animals that are alive today. And there should be several examples for every animal. Darwin himself admitted if we can't find transitional fossils,for they should be everywhere, then evolution is wrong!
So where are the fossils?

[Abiele777]

Where are the fossil records of the animals that we see today? If all living things evolved to something different then how they started, where are their fossils? In museums today there are billions of dinasour bones that we have collected, yet there is not one transitional fossil. For example if we all evovled what did a lion look like before it became what it is today? There should be examples of all the animals that are alive today. And there should be several examples for every animal. Darwin himself admitted if we can't find transitional fossils,for they should be everywhere, then evolution is wrong!
So where are the fossils?

What ever made you think there are no transitional fossils? We have plenty.

For example, This page has a list of the transitional fossils we have for horse evolution. We can do the same thing with just about any species you want.

Kathleen Hunt revised her original transitional fossil faq in response to my 1996 criticism of it that I posted on Talk Origins. She pulled the horse series out of that Transitional series FAQ and made it a seperate FAQ. Here is my response to her horse FAQ. Of course, she also acknowledges the punctuationists (paleontologists) criticisms of the traditional alleged horse evolution. The following is my fairly recent updated criticism of this Horse FAQ.


"The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks..."
H. Nilsson

Horse Evolution- Fact or Horse Manure?[/b]

By Arthur Biele

High School and College textbooks still make the claim that the modern horse evolved from a small, not very horse like animal, called Eohippus. I am going to show that horses did not evolve at all from Eohippus. I will present the facts to you but leave it up to you to decide if today’s horse evolved from a species that was not an equine.

According to the horse series, the horse started as Eohippus, a four toed animal that lived 50 million years ago. Eohippus evolves into a larger three toed creature called Mesohippus. Mesohippus then evolves into the Merychippus, which still had three toes, but two were smaller than the one in the middle. Then finally it evolved into an Equus, a modern day horse with one toe or hoof.

Now I will tell why the above statement is incorrect. The Eohippus was discovered in 1841 by Richard Owen, one of the best paleontologists of his time and also the inventor of the word “Dinosaur.” Professor Owen did not call his fossil discovery Eohippus because, upon careful observation, it did not look like a “hippus” (horse) at all. He called it “Hyracotherium” because it resembled a modern day Hyrax (a rabbit like creature), also known as a Cony, a Rock Badger, or a Daman. The skull and teeth of Hyracotherium is different than that of the Hyrax, but if you fleshed out the full bone structure, including its’ arched back, it would look very similar to a Hyrax. Textbooks, such as our ‘Exploring Life Science’ take great liberties when they flesh out Eohippus to make it look more like a mini-horse.
How did Hyracotherium come to be called Eohippus? Charles Darwin could not find any evidence of ‘Changes in Living Things Over Time’ in the fossil record for his Theory of Evolution. Paleontologist and evolutionist Stephen Gould (Natural History, May 1977) writes of Darwin’s prediction that the fossil record will ultimately reveal the gradual and continual ‘Changes in Living Things Over Time’ that the theory of evolution depends on:

"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He, who rejects these views on the nature of the geologic records, will rightly reject my whole theory."”

Darwin believed that future exploration of the fossil record would turn up the missing intermediate fossils his theory predicts.

In the 1860’s, a man named Othniel Charles Marsh of Yale University became a supporter of Charles Darwin and a defender of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. From reading Darwin’s book Origins of the Species … he knew that Charles Darwin was very concerned about the great lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Marsh paid people to dig up and bring him fossils from the American west. He was hoping to collect enough fossils to demonstrate a major evolutionary transformation of a species into a new quite different species. An abundance of horse fossils were brought to him. They varied enough that he was able to arrange a selection of them into an evolutionary order starting with Mesohippus, then Merychippus, and finally Equus. These all looked like horses with minor changes, mostly in size. Marsh had in his collection a fossil of a creature that he named Orohippus which means Mountain horse. Eohippus had been discovered by David Cope, Marsh’s chief rival. Orohippus looks just like the Eohippus in our textbook illustration except that a premolar in Eohippus had become a molar in Orohippus. Marsh chose to place Orohippus at the base of the horse series as the ancestor of all the horses. Thomas Huxley, the chief defender of Darwin’s theory, came to America to see Marsh’s horse series. It was at this time that it was decided that Eohippus (dawn horse) would be used in the horse evolution illustration instead of Orohippus. This horse series has remained this way in textbooks ever since.


Miniature Horse

Today, one could just as easily arrange modern horses in a similar evolutionary manner from the 17” tall Fallabella to the 7 foot tall English Shire Horse.


If Hyracotherium/Eohippus/Orohippus (all nearly identical) were eliminated from the horse series, all we would have is a series of horses evolving into slightly different horses.

Here are examples of prominent scientists rejecting the Marsh’s Textbook horse series:

Evolutionist and Professor G.A. Kerkut, in his book Implications of Evolution, writes about the horse series:

"The evolution of the horse provides one of the keystones in the teaching of evolutionary doctrine, though the actual story depends on who is telling it and when the story is being told. In fact, one could easily discuss the evolution of the story of the evolution of the horse. … In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse”. G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, 1960, pg 149.

H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195. writes:
"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series ... [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema [space between front teeth and back teeth], arched back and long tail.”

Botanist H. Nilsson maintains that while Hyracotherium does not resemble present-day horses in any way, they were remarkably similar to the present-day Hyrax. He writes (Synthetische Artbildung):

"The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous ONLY IN THE TEXTBOOKS [Emphasis mine]. In the reality provided by the results of research it is put together in three parts, of which only the last can be described as including the horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses as the present day damans are horses. The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series."

In 1980, paleontologist Colin Patterson had the horse series removed from display at the British Museum in London, and geologist Dr. David Raup had Eohippus removed from the horse series display at the Field Museum in Chicago. Pressure from angry evolutionists forced Dr. Patterson to reinstate the horse display at the British Museum. These scientists were the Curators of their respective Museums at the time and believed the horse series to be grossly misleading the public.

Finally, the Hyracotherium (Eohippus) has been utterly kicked out of the horse family by science. Horses fall under the scientific classification called perissodactyls. Reference: Phylogenetic systematics of basal perissodactyls Froehlich, DJ, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1999, 19(1): 140

2nd reference (1996)

An evolutionary scientists asked David Froelich "Any chance that the type of Eohippus will turn out to be a basal equid? Wouldn't that be nice!"

To Which Froelich replied:

"Unfortunately Eohippus is a nomen dubium. Marsh's original material consisted of a maxillary frag with about five very worn teeth. The specimen is from New Mexico (San Jose fm.) and from my experience in that unit, it is either attributable to Xenicohippus (a somewhat derived equid) or to Systemodon (a basal tapiromorph). In either case it is not a basal equid (sorry)."

And much more recently from an Evo forum:

"The reason that Hyracotherium has been excluded from the equid lineage is that it falls on a side branch toward the paleotheres. It no longer is an equid. Therefore, the name cannot be used (If it were it would represent a group of organisms for which you did not have a single ancestor, nor all of the descendants, ie. polyphyletic) Eohippus on the other hand was named by Marsh from a single worn maxillary fragment found in New Mexico (San Jose fm.) Unfortunately, the type material is not diagnostic (and currently mislayed) and either Eohippus is a member of a genus called Xenicohippus (an abberant equid) or is a basal tapiromorph called Systemodon (the type Eohippus material cannot be distinguished from these two possibilities because it is so worn)."

David J. Froehlich
Vertebrate Paleontology Laboratory
J.J. Pickle Research Campus
The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712


What the rest about of the horse series evolution? It is simply horses evolving into horses simply by expressing the rich variety of genetic traits contained in their genetic make up.

The diversity of sizes, shapes, and other variations of horses can easily be accounted for by natural selection favoring the expression of different existing genes existing in a changing environment. Another means of a change in gene expression is the loss of existing genes due to small population of a species becoming isolated, usually through migration. This causes them to be cut off from the larger gene pool of the much larger population of their species.
Also, feeding habits, environmental changes can account for all horse size variation. Variations in sizes of living horses today are compatible to those of all horses of the past. Long term trends in diet changes can also account for the tooth evolution observed in the fossil record. The presence of certain proteins in the diet can trigger the transformation of horse molars from cutting type to grazing type in the offspring.

Many of the horse types are known to overlap and coexist at the same time and this overlapping continues to grow as more fossils are found. For example, in northeast Oregon, a three toed Neohipparian (type of Merychippus) and one toed Pliohippus (type of Equus) were found in the same rock layer, thus proving that one could have not evolved from one another.

The birth of three toed horses still happens today. O.C. Marsh himself noted that some horses in the American southwest had three toes of almost equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus which allegedly roamed the Western US 15 million years ago.

Paleontologist David Raup wrote:
"Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that the fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately this is not strictly true. ... The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record, because it didn't look the way he predicted it would, and, as a result, he devoted a long section of the 'Origin of the Species' to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences. ... Darwin's general solution to the incompatibility of fossil evidence and his theory was to say the fossil record was a very incomplete one. ... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky, and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition [Changes Over Time of species] than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse, in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - that what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated...."

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."

"Marsh's 'Horse Evolution' is still presented as fact to students today! A fossil exhibition was staged at the American Museum of Natural History. "The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment. Almost a century later, palaeontologist George Gaylord Simpson re-examined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled." Encyclopedia of Evolution - Richard Milner

"...first we note a primary signal of branching, branching, and more branching. Where, in this forest, could anyone identify a main trunk? The bush has many tips, though all but one are extinct. Each tip can be connected to a last common ancestor by a labyrinthine route, but no paths are straight, and all lead back by sidestepping from one event of branching speciation to another, and not by descent down a ladder of continuous change." S. Gould, 1997, Full House, pg 67

Regarding the earlier portion of the fossil record:

Gaylord Simpson once claimed: "The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution." G.G. Simpson, Horses, 1951, pg 215.

Gould Replies: "The enormous increase in fossil evidence since Simpson's time has allowed paleontologists .... to falsify this view. In other words, bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses." S. J. Gould, Full House 1997, pg 67-69.

"Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years." S. Gould, Full House, p. 69.

"High schoool textbooks propose that, ..., the rabbit sized Eohippus commenced his move up through the evolutionary ranks, one incremental step after another. ... The high school progression is an artifact; .... The facts are discrete. There is no hint of gradual change, no hint either of selective advantages accumulating."
D. Berlinski, review of Full House, O&D 18(1), pg 30.

"The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed 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."
B. Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, Nov 5, 1980, sec. 4 pg 15.

"Regarding transition in the structure of the toes: no intermediate structures: The evolution of the foot mechanisms proceeded by rapid and abrupt changes rather than gradual ones. The transition from the form of foot shown by miniature Eohippus to larger consistently three-toed Miohippus was so abrupt that it even left no record in the fossil deposits ... their foot structure changed very rapidly to a three-toed sprung foot in which the pad disappeared and the two side toes became essentially functionless. Finally, in the Pliocene the line leading to the modern one-toed grazer went through a rapid loss of the two side toes on each foot."
J. B. Birdsell, Human Evolution, pg 170. 1990

Even Gaylord Simpson came around to the truth:

"The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the heart of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature... The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms..." George Gaylord Simpson, Life of the Past, 1953.

If evolutionists and famed evolutionist Gaylord Simpson knew this back in 1953, then why did the falsehood of horse evolution perpetuate in science textbooks even to this day. Students are still being deceived by this lie.

[Goat]

<snipped a lot of stuff>

Talking about the evo forum, why DIDN'T you ever respond to the critic of your posts over there?


http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/beiele06.htm

[Abiele777]

<snipped a lot of stuff>

Talking about the evo forum, why DIDN'T you ever respond to the critic of your posts over there?


http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/beiele06.htm

Anyone posting in 1994 ought to be aware of the difficulties with posting replies back then. You had to go through Bulletin Board Services and not all posts would get through and services came and went and others would drop a group you were to reply to. I had a short stay on Ellsberry's Evolution board, could not get back on it or even read it. This is true of others that I was writing on. I took up with Larry sites again in 1995 and finally I was able to start posting on Talk Origin in late 1995 or early 1996 and debated Professor Chris Nedin who seemed to be Larry's main source for information. Even then not all my posts would get through that I sent to T.O.

Anyway, I'm posting now. If you have something to say about what I post today, by all means- say it.

[micatala]

I would ask Abiele777 to clarify the point he is trying to make with his extensive discussion of the history of the theory of the evolution of horses. From what I gather, he is saying because some textbooks currently have an outdated depiction of horse evolution, therefore the science behind the current model of horse evolution is incorrect, and therefore horse evolution did not occur. If this is incorrect, I would ask for a succinct statement of his points.

[Goat]

<snipped a lot of stuff>

Talking about the evo forum, why DIDN'T you ever respond to the critic of your posts over there?


http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/beiele06.htm

Anyone posting in 1994 ought to be aware of the difficulties with posting replies back then. You had to go through Bulletin Board Services and not all posts would get through and services came and went and others would drop a group you were to reply to. I had a short stay on Ellsberry's Evolution board, could not get back on it or even read it. This is true of others that I was writing on. I took up with Larry sites again in 1995 and finally I was able to start posting on Talk Origin in late 1995 or early 1996 and debated Professor Chris Nedin who seemed to be Larry's main source for information. Even then not all my posts would get through that I sent to T.O.

Anyway, I'm posting now. If you have something to say about what I post today, by all means- say it.

Then, let me take what Gould said about horses in Full House.

First, the two genera can be sharply distinguished by features of the footbones, previously undiscovered. Mesohippus does not grade insensibly into Miohippus. … Second, Mesohippus does not evolve to Miohippus by insensible degrees of gradual transition. Rather, Miohippus arises by branching from a Mesohippus stock that continues to survive long afterward…
Third, each genus is itself a bush of several related species, not a rung on a ladder… Fourth, the species of these bushes tend to arise with geological suddenness, and then to persist with little change for long periods. Evolutionary change occurs at the branch points themselves, and trends are not continous marches up ladders, but concatenations of increments achieved at nodes of branching on evolutionary bushes. Prothero and Shubin write,
This is contray to the widely held myth about horse species as gradualistically varying parts of a continuum, with no real distinction between species. Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years. At high resolution, the gradualistic picture of horse evolution becomes a complex bush of overlapping, closely related species.

In other words, bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.

So, you can see, you are not being honest about what Gould's claim is. The same can be said for each and every one of your partial quotes.

And, you might as well get WHERE the quote was properly. Your quote mine that
was attribued to 'Full House' actually was in Nature , volume 366,page 225-226

On the subject of punctuational corrections for received gradualistic wisdom. Prothero and Shubin 67 have shown that the most 'firmly' gradualistic part of the horse lineage (the general, and false, exemplar of gradualism in its totality), the Oligocene transition from Mesohippus to Miohippus68, conforms to punctuated equilibrium, with stasis in all species of both lines, transition by rapid branching rather than phyletic transformation, and stratigraphic overlap of both genera (one set of beds in Wyoming has yielded three species of Mesohippus and two of Miohippus, all contemporaries). Prothero and Shubin conclude: "This is contrary to the widely-held myth about horse species as gradualistically-varying parts of a continuum, with no real distinctions between species. Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years. At high resolution, the gradualistic picture of horse evolution becomes a complex bush of overlapping, closely related species."

Not only did you get just an out of context quote, you didn't attribute it correct.

Which one should I do this exercise with next? Or, would you rather go though your list, and give full context, and confirmation about where the quote was?
Your track record on the Gould quote is pretty off base.

[Abiele777]

Anyway, I'm posting now. If you have something to say about what I post today, by all means- say it.

Then, let me take what Gould said about horses in Full House.

First, the two genera can be sharply distinguished by features of the footbones, previously undiscovered. Mesohippus does not grade insensibly into Miohippus. … Second, Mesohippus does not evolve to Miohippus by insensible degrees of gradual transition. Rather, Miohippus arises by branching from a Mesohippus stock that continues to survive long afterward…
Third, each genus is itself a bush of several related species, not a rung on a ladder… Fourth, the species of these bushes tend to arise with geological suddenness, and then to persist with little change for long periods. Evolutionary change occurs at the branch points themselves, and trends are not continous marches up ladders, but concatenations of increments achieved at nodes of branching on evolutionary bushes. Prothero and Shubin write,
This is contray to the widely held myth about horse species as gradualistically varying parts of a continuum, with no real distinction between species. Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years. At high resolution, the gradualistic picture of horse evolution becomes a complex bush of overlapping, closely related species.

In other words, bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.

So, you can see, you are not being honest about what Gould's claim is. The same can be said for each and every one of your partial quotes.

And, you might as well get WHERE the quote was properly. Your quote mine that
was attribued to 'Full House' actually was in Nature , volume 366,page 225-226

On the subject of punctuational corrections for received gradualistic wisdom. Prothero and Shubin 67 have shown that the most 'firmly' gradualistic part of the horse lineage (the general, and false, exemplar of gradualism in its totality), the Oligocene transition from Mesohippus to Miohippus68, conforms to punctuated equilibrium, with stasis in all species of both lines, transition by rapid branching rather than phyletic transformation, and stratigraphic overlap of both genera (one set of beds in Wyoming has yielded three species of Mesohippus and two of Miohippus, all contemporaries). Prothero and Shubin conclude: "This is contrary to the widely-held myth about horse species as gradualistically-varying parts of a continuum, with no real distinctions between species. Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years. At high resolution, the gradualistic picture of horse evolution becomes a complex bush of overlapping, closely related species."

Not only did you get just an out of context quote, you didn't attribute it correct.

Which one should I do this exercise with next? Or, would you rather go though your list, and give full context, and confirmation about where the quote was?
Your track record on the Gould quote is pretty off base.

Goat, you do me wrong to treat me so discourteously.

Lets start with my Stephen J. Gould Full House Quote:

Gaylord Simpson claimed: "The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution." G.G. Simpson, Horses, 1951, pg 215.

Gould Replies: "The enormous increase in fossil evidence since Simpson's time has allowed paleontologists .... to falsify this view. In other words, bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses." S. J. Gould, Full House 1997, pg 67-69.

"Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years."

S. Gould, Full House, p. 69.

Your reference to nature notwithstanding, all my quotes can be found in Gould’s book Full House on pages 67 through 69. I did fail to put after the word “view”, “…”, but that is a trite error.

Now what is it that my quoting Gould as an expert witness on horse fossils is actually claiming Gould is saying.

1. Gould points out that Gaylord Simpson claimed that "The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution." For those who don’t know, the alleged Darwinian gradual evolutionary transition that Gould is refuting, it is Hyracotherium–Orohippus–Epihippus–Mesohippus–Miohippus–Hypohippus.

2. Gould’s refutation of Simpson’s claim stems from "The enormous increase in fossil evidence since Simpson's time has allowed paleontologists .... to falsify this view. In other words, bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses."

3. Gould further states his agreement with the scientific finding that "Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years."

All of the above 3 statements reflect exactly what Gould's is saying. So Goat, how do you justify your claim that I am quoting Gould out-of-context, which of the 3 statements are you claiming does not reflect what Gould is really saying? In your initial response you failed to do so.

Also, Goat, why are you claiming I wrongfully cited ‘Full House’ for a Gould quote, did you not know that quote is in ‘Full House’. Because Gould stated the same claim in ‘Nature’ does not mean he did not include it in ‘Full House’?

[Goat]

All of the above 3 statements reflect exactly what Gould's is saying. So Goat, how do you justify your claim that I am quoting Gould out-of-context, which of the 3 statements are you claiming does not reflect what Gould is really saying? In your initial response you failed to do so.

Also, Goat, why are you claiming I wrongfully cited ‘Full House’ for a Gould quote, did you not know that quote is in ‘Full House’. Because Gould stated the same claim in ‘Nature’ does not mean he did not include it in ‘Full House’?

Really now, word for word?


If you are so confident it is, why don't you give the preceding paragraph, and the paragraph after?

It mght be, but , it is still a quote mine. It is a single sentence out of context. That is dishonest to the extreme. That is what you are doing.. making it look Gould is saying something he is not.

[The Duke of Vandals]

From Abiele:

Gould points out that Gaylord Simpson claimed that "The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution." For those who don’t know, the alleged Darwinian gradual evolutionary transition that Gould is refuting, it is Hyracotherium–Orohippus–Epihippus–Mesohippus–Miohippus–Hypohippus.

2. Gould’s refutation of Simpson’s claim stems from "The enormous increase in fossil evidence since Simpson's time has allowed paleontologists .... to falsify this view. In other words, bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses."

3. Gould further states his agreement with the scientific finding that "Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years."

From this website:
http://home.flash.net/~mmkent/Horse.html

The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution."
G.G. Simpson, Horses, 1951, pg 215.

The enormous increase in fossil evidence since Simpson's time has allowed paleontologists .... to falsify this view. In other words, bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.
S. J. Gould, Full House 1997, pg 67-69.

...

"Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years."
S. Gould, Full House, p. 69.

There's other examples of where you copied & pasted.

Abiele777 , if I ever catch you presenting someone else's work without at least some sort of reference to their website, I will immediately petition the moderators to have you permanently banned.

[otseng]

Abiele777 , if I ever catch you presenting someone else's work without at least some sort of reference to their website, I will immediately petition the moderators to have you permanently banned.

Just a moderator note, nobody will get banned just because of not giving a reference one time, or even a few times. It would suffice to simply ask for a reference instead of calling for a petition for a ban.

[Abiele777]

From Abiele:

Gould points out that Gaylord Simpson claimed that "The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution." For those who don’t know, the alleged Darwinian gradual evolutionary transition that Gould is refuting, it is Hyracotherium–Orohippus–Epihippus–Mesohippus–Miohippus–Hypohippus.

2. Gould’s refutation of Simpson’s claim stems from "The enormous increase in fossil evidence since Simpson's time has allowed paleontologists .... to falsify this view. In other words, bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses."

3. Gould further states his agreement with the scientific finding that "Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years."

From this website:
http://home.flash.net/~mmkent/Horse.html

The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution."
G.G. Simpson, Horses, 1951, pg 215.

The enormous increase in fossil evidence since Simpson's time has allowed paleontologists .... to falsify this view. In other words, bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.
S. J. Gould, Full House 1997, pg 67-69.

...

"Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years."
S. Gould, Full House, p. 69.

There's other examples of where you copied & pasted.

Abiele777 , if I ever catch you presenting someone else's work without at least some sort of reference to their website, I will immediately petition the moderators to have you permanently banned.

Dear Duke of Vandals

You make a good point to which I will respond. Most of my sources and quotes I have read first hand. However, I have used a few secondary sources because I do not remember the exact wording used by the author and the quote from the same author and source is sufficient; and I have used a few sceondary sources because it was consistent with the views of other scientists who expressed the same view and I wish to show the conclusion is widespread among pro-evolutionary scientists.

In the future I will cite secondary sources of a quote. I hope this action will satisfy your complaint.

Sincerely,

Arthur