Here's what you originally wrote:
the horse ‘evolution’ hypothesis has been already discounted by science
“even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.”
Nothing in there about the graphs. The clear implication of what you wrote was that Simpson backed away from the horse evolution hypothesis, period. That's not true.
I'm equally suspicious of the quote from Rensberger. For one thing, the paragraph you quote didn't appear in the first version of his article that appeared in print (in the NY Times), but was added in the version that appeared in a different paper the next day. Some question whether Rensberger actually wrote that paragraph, or whether it was instead added by the Houston Chronicle editor.
For another, this is the same Rensberger who wrote in 1997, "First, there’s absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution. There is a well accepted, solidly established body of evidence showing that evolution is real and, although knowledge of some mechanisms is incomplete, much is known about how evolution works." He continues, "Perhaps the oldest known transitional sequence involves the horse. It starts about 55 million years ago with a terrier-sized creature that had four toes in front and three in back....The lineage evolved through at least 14 steps, each represented in the fossil record by a successful species, until the modern horse, a pony-sized Equus, the genus to which modern horses belong, appeared about 4 million years ago." He really doesn't seem to have a problem with the modern view of horse evolution.
[[And a direct quote: “Eohippus is referred to the Equidae because we happen to have more complete lines back to it from later members of this family than from other families.”]]
That is simply untrue
Doesn't it make you a little uncomfortable to quote someone in support of your position and then, when confronted with a contradictory quote from the same person, simply wave it away like that?
[[Nothing in there about the graphs. The clear implication of what you wrote was that Simpson backed away from the horse evolution hypothesis, period. That’s not true.]
That isn’t hte way I took it as the article mentioned that the horse evolution AS TAUGHT (and sadly is still being taught despite 50 years ago being proven false) was proven untrue
[[Some question whether Rensberger actually wrote that paragraph, or whether it was instead added by the Houston Chronicle editor]]
Write him- I’m sure you can find an email addy soemwhere
[[Some question whether Rensberger actually wrote that paragraph, or whether it was instead added by the Houston Chronicle editor]
So let me get htis straight- You doubt He said somethign and quesiton the integrity of those hwo quoted him- but oyu have absolutely no qualms about hte fact that He flat out lies by statign that there is absolutely no controversy within science about evolution? Lol-
[[Doesn’t it make you a little uncomfortable to quote someone in support of your position and then, when confronted with a contradictory quote from the same person, simply wave it away like that?]]
No not hwne htey later back away from earlier beliefs when confronted with evidneces which refute hte earlier beliefs- As well, I find it more compelling htat these same folks who claim “There is no controversy in science concerning evolution” and later change hteir minds about somehtign that was supposed to be so ‘solid’ (yet rife with assumptions and compelte guesswork and imaginary scenarios and unknown variables) I keep hearign how ‘solid’ macroevolution is, yet when carefulyl examined, I see nothign but fluff and contradictory statements and confessions that quite frankly are kept from the mainstream- because after all, we wouldn’t want Macroevolution looking unstable now would we?