[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is hostile to reason.

[Barbarian]

And where is the evidence that horses evolved from anything but horses? I'm not talking about someone deciding they came from something else that looked like a horse, I'm talking about hard core evidence that horses came from the womb of another animal.

Do you think this is a horse?

Why or why not?

How about this one? (these two are the same size, BTW)

Do you agree with creationists that they are just normal variation within a kind?

 

[Dave...]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html

...1) In 1841, the earliest so-called "horse" fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox's head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse.

2) In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse.

3) In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn't changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in "the evolution" of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks.

The question is: "Is the scheme proposed by Huxley and Marsh true?"
The simple answer is "No". While it is a clever arrangement of the fossils on an evolutionary assumption, even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.

So what's the difficulty for the horse with the theory of evolution?

1) If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed "earliest" horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils!

O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where "both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus".

In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: "Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains." Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?

2) There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.

3) The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly "intermediate" stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.

4) Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.

My research has left me troubled. Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Why do they continue to teach our kids something that is not scientific? Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said:

"I admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ...".

I agree.

The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved, and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time. And there are tiny living Fallabella horses only 17 inches ( 43 centimeters) tall.

-------------------------------------

 

[Barbarian]

...1) In 1841, the earliest so-called "horse" fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox's head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse.

In fact, it is an advanced "condylarth", a primitive ungulate. Owen thought it might be related to the hyrax, another primitive ungulate. That was before all the other intermediates were found.

2) In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse.

We'll get there. First, take a look at my questions on the two above. Can you answer them?

3) In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn't changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in "the evolution" of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks.

Well, no. The "ladder" was found to be more like a bush, with many offshoots, only one becoming modern horses. The series I am going to show you will be that single line; there are many offshoots that we will not follow (until later if you like)

Modern textbooks show the "bush." Can you think of an exception? Simpson said the ladder was misleading, and showed that it was a bush.

So what's the difficulty for the horse with the theory of evolution?

You're going to get a good chance to find out. Right now, see if you can answer my questions.

1) If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed "earliest" horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils!

It's true that we can only find fossils near the surface, where ancient rocks have been somehow exposed. But I would very much like to see where Hyracotherium and Equus fossils were found right next to each other. Tell us about it.

O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where "both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus".

Occasionally, humans are born with complete tails, too. The genes for tails in humans and toes in horses are still there. Mutations suppressed them, but they can still be expressed, showing ancestral forms.

In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: "Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains." Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?

Absolutely. That's what Simpson was saying when he called the "ladder" misleading. There was quite a radiation of horses at one time.

2) There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen.

All of the ones that led to Equus (modern horses) can be found in the United States. You've been misled on that one. Your source either lied to your, or more likely, just made up a story they hoped was true.

3) The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression?

Modern horses have varying numbers of ribs and vertebrae. Most Arabians have 17. Most other horses have 18, but 19 happens sometimes. Humans also vary in the number of ribs.

4) Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.

So do dogs, and strawberries,and a lot of other things humans breed. We can apply selection to do strange things. However, all modern species of horse are close to the same size.

My research has left me troubled. Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false?

Unfortunately, you were fed a lot of falsehoods. Why not answer the questions, and we'll go on so you can see for yourself?

(Eldredge on the fact that it is misleading to represent horse evolution as a ladder when it is in fact a bush)

I agree.

I don't think you do. Eldredge was talking about many lines of horses diverging. I'm not accusing you of misrepresenting what he said; I bet someone else fed you that quote, and you never actually read the article from which it was carefully edited.

"The dead horse that Sunderland and all other creationists beat is, of course, not stasis versus gradualsim, but the existence of anatomical intermediates, especially if they exist in perfect stratigraphic order. I am here to tell you that my predecessors had indeed unearthed and mounted a wonderful series of skeletons, beginning with the Eocene Hyracotherium (the so-called dawn horse), with its small size, four toes on the front feet, five on the back feet, shortened face, and generalized perisodactyl teeth suitable for browsing, not grazing. Climbing up the Tertiary stratigraphic column of the American West, we find the horses becoming progressively bigger, with fewer toes (modern horses have but one on each foot) and more comlicated teeth. The horses of the Pliocene are essentially modern...
Eldredge The Triumph of Evolution...And the Failure of Creationism

Be extremely careful of creationist quote-mining. The people who do it are almost invariably dishonest, and will try to mislead you.

The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved, and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time.

Yes. At one time, there were numerous lines of horses, and not all of them were the same.

And there are tiny living Fallabella horses only 17 inches ( 43 centimeters) tall.

Which exist only because of humans applying selection for very small horses. In nature, they would rapidly disappear.

So tell me about the skeletons I showed you. Can you answer the questions?

 

[Dave...]

We'll get there. First, take a look at my questions on the two above. Can you answer them?

What exactly are you after here? Would you like me to take a guess?

Occasionally, humans are born with complete tails, too. The genes for tails in humans and toes in horses are still there. Mutations suppressed them, but they can still be expressed, showing ancestral forms.

Hmmm. Human tails? This is getting a little silly. Which way did the horses evolve, three toes to one, or one to three? How did we end up with both at the same time?

So do dogs, and strawberries,and a lot of other things humans breed. We can apply selection to do strange things. However, all modern species of horse are close to the same size.

Which would you rather be trampled by, a Clydesdale or a field horse? It shouldn't matter, since they are so close, right?

Unfortunately, you were fed a lot of falsehoods. Why not answer the questions, and we'll go on so you can see for yourself?

(Eldredge on the fact that it is misleading to represent horse evolution as a ladder when it is in fact a bush)

In case you didn't notice, my whole last post was a quote from the link that was supplied. Some of the sources are at the bottom of that page from the same link. An answer to McFadden on a similar question about the bush.

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200503.htm

What’s wrong with this picture? The horse evolution icon, like Rasputin, has been shot, stabbed and drowned, but is taking his time to get dead. Here is one of the classic proofs of evolution, explicated by Mr. Horse Evolution himself, and are you convinced? Saying this is proof of evolution doesn’t make it so. Better look this gift horse in the mouth.

Consider some salient points. (1) Extinction is not evolution. If a creature abruptly appears in the fossil record, survives for a time, then goes extinct, no evolution has occurred, in the macro sense. (2) If animals appeared and existed as contemporaries, they cannot be arranged into ancestral relationships. (3) If they existed on different continents, it becomes a stretch to assume they shared genetic information. (4) Assigning skeletons to different species is a highly subjective process – and therefore subject to one’s presuppositions. (5) The dating of these fossils assumes evolution and long ages – a case of circular reasoning. (5) Variations in teeth adapted for different feeding habits reveal nothing about the origins of teeth. Teeth are very complex structures (see 03/13/2003 and 06/04/2002 entries). (6) Terms like “explosive adaptive diversification†assume evolution; they explain nothing about how random mutations could have produced simultaneous morphological changes that all had adaptive value. (7) Interestingly, McFadden omits any mention of horse toes. The old picture showed three-toed horses evolving into one-hooved horses of today. But even that begs the question of whether one toe is better (or more evolved) than three; it almost seems backward. Duane Gish in Evolution: The Fossils Still Stay No points out that in the evolutionary story of ungulates, the picture is reversed: ungulates supposedly evolved three toes from one. (8) The basal clade Hyracotherium has doubtful relationship to horses at all. Its position in the horse tree is merely for evolutionary wish fulfillment, to put something in the blank. If omitted, most of the rest of the Equidae become contemporaries. Furthermore, there is a big gap between Hyracotherium and anything preceding it, so where did it evolve from? (9) McFadden’s analysis only considers size, teeth, and location. How did the remarkable capabilities of the horse, like catapulting legs (01/02/2003) and damping muscles (12/20/2001)arise by chance? (10) If you think this story is pathetic, the whole mammal phylogenetic tree is a mess (see 05/28/2002, 12/03/2003 and 03/18/2003 entries).

In the Peanuts cartoon, Linus once asked Lucy to read him a bedtime story. Exasperated by his persistent pleas, she blurted out, “A man was born, he lived and he died.†Linus contemplated, “Makes you wish you could have known the fellow.†Dry bones in the ground don’t say much. Evolutionists, unsatisfied with the starkness of the raw data, enjoy the entertainment of weaving fanciful tales in between the bones.

In short, McFadden seems committed to rescuing his beloved icon from the withering attacks of both creationists and other evolutionists, so that he can announce triumphantly in Science that the rockets’ red glare and bombs bursting in air only serve to give proof through the nighttime of data that the icon is still there. But enough of storytelling. Get a horse. Go for a ride and clear your head of evolutionary confusion. Horses are wonderful animals, full of grace, humor, expression, strength and majesty. Learn some incredible things about horses in the new film Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution III. Thank God for the horse, one of man’s most capable and faithful companions on earth."

But I would very much like to see where Hyracotherium and Equus fossils were found right next to each other. Tell us about it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... /horse.asp I'm not sure of the scientific names given, but I think this is what you were after. It's the same source as listed on my last post (with no link).

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
We'll get there. First, take a look at my questions on the two above. Can you answer them?

What exactly are you after here?

I'd like someone to answer the questions.

Would you like me to take a guess?

If you don't know enough to say one way or the other, that's a satisfactory answer.

Barbarian observes:
Occasionally, humans are born with complete tails, too. The genes for tails in humans and toes in horses are still there. Mutations suppressed them, but they can still be expressed, showing ancestral forms.

Hmmm. Human tails? This is getting a little silly.

Nevertheless, they happen from time to time.

Which way did the horses evolve, three toes to one, or one to three? How did we end up with both at the same time?

Depends on where you want to start. Some condylarths had five. There is a trend toward reduction in number, but remember, there are several different lines of horses, and some reduced more than others.

Barbarian on breeding large organisms artificially:
So do dogs, and strawberries,and a lot of other things humans breed. We can apply selection to do strange things. However, all modern species of horse are close to the same size.

Which would you rather be trampled by, a Clydesdale or a field horse? It shouldn't matter, since they are so close, right?

Neither of those is a species. They are just varieties of Equus artificially modified by human selection. All species of modern horses are about the same size.

Barbarian on misconceptions:
Unfortunately, you were fed a lot of falsehoods. Why not answer the questions, and we'll go on so you can see for yourself?

(Eldredge on the fact that it is misleading to represent horse evolution as a ladder when it is in fact a bush)

In case you didn't notice, my whole last post was a quote from the link that was supplied. Some of the sources are at the bottom of that page from the same link. An answer to McFadden on a similar question about the bush.

Hmm... this?
"The sequence from the Eocene “dawn horse†eohippus to modern-day Equus has been depicted in innumerable textbooks and natural history museum exhibits. In Marsh’s time, horse phylogeny was thought to be linear (orthogenetic), implying a teleological destiny for descendant species to progressively improve, culminating in modern-day Equus. Since the early 20th century, however, paleontologists have understood [sic] that the pattern of horse evolution is a more complex tree with numerous “side branches,†some leading to extinct species and others leading to species closely related to Equus. This branched family tree (see the figure) is no longer explained in terms of predestined improvements, but rather in terms of random genomic variations, natural selection, and long-term phenotypic changes.â€Â

It merely points out what I've been telling you. The linear model has been dead for a hundred years. Eldredge was talking about this, but your guys doctored the quote so you wouldn't know.

Here is one of the classic proofs of evolution, explicated by Mr. Horse Evolution himself, and are you convinced?

That it's a bush instead of a ladder? Yes. That was known well before I was born.

Consider some salient points. (1) Extinction is not evolution.

The sky is blue, too. Do you think someone doubts it?

If a creature abruptly appears in the fossil record, survives for a time, then goes extinct, no evolution has occurred, in the macro sense.

On the other hand, if there are innumerable intermediates, then one has to conclude that it has.

(2) If animals appeared and existed as contemporaries, they cannot be arranged into ancestral relationships.

The ones I'll be showing you appeared in sequence.

(3) If they existed on different continents, it becomes a stretch to assume they shared genetic information.

The ones I'll be showing you are all North American.

(4) Assigning skeletons to different species is a highly subjective process – and therefore subject to one’s presuppositions.

You've been misled. There has to be an objective measure for keying out taxa. An easy example is reptiles/mammals. One key is the number of bones in the lower jaw, and the location of the jaw joint.

(5) The dating of these fossils assumes evolution and long ages – a case of circular reasoning.

You've been misled about that, too. The ages in geology were worked out by creationists, who thought they were much more recent than they actually are.

(5) Variations in teeth adapted for different feeding habits reveal nothing about the origins of teeth. Teeth are very complex structures (see 03/13/2003 and 06/04/2002 entries).

Teeth in mammals are very variable, and useful for identifying species. The complexity of horse teeth is a measure of their change from browsing to grazing animals. Not surprisingly, we don't see high-crowned hypsilodont (continuously growing) teeth on those that remained browsers.

(6) Terms like “explosive adaptive diversification†assume evolution;

More precisely, they are evidence for evolution.

they explain nothing about how random mutations could have produced simultaneous morphological changes that all had adaptive value.

They weren't all simultaneous. Some evolved apart from others.

(7) Interestingly, McFadden omits any mention of horse toes. The old picture showed three-toed horses evolving into one-hooved horses of today. But even that begs the question of whether one toe is better (or more evolved) than three;

"Better" means nothing in biology. An adaptation is more or less fit for the environment. In a forest environment, three toes and a rotatable ankle is more fit. On the hard ground of open plains, one toe and a springy, restricted ankle is more fit.

Duane Gish in Evolution: The Fossils Still Stay No points out that in the evolutionary story of ungulates, the picture is reversed: ungulates supposedly evolved three toes from one.

Some did. Others remained browsers in woodlands, and never changed. Gish, BTW, is the guy who once claimed a human enzyme was closer to that of a bullfrog than it was to that of a chimp:

""If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at certain other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullforg than he is to a chimapanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."

From the article:
"John W. Patterson and I attended the 1983 National Creation Conference in Roseville, Minnesota. We had several conversations there with Kevin Wirth, research director of Students for Origins Research (SOR). At some point, we told him the protein story and suggested that Gish might have lied on national television. Wirth was confident that Gish could document his claims. He told us that, if we put our charges in the form of a letter, he would do his best to get it published in Origins Research, the SOR tabloid.

Gish also attended the conference, and I asked him about the proteins in the presence of several creationists. Gish tried mightily to evade and to obfuscate, but I was firm. Doolittle provided sequence data for human and chimpanzee proteins; Gish could do the same - if his alleged chicken and bullfrog proteins really exist. Gish insisted that they exist and promised to send me the sequences. Skeptically, I asked him pointblank: "Will that be before hell freezes over?" He assured me that it would. After two-and- one-half years, I still have neither sequence data nor a report of frost in Hades.

Shortly after the conference, Patterson and I submitted a joint letter to Origins Research, briefly recounting the protein story and concluding, "We think Gish lied on national television." We sent Gish a copy of the letter in the same mail. During the next few months, Wirth (and probably others at SOR) practically begged Gish to submit a reply for publication. According to Wirth, someone at ICR, perhaps Gish himself, responded by pressuring SOR not to publish our letter. Unlike Gish, however, Kevin Wirth was as good as his word. The letter appeared in the spring 1984 issue of Origins Research -- with no reply from Gish...

I next saw Gish on February, 18, 1985, when he debated philosopher of science Philip Kitcher at the University of Minnesota. Several days earlier, I had heralded Gish's coming (and his mythical proteins) in a guest editorial in the student newspaper, The Minnesota Daily. Kitcher alluded to the proteins early in the debate, and, in his final remarks, he demanded that Gish either produce references or admit that they do not exist. Gish, of course, did neither. His closing remarks were punctuated with sporadic cries of "Bullfrog!" from the audience."
http://www.holysmoke.org/gishlies.htm

You should be extremely cautious about any claims Gish makes.

(8) The basal clade Hyracotherium has doubtful relationship to horses at all.

We're testing that now. You seem unable to distinguish the first one from the second genus in this particular lineage.

Furthermore, there is a big gap between Hyracotherium and anything preceding it, so where did it evolve from?

Condylarths. The most immediately horselike was Phenacodus.
"The skeleton of phenacodontids is generally primitive, especially in the long, heavy tail, but some similarities to perissodactyls are evident in Phenacodus: Its limbs are longer than in primitive condylarths and have five hoofed digits, the first and fifth digit being reduced in size. This foreshadows the early Eocene horse Hyracotherium (sometimes called "Eohippus"), which has completely lost the first digit of the hand and the first and fifth digit of the foot. The limb design indicates that Phenacodus was adapted to running to some degree. Only few limb remains are known for Ectocion, but they suggest that these smaller animals may even have been somewhat better runners than its larger relatives. The skull of phenacodontids is long and has a small braincase. In Phenacodus intermedius the nasal bones are retracted, like in recent tapirs, which may indicate that this species of Phenacodus had a short trunk. As the dentition shows, at least the later phenacodontids were herbivores: Their cheek teeth have low cusps that sometimes tend to become joined into crests, similar to early perissodactyls like Hyracotherium."
http://www.paleocene-mammals.de/condylarths.htm

(9) McFadden’s analysis only considers size, teeth, and location. How did the remarkable capabilities of the horse, like catapulting legs (01/02/2003) and damping muscles (12/20/2001)arise by chance?

They didn't. They evolved by natural selection. If you like, we can discuss those features and how they gradually appear. Would you like that?

Barbarian asks:
But I would very much like to see where Hyracotherium and Equus fossils were found right next to each other. Tell us about it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v5/i3/horse.asp I'm not sure of the scientific names given, but I think this is what you were after.

Ah, they lied to you. The three-toed horse was Hipparion, a very late browser, one that lived into the time one-toed horses like Pliohippus evolved. That's the reason they didn't give you the species. National Geographic makes it clear in their article, but AIG doctored it a bit, knowing most of their readers wouldn't know the difference.

Be careful what you believe. Not everyone who tells you he is a Christian will be honest with you.

 

[Barbarian]

In the horse series that leads to Equus, we have shown that the transition from Hyracotherium to Orohippus is so small as to be no more variation than is often seen within species. Let's go on...

This is Orohippus. It appears about 5 million years after Hyracotherium, which lived on in some places for millions of years. Like Hyracotherium, it was small, had a flexible spine, four toes on front and three on back, but the vestigial toes seen in Hyracotherium have gone completely in Orohippus.

And in Orohippus, the last premolar is now shaped like a molar. (there was some thickening of the premolar in late Hyracotherium) Later Epihippus was very similar, but had two premolars modified to form molars. The ridges on the teeth are sharper and more pronounced.

Here's another:

Mesohippus was a bit larger, had a somewhat less flexible spine, longer legs, and a somewhat longer skull. As you may know from breeds of horse, these are allometric with size, so just getting bigger does most of this. The fourth front toe, though, is a vestigial stub in this one. And now three premolars are modified.

Do either of these appear to be horses? Is the variation of one to another greater than you might find within a species?

 

[Dave...]

Dave Quote:
Which way did the horses evolve, three toes to one, or one to three? How did we end up with both at the same time?

B answers:
Depends on where you want to start. Some condylarths had five. There is a trend toward reduction in number, but remember, there are several different lines of horses, and some reduced more than others.

So there is no evolution here? It seems to me, then, at best, you could hand pick a latter from the bush, and just diregard the rest of the bush.

Hmm... this?

What you quoted was the noted and assumed question of the answer that I quoted on that post. So no, here is the link that I meant when I was refering to the previous post.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html

(Extinction is not evolution) The sky is blue, too. Do you think someone doubts it?

No, it was part of the quote. I was hoping that you would overlook it and assume the best.

Dave Quotes:
If a creature abruptly appears in the fossil record, survives for a time, then goes extinct, no evolution has occurred, in the macro sense.

B writes
On the other hand, if there are innumerable intermediates, then one has to conclude that it has.

No, micro maybe, but not macro.

Dave Quotes:
(2) If animals appeared and existed as contemporaries, they cannot be arranged into ancestral relationships.

B answers:
The ones I'll be showing you appeared in sequence.

Do they also appear outside of the sequence? If so, then i'm sure you would agree that there would be a problem.

I don't have time to answer all your questions today, sorry. Tomorrow.

 

[Dave...]

Dave Quotes:
(4) Assigning skeletons to different species is a highly subjective process – and therefore subject to one’s presuppositions.

B answers:
You've been misled. There has to be an objective measure for keying out taxa. An easy example is reptiles/mammals. One key is the number of bones in the lower jaw, and the location of the jaw joint.

I ran across a "tree" of a bat to a human (to make a point, it was a joke). There will always appear to be something, but whether or not it is valid is another question that needs to be answered.

Dave Quotes:
(5) The dating of these fossils assumes evolution and long ages – a case of circular reasoning.

B answers
You've been misled about that, too. The ages in geology were worked out by creationists, who thought they were much more recent than they actually are.

Your reply does not solve the fact of the assumption of long ages.

Dave Quotes:
(5) Variations in teeth adapted for different feeding habits reveal nothing about the origins of teeth. Teeth are very complex structures (see 03/13/2003 and 06/04/2002 entries).

B answers:
Teeth in mammals are very variable, and useful for identifying species. The complexity of horse teeth is a measure of their change from browsing to grazing animals. Not surprisingly, we don't see high-crowned hypsilodont (continuously growing) teeth on those that remained browsers.

Go back to the link that this question came from and the two dates "03/13/2003 and 06/04/2002" are links to answer your question.

This is getting boring B.

 

[Barbarian]

Dave Quote:
Which way did the horses evolve, three toes to one, or one to three? How did we end up with both at the same time?

Barbarian observes:
Depends on where you want to start. Some condylarths had five. There is a trend toward reduction in number, but remember, there are several different lines of horses, and some reduced more than others.

So there is no evolution here?

What gives you that idea? Do you know what evolution is?

It seems to me, then, at best, you could hand pick a latter from the bush, and just diregard the rest of the bush.

Wouldn't work. Each twig on the bush is a chain of related species.

What you quoted was the noted and assumed question of the answer that I quoted on that post. So no, here is the link that I meant when I was refering to the previous post.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html

Yep, the edited version. It shows Eldredge pointing out the fallacy of the ladder model for horse evolution, (the part they snipped makes that clear)
and his assertion that horse evoution was "bushy" with many lines, only one of them leading to today's horses (they snipped that part, too).

I showed you some of the part they cut. This is what quote miners do. They carefully remove parts of statements to make it appear that scientists believe what they do not.

If a creature abruptly appears in the fossil record, survives for a time, then goes extinct, no evolution has occurred, in the macro sense.

Barbarian observes:
On the other hand, if there are innumerable intermediates, then one has to conclude that it has.

No, micro maybe, but not macro.

Perhaps you don't know what those terms mean. At any rate, as we go through the horse series, you'll have a chance to test that idea.

(2) If animals appeared and existed as contemporaries, they cannot be arranged into ancestral relationships.

Barbarian observes:
The ones I'll be showing you appeared in sequence.

Do they also appear outside of the sequence?

What I mean is the previous one appears in the fossil record before the next one. Do you mean that if more than one species exists at a time, there's a problem? That's sometimes called the "If you're alive, your uncle must be dead" argument.

I don't have time to answer all your questions today, sorry.

Take your time. This is going to be a long trip.

 

[Barbarian]

Dave Quotes:
(4) Assigning skeletons to different species is a highly subjective process – and therefore subject to one’s presuppositions.

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled. There has to be an objective measure for keying out taxa. An easy example is reptiles/mammals. One key is the number of bones in the lower jaw, and the location of the jaw joint.

I ran across a "tree" of a bat to a human (to make a point, it was a joke).

Yeah. Do you have anything else? The point is that the way fossils are assigned is objective. The problem comes in when you get to the transitionals. Some are so precisely intermediate that the usual methods of deciding don't work very well. For example, there are intermediates between reptiles and mammals with both jaw joints. Those are hard.

Dave Quotes:
(5) The dating of these fossils assumes evolution and long ages – a case of circular reasoning.

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled about that, too. The ages in geology were worked out by creationists, who thought they were much more recent than they actually are.

Your reply does not solve the fact of the assumption of long ages.

The point is that long ages were not part of the process. They were dated by geological period, with no assumptions about how long they were.

However, physics has shown us the way to directly measure ages of rocks, and so we know that the Earth is billions of years old.

(5) Variations in teeth adapted for different feeding habits reveal nothing about the origins of teeth. Teeth are very complex structures (see 03/13/2003 and 06/04/2002 entries).

Barbarian observes:
Teeth in mammals are very variable, and useful for identifying species. The complexity of horse teeth is a measure of their change from browsing to grazing animals. Not surprisingly, we don't see high-crowned hypsilodont (continuously growing) teeth on those that remained browsers.

Go back to the link that this question came from and the two dates "03/13/2003 and 06/04/2002" are links to answer your question.

Why not just tell me? If you don't understand it, what makes you think it's right?

This is getting boring B.

There's no royal road to understanding in science, either. You have to learn the basics, if you want to understand. Since you don't see any significant differences between Orohippus and Mesohippus, we'll go on:

[/img]http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/images/mesoh.jpg[/img]
Mesohippus lived as recently as 36 million years ago.

Miohippus was a bit larger than Mesohippus, and the ankle bones were different, making it less flexible, but sturdier and more adapted to running.

A peculiar crest on the teeth, common to all subsequent horses in this line, is seen on some individuals of Miohippus. This genus gave rise to a number of different lines. There were more species diverging at this time. At least two species of Mesohippus and two species of Miohippus were living at the same time. But the different species of Mesohippus died out, and Miohippus lived on to about 32 million years ago.

Notice also that the spine is less bowed, a trend that started with Orohippus. The head is slightly longer.

Does this one look significantly different than Mesohippus? Do either of them look like horses? If so, when did the big change happen from Hyracotherium?

If not, we can go on.

 

[Barbarian]

I rarely get much beyond Mesohippus before the creationist realizes where the evidence is leading, and bails out.

 

[Dave...]

It's not about bailing out. It's about trying to figure out where you are going with this so I can determine whether or not you are going to try to use micro to prove macro. It almost seems to me that your aguement hinges on how I answer a question, which tells me that the facts may not speak for themselves, so a show is in order to go along with it.

The point is that long ages were not part of the process. They were dated by geological period, with no assumptions about how long they were.

However, physics has shown us the way to directly measure ages of rocks, and so we know that the Earth is billions of years old.

Unless you were there, you cannot make a statement like this as if it were fact. You see, B, the things that I do know raise concerns about the answers you gave about the things that I don't know. And to tell you the truth, i'm not really in the mood to test it all. Like you said, it takes a while.

I thought that you had something else in mind B. It would have been much easier if you'd made your case and we worked from there.

Maybe in a week i'll feel different, but I need a break now.

Peace

 

[Barbarian]

It's not about bailing out. It's about trying to figure out where you are going with this so I can determine whether or not you are going to try to use micro to prove macro.

We're testing the idea of whether or not we can show evolution in the horse series that led to Equus. So far, we've demonstrated that while there are some significant differences between Miohippus and Hyracotherium, there are intermediates which show a very gradual change.

It almost seems to me that your aguement hinges on how I answer a question, which tells me that the facts may not speak for themselves, so a show is in order to go along with it.

The question is largely rhetorical, since even a refusal to answer it is quite telling. Most creationists, when they realize that intermediates showing the gradual evolution of horses are known, bail out.

Barbarian observes:
The point is that long ages were not part of the process. They were dated by geological period, with no assumptions about how long they were.

However, physics has shown us the way to directly measure ages of rocks, and so we know that the Earth is billions of years old.

Unless you were there, you cannot make a statement like this as if it were fact.

Of course I can. There are many ways you can know about something happening, even if you weren't there to see it. If not, there is no such thing as forensics, fire investigation, astronomy, geology, etc.

You see, B, the things that I do know raise concerns about the answers you gave about the things that I don't know.

As someone said, "It ain't the stuff people don't know; it's the stuff they know that ain't so."

And to tell you the truth, i'm not really in the mood to test it all. Like you said, it takes a while.

Very few people of any sort are willing to deliberately test their presuppositions. You're not alone.

I thought that you had something else in mind B. It would have been much easier if you'd made your case and we worked from there.

I'm sure it would be easier to keep your assumptions. But laying out the evidence one step at a time is much more effective.

Maybe in a week i'll feel different, but I need a break now.

I was expecting that. If anyone doubts I can show evolution from where we left off up to modern horses, I'll be pleased to continue.

 

[Heidi]

And where is the evidence that horses evolved from anything but horses? I'm not talking about someone deciding they came from something else that looked like a horse, I'm talking about hard core evidence that horses came from the womb of another animal.

Do you think this is a horse?

Why or why not?

How about this one? (these two are the same size, BTW)

Do you agree with creationists that they are just normal variation within a kind?

Who knows what those are? Scientists have put material together to form designs of fictitious beasts just like a child can make a fictitious beast out of sticks. Who's to say that scientists didn't cut that material to make it fit? No one. But people give them the power to do anything they want to perpetuate theories they can't prove. If juries can't convict criminals whose evidence is right there in front of their faces, then scientists surely can never prove what happened before there were any witnesses! It all boils down to believing that man, animals & the universe were created the way the bible says thery were, or people making up their own stories. Life has been manifested in the exact same way the bible said it would. There are no contradictions in there. And since truth does not have any contradictions, I'll go with the bible. You can believe the imaginations of fallible men if you like. But all they will lead you toward is more fallibility. But it's your soul that's at stake, not mine. ;-)

 

[Barbarian]

Once you start believing the paranoid fantasy that scientists just invented those fossils, then anything is believable.

Heidi has simply found a highly effective way of denying the way God created our world.

She holds her eyes tightly shut, puts fingers in her ears, and shouts "LALALALALALALALA" just as loud as she can.

Easy. And way more effective than dealing with the evidence.

 

[Heidi]

No, actually I use common sense which evolutionists cannot only not define, but can't understand as well. Common sense does not contradict reality and formulate absurd hypotheses that contradict the way animals mate. It does not make up words for unprovable theories and fictitious beasts. It is is based on simple reality and holds no contradictions. There are as many theories on how long the horse lived, whether it has evolved into a superior species than when it was created, as there are people who study them. As you can see, their age and previous structure is arbitrary according to the perception of the individuals studying them.

But again, the way horses have bred since recorded history is in complete agreement with the bible. Again, the truth can only be found in reality, not the imagination. ;-)

 

[Barbarian]

No, actually I use common sense

So far, you've given us no reason to think so. You've just adjusted the Bible to suit yourself. This is not wise, and it shows no common sense.

 

[Heidi]

No, actually I use common sense

So far, you've given us no reason to think so. You've just adjusted the Bible to suit yourself. This is not wise, and it shows no common sense.

This statement of yours proves my point perfectly. It is a complete falsehood and you know it. What have I adjusted in the bible to suit myself? :o I have quoted it word for word. It's not my fault if the bible verifies the way humans & animals reproduce & evolution contradicts it. If you can't back up this ridiculous statement, then it's nothing but slander.

 

[Barbarian]

This statement of yours proves my point perfectly. It is a complete falsehood and you know it.

Nope. It's very true, and I can show you.

What have I adjusted in the bible to suit myself?

But again, the way horses have bred since recorded history is in complete agreement with the bible.

Doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible. You just added that because you want it in the Bible.

I have quoted it word for word. It's not my fault if the bible verifies the way humans & animals reproduce

Word for word, where does it say that?

If you can't back up this ridiculous statement, then it's nothing but slander.

I wouldn't say it if I couldn't show you it was true.

 

[Heidi]

This statement of yours proves my point perfectly. It is a complete falsehood and you know it.

Nope. It's very true, and I can show you.

[quote:588a6]What have I adjusted in the bible to suit myself?

But again, the way horses have bred since recorded history is in complete agreement with the bible.

Doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible. You just added that because you want it in the Bible.

I have quoted it word for word. It's not my fault if the bible verifies the way humans & animals reproduce

The bible said that each animal breeds its own kind. That includes horses as well. The bible also says that animals reproduce themselves. Evolution says the opposite. So again, how have I twisted the bible? It is evolutionists who have twisted the bible when they say God didn't create man, but man evolved from another species. All evolutionists have to do is believe the bible and the theory of evolution would never have been postulated.

Word for word, where does it say that?

If you can't back up this ridiculous statement, then it's nothing but slander.

I wouldn't say it if I couldn't show you it was true.[/quote:588a6]