[_ Old Earth _] The Junk-Science pillars used to prop up Darwinism

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian shows that a significant number of normal humans have a different number of ribs)

I asked for "groups" not an individual variant -- some people are also born with conjoined spinal columns to their sibling. I am not talking about abberations of individual WITHIN a species

So if the number of ribs vary even in normal human beings, it's obviously stupid to deny that they can vary among species. It was a dumb idea Bob. And it fell apart.

Now, since you were unable to note any great differences between the last two transitionals I showed you, we'll go on...

Last one was Merychippus:

A little later in the rocks we see...

Pliohippus. The side toes are now completely gone, and the ankles are inflexible, with mere traces of a radius. And it's again a bit bigger. Close to donkey size, now.

It, or a closely related genus, Dinohippus, gave rise to:

Equus, modern horses

to refresh your memory, it all started with this:

Two very, very different animals, and yet, over tens of millions of years, gradual changes produced an entire string of transitionals. And between any two, you couldn't find any differences greater than we see in a single speces of many mammals.

There is no way to understand this, except in terms of evolution. What you declared could not be, you have now admitted by default.

 

[John]

Sorry to come in half way, but i thought the horse evolution thing was disproved over 50 years ago.

 

[Barbarian]

Nope. In fact, we have a much, much clearer view of horse evolution, since so many new fossils have been found. Maybe you can save the day, where Bob failed. God back along the links and see if any two adjacent genera have more differences than can be found within many mammalian species today.

If not, then we have an unbroken line of transitional organisms from Hyracotherium to Equus.

Take a shot at it.

 

[BobRyan]

[quote:81246]"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 of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition 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. 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. [b]So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."[/b] in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.
â€â€*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

[/quote:81246]

"Darwins problem with the fossile record has NOT been aleviated" -- censor him! censor him! call for holy-pogrom - jiihad -- fire da bumb!! ;-)

How dare he admit to that!! :P :

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

So Bob. The evidence is still in front of you. If you want to take another try to show me where there isn't an unbroken chain of transitionals, feel free.

No one cares about your doctored "quotes." Deal with the evidence.

 

[BobRyan]

I have pointed out your error even in the most obvious cases like the rib-count non-progression -

So if you won't listen to reason -- then Let the evolutionists that you serve speak for themselves --

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."â€â€*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

"Each genus is itself a bush of several related species, not a rung on a ladder of progress. These species often lived and interacted in the same area at the same time (as different species of zebra do in Africa today.) One set of strata in Wyoming, for example, has yielded three species of Meeohippus and two of Miohippus, all contemporaries.

"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 continuous marches up ladders, but concatenations of increments achieved at nodes of branching on evolutionary bushes.

"Bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.

"The model of the ladder is much more than merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution as progressive and triumphant, for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages." â€â€*Steven Jay Gould, "Life's Little Joke," in Natural History April 1987, p. 2425.

Exercise for the reader: Define “Unsuccessful Lineageâ€Â

Simpson’s confession regarding the earlier portion of the fossil record: (very similar to Barbarian’s recent claims)
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.

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.

Dr. Stephen J. Gould, wrote:
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. 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.†“Evolution’s Erratic Pace,†Natural History 86 (May 1977): p. 14. [Emphasis added - ed.]



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

"High school 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.

 

[Barbarian]

You didn't actually read the articles from which those snippets were taken, did you, Bob? How do I know that? You see, I've read them. Gould's article, for example, discusses the difference between the first "ladder" phylogenies of horses, to later "bush" phylogenies that more accurately describe horse evolution. And I also know that Gould cited horse evolution as an exception to the rule that we don't usually have smooth and gradual evolutionary change. ("life's little joke" in "Bully for Brontosaurus")

I'm not saying you were the dishonest one. You were, I think, just their patsy in this little game of deception. But from here on out, you're accountable for what you copy. If you post any quote-mined text, you'd better do a little research and make sure it's not dishonestly edited.

And David Berlinski is one of the more hard-core IDers. Of course he denies the evidence. But you won't find a paleontologist out there who will take my challenge. As you now know, having been unable to show a single gap in the transitions from Hyracotherium to Equus, it's a complete series of transitionals.

The game is up, Bob, and posting your doctored quotes won't help you. You need some evidence, in the form of a gap in my list of transitionals.

And there isn't one.

Tough thing, reality. But it's not obliged to meet your expectations.

 

[BobRyan]

I gave you Simpson, Gould, Rensberg, Berlinski , Elredge, Raup AND gave you Patterson to fill in your "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" -- and still you quote only "your own sources" totally unnable to take the high road and do what I have done here -- find a group of YEC scientists that will make YOUR argument.

Why is it that the facts are so glaringly blatant that EVEN these atheist Darwinists MAKE the point but your "deny-all" solution simply can not listen to "your own leaders" telling you that you are barking up the wrong dead-horse--tree.?

Why is it you offer NO objective support on your own part -- as I have done on my part?

It's is because the junk-science METHODS of the atheist darwinist system is also devoid of objectivity.

I have pointed out your error even in the most obvious cases like the rib-count non-progression -

So if you won't listen to reason -- then Let the evolutionists that you serve speak for themselves --

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."â€â€*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

[quote:2ff9a]
"Each genus is itself a bush of several related species, not a rung on a ladder of progress. These species often lived and interacted in the same area at the same time (as different species of zebra do in Africa today.) One set of strata in Wyoming, for example, has yielded three species of Meeohippus and two of Miohippus, all contemporaries.

"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 continuous marches up ladders, but concatenations of increments achieved at nodes of branching on evolutionary bushes.

"Bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.

"The model of the ladder is much more than merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution as progressive and triumphant, for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages." â€â€*Steven Jay Gould, "Life's Little Joke," in Natural History April 1987, p. 2425.

Exercise for the reader: Define “Unsuccessful Lineageâ€Â
[/quote:2ff9a]

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The late Dr. Colin Patterson (senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a letter

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

. . . You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.â€Â[/b] 10 April 1979 [Emphasis added - ed.]

How "instructive" for the objective unbiased reader.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

"There is an interesting discrepancy in the skeletal development of this [horse] series: the anatomy of the various models does not compare.

"For example, the rib court varies back and forth from 15 to 19:

Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs;

Orohippus had only 15 pairs;

then Pliohippus jumped to 19;

and Equus is back to 18.

"Also, the lumbars of the backbone vary back and forth from 6 to 8. Therefore, many eminent scientists disagree on the theoretical chain of fossil horses." â€â€Howard Path, Blind Faith (1990), p. 119.

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."â€â€*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

Bob said
Kinda makes you wonder about the "story telling" and the "wrappering job" they do when they CONTINUE to "assemble unrelated fossils" as a "series".

If you are going to "Assemble and arrange" regardless of rock layer, regardless of skeletal structure -- then you have the problems as illustrated -- innexplicable skeletal randomness without a hint of natural selection as the "cause"--

Bob

Note the reference to 'chain of fossils' is also misleading -- there is no CHAIN it is an disjoint hopefull ASSEMBLY by desperate believers in atheist darwinism -- and nothing more.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

(Creationist attempts to refute the unbroken chain of horse fossils)

There is an interesting discrepancy in the skeletal development of this [horse] series: the anatomy of the various models does not compare. For example, the rib court varies back and forth from 15 to 19: Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs; Orohippus had only 15 pairs; then Pliohippus jumped to 19; and Equus is back to 18.

Well, not quite. As Bob learned, even modern horses vary in the number of ribs. It's quite common for the number to vary in different individuals or races. Turns out even normal humans vary in the number of ribs. It's no discrepancy; anyone who knows anything at all about mammals knows this.

Also, the lumbars of the backbone vary back and forth from 6 to 8. Therefore, many eminent scientists disagree on the theoretical chain of fossil horses." â€â€Howard Path, Blind Faith (1990), p. 119.

Howard would probably benefit from a course in high school biology, where he'd learn why ribs and vertebrae are so variable, even within a single species. As you should know, Howard Peth (not "Path") is a jackleg preacher, not a scientist.

If you are going to "Assemble and arrange" regardless of rock layer,

But Bob, you just learned that I arranged them in the order they first appear in the rocks. Did you forget already?

regardless of skeletal structure

But Bob, you were unable to find any two adjacent ones that differed by more than you see within many mammalian species today. Did you forget that, too?

innexplicable skeletal randomness

As you learned, Bob, they were anything but random. Each one in turn was only slightly different than the rest. You gave up completely on trying to show any gaps in them.

It's still on the board. People can see it, as they can see that you declined to name even one gap in it. Why not just admit it, and go on?

 

[BobRyan]

Barbarian -- I meant to point out the discrepancies as in the case below -- let me know if this is still confusing for you.

"There is an interesting discrepancy in the skeletal development of this [horse] series: the anatomy of the various models does not compare.

"For example, the rib court varies back and forth from 15 to 19:

Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs;

Orohippus had only 15 pairs;

then Pliohippus jumped to 19;

and Equus is back to 18.

"Also, the lumbars of the backbone vary back and forth from 6 to 8. Therefore, many eminent scientists disagree on the theoretical chain of fossil horses." â€â€Howard Path, Blind Faith (1990), p. 119.

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."â€â€*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

Bob said
Kinda makes you wonder about the "story telling" and the "wrappering job" they do when they CONTINUE to "assemble unrelated fossils" as a "series".

If you are going to "Assemble and arrange" regardless of rock layer, regardless of skeletal structure -- then you have the problems as illustrated -- innexplicable skeletal randomness without a hint of natural selection as the "cause"--

Bob

Note the reference to 'chain of fossils' is also misleading -- there is no CHAIN it is an disjoint hopefull ASSEMBLY by desperate believers in atheist darwinism -- and nothing more.

Bob[/quote]

 

[BobRyan]

I gave you Simpson, Gould, Rensberg, Berlinski , Elredge, Raup AND gave you Patterson to fill in your "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" -- and still you quote only "your own sources" totally unnable to take the high road and do what I have done here -- find a group of YEC scientists that will make YOUR argument.

...

I have pointed out your error even in the most obvious cases like the rib-count non-progression -

So if you won't listen to reason -- then Let the evolutionists that you serve speak for themselves --

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."â€â€*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

[quote:c8b95]
"Each genus is itself a bush of several related species, not a rung on a ladder of progress. These species often lived and interacted in the same area at the same time (as different species of zebra do in Africa today.) One set of strata in Wyoming, for example, has yielded three species of Meeohippus and two of Miohippus, all contemporaries.

"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 continuous marches up ladders, but concatenations of increments achieved at nodes of branching on evolutionary bushes.

"Bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.

"The model of the ladder is much more than merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution as progressive and triumphant, for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages." â€â€*Steven Jay Gould, "Life's Little Joke," in Natural History April 1987, p. 2425.

Exercise for the reader: Define “Unsuccessful Lineageâ€Â

[/quote:c8b95]

Just trying to make sure each reader gets the point.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian -- I meant to point out the discrepancies as in the case below -- let me know if this is still confusing for you.

(Bob hopefully tries the old "number of ribs" ploy again)

But Bob, I showed you that the modern species of horse varies in the number of ribs and vertebrae; I showed you that even normal humans do. Did you forget again? If your guy is right and that means that they aren't related, that would mean horses aren't horses and humans aren't humans. Sounds kinda silly to me.

Kinda makes you wonder about the "story telling" and the "wrappering job" they do when they CONTINUE to "assemble unrelated fossils" as a "series".

We tested that one, didn't we. All you had to do was show me one place in the series where the differences between adjacent fossils was greater than found in a species of modern mammals. And you couldn't. So that argument is in the dumpster.

If you are going to "Assemble and arrange" regardless of rock layer, regardless of skeletal structure -- then you have the problems as illustrated -- innexplicable skeletal randomness without a hint of natural selection as the "cause"--

We tested that, too. As you know, I ordered them by the time they first appeared in the fossil record. And, of course, you were unable to find even one gap in the series.

Why not just admit that it is what it is?

Note the reference to 'chain of fossils' is also misleading -- there is no CHAIN

I gave you a chance to prove that belief, but you were unable to do so. Why not just admit the obvious?

 

[BobRyan]

Atheist Darwinist DISCUSS their STORIES - "easy enough to tell .. but they are NOT science" according to Colin Patterson -- it might be "instructive" to listen to what they say about that debunked fraud.

‘It takes a great deal of reading to find out for any particular genus just how complete the various parts of the body are and how much in the illustrated figures is due to clever reconstruction. The early papers were always careful to indicate by dotted lines or lack of shading the precise limits of the reconstructions, but later authors are not so careful.’
Gerald A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, New York, p. 146, 1960.

"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 of Natural History] 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 ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature." *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

Hint -- Define: NEVER happened in NATURE

Need help?

Here is how Deperet defined it --

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."â€â€*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

(Bob hopefully tries the old "number of ribs" ploy again)

But Bob, I showed you that the modern species of horse varies in the number of ribs and vertebrae; I showed you that even normal humans do. Did you forget again? If your guy is right and that means that they aren't related, that would mean horses aren't horses and humans aren't humans. Sounds kinda silly to me.

Except we saw you fail stall and fallover on the "obvious point" that HUMANS still have the SAME number of ribs despite some individuals with anomalies -- no NEW species of humans nor new stasble skeletal GROUP of humans with some new set number of ribs or vertebrae -- it is just not happening "obviously". WE DO have stable groups with different characteristics between Asia and Europe for example - BUT ALL stable groups have the SAME rib count!

AND WE SAW atheist darwinists themselves REFUSING ancestoral linkage based on skeletal structure EVEN though bone abberation and deformity in "individuals" can be found among humans.

AND we SAW that the atheist darwinist "story telling" needs an ENTIRE SPECIES to "pop up" with STABLE instances of more ribs then less ribs for another species then MORE and still more for the next STABLE skeletal form.

You choose the fallacy of equivocation BETWEEN abbertaion WITHIN ONE species to IMAGINE a whole NEW species with a STABLE skeletal form.

HUMAN rib set is FIXED.

Horse rib set is FIXED it is 18 it does not matter if an INDIVIDUAL horse happens along occassionally with a different set because there is no genetic method in nature for CREATING horse species through nature that are all of that same abberation.

But I appreciate your devotion to the 1951 horse fraud -- it shows the REASON why that fraud lasted so long as something that "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I have pointed out your error even in the most obvious cases like the rib-count non-progression -

So if you won't listen to reason -- then Let the evolutionists that you serve speak for themselves --

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."â€â€*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

[quote:ed4a4]
"Each genus is itself a bush of several related species, not a rung on a ladder of progress. These species often lived and interacted in the same area at the same time (as different species of zebra do in Africa today.) One set of strata in Wyoming, for example, has yielded three species of Meeohippus and two of Miohippus, all contemporaries.

"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 continuous marches up ladders, but concatenations of increments achieved at nodes of branching on evolutionary bushes.

"Bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.

"The model of the ladder is much more than merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution as progressive and triumphant, for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages." â€â€*Steven Jay Gould, "Life's Little Joke," in Natural History April 1987, p. 2425.

Exercise for the reader: Define “Unsuccessful Lineageâ€Â

Simpson’s confession regarding the earlier portion of the fossil record: (very similar to Barbarian’s recent claims)
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.

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.

Dr. Stephen J. Gould, wrote:
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. 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.†“Evolution’s Erratic Pace,†Natural History 86 (May 1977): p. 14. [Emphasis added - ed.]



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

"High school 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.

[/quote:ed4a4]

 

[BobRyan]

"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 of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition 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. 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 [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated." in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. â€â€*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

As Raup shows -- with the evidence of the "light of day" comes the downfall of atheist darwinist story telling -- over time they have FEWER stories left still standing.

And in 2006 Neandertals caved in.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Except we saw you fail stall and fallover on the "obvious point" that HUMANS still have the SAME number of ribs

No, as you learned, that's wrong. A significant percentage of normal humans have a different number then the average.

no NEW species of humans

Indeed. And as you also learned, within the modern species of horses, the number of ribs also varies. Which demolishes the argument that different numbers of ribs in fossil horses means anything.

What does mean something is that you, when faced with the line of horses that led to Equus, were unable to find even one gap with more differences than we see within modern species today. And that failure cost you the debate.

AND we SAW that the atheist darwinist "story telling" needs an ENTIRE SPECIES to "pop up" with STABLE instances of more ribs then less ribs for another species then MORE and still more for the next STABLE skeletal form.

Yep. But since stable groups like Arabians and mustangs within a species vary by number of ribs, you lose again.

You choose the fallacy of equivocation BETWEEN abbertaion WITHIN ONE species to IMAGINE a whole NEW species with a STABLE skeletal form.

Nope. Arabians have 17, other breeds 18 ribs. And it's quite stable. So you lose once more. Ribs are not a reliable way to judge descent, since they vary even within a species. And, as you learned they are even variable within a population with a particular number.

HUMAN rib set is FIXED.

Nope. As you learned, the number is variable in normal humans.

Horse rib set is FIXED it is 18

Wrong again, it's 17 in Arabians.

it does not matter if an INDIVIDUAL horse happens along occassionally with a different set

Sorry, that excuse won't work for you, either. Arabians breed true with 17. Nice try.

because there is no genetic method in nature for CREATING horse species through nature that are all of that same abberation.

If so, Arabian horses don't exist.

But I appreciate your devotion to the 1951 horse fraud

Bob, I just demolished the horse fraud. That's what has you so upset. Why not just admit it? You couldn't find any gaps in the evolution that led from Hyracotherium to modern horses. Not one.

If you'd like to go back and take another try at it, feel free. But you'll fail again, because there are no gaps. Nothing in the series where one fossil differs from the next by more variation than you can find in many modern species.

Games up, Bob. Learn from it, and go on.

 

[BobRyan]

Except we saw you fail stall and fallover on the "obvious point" that HUMANS still have the SAME number of ribs

No, as you learned, that's wrong. A significant percentage of normal humans have a different number then the average.

Wrong.

The human skeleton is always defined as having 12 pairs of ribs. Period.

Finding that 2% of the population is blind or is albino or has a missing rib does not change the fact for the human skeleton and does not establish a "new species of humans" as Darwinist had hoped to do with the horse series -- "obvious".;

trying to equivocate is silly since horses themselves can have incidental variations at minor percentage levels and STILL give birth to NORMAL horses NOT a "new species".

Obviously.

The fact that your argument "needs" to equivocate and wandwaive on this is "telling".

Since the dawn of time -

humans have --Twelve pairs of flexible, archlike ribs form the lateral portions of the thoracic cage. They increase in length from the first to the seventh and then decrease again from the eighth to the twelfth.
(Weinreb, E. L. 1984. Anatomy and Physiology. Addison Wesley Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. p. 345.)

What you don't know CAN hurt Barbarian.

Bob