You said the horse skeletons appeared to you to be variations within a species or genus--or whatever you meant by "kind"--and compared the variation to different kinds of dogs. My question, which I guess I didn't express very well, is how then do you account for the fact that these variations succeed each other in the fossil record? If they're just variations like dogs, how come there aren't any fox-sized horses running around now? Why do we appear to have one variety, then the next variety, and so on?
I'm clearly not well familiar with the evolutionary tree's exact order. Is there any chance you might be so kind as to provide me a link to a good one -- one that I can print out 17x32 or whatever and learn lots from?
This is my favorite, because it's pretty extensive and has nice pictures. You'll find fish showing up about halfway down the orange-red group at the top left, near the label "450 m yrs." Mammal-y things show up a few branchings above that, in the same group.
[[My question, which I guess I didn’t express very well, is how then do you account for the fact that these variations succeed each other in the fossil record?]
Firtst of asll- you are aware that some hwere foud in the same supposed timelines, right? Yet they are put up in a neat little graph indicating htey all formed a nice neat evolutionary line- that isn’t true.
Secondly, you are aware that we don’t find these toes in intermediate steps, right? All we see are uniquely created fully formed toes-
Thirdly, you are aware that the first of hte so called ‘horse relatives’ were a compeltely different KIND, right? A Hyrax, or rock badger.
How do we accoutn for hte ‘being in a neat timeframe’? Several problems- first, you have to have faith that the dating methods are accurate- you have to assume htey are- there simply is no way of knowing- secondly, as mentioend before, they were not found in the neat timelines you and hte sites suggest- soem of hte older larger were foudn in the same layers- third, you have to ASSUME they are all related (which as we’ve shown, they have been shown not to be) yet you have no DNA to compare the species with- few homological similarities are meaningless- forht- you have to rely on someone’s imagination and ‘reconstruction and descriptive powers’ and must have faith that they aren’t mistaken. As one of hte links I pointed out showed, you don’t know how many bones were found, which ones were found, and how much relies on ‘fill in guesswork’, fifth- Even Simpson’s ‘timelines’ don’t show any progression from continent to continent- soem of hte finds were completely disconnected geographically and again you have to rely on someone’s imaginative powers to fill in the gaps. sixthly- EVEN IF a few of these species, after all the guessing and assumptions are figured in, were related, they still fall within the KINDS- and as you well know, species can varygreatly within KINDS- the info for hte toes it turns out can be switched on and off, and htis woudl show nothign more than that being hte case-
[[This is my favorite,]]
Really? You do know how many problems are associated with that, right? “Mammal-y” things? Where? You mean the LOBE FINNED FISH? They are a unique species KIND and no scientist uses them as a ‘cross-over psecies’ anymore. As well, the gaps between the ‘major ‘transitional’ species is staggering. In order to get this graph, they HAVE to set a rat sixed creature immediately before a hippo sized one, and it’s as well been shown there is no relaTION to the two- that is a very serious gap Ha Ha. I’m sorry- but htewse graphs are pure fantasy- fien for fantasy novels, and fantasy stories run on National geographic and other such media outlets that care nothign for scientific integrity, but htye don’t stand up to real scientific scrutiny.
Let me ask this Ha Ha- what are their evidneces for even the earliest so called relationships? Let’s go back in hte graph to the procaryotes and eucaryotes- Are you aware that it was taught for many years that these were both related and that the Eucaryotes evolved from the Procaryotes, and htat scientists saaid (And schools taught- and sadly still teach) that we can ‘see evoltuion in action’ as the Procaryotes evolve into Eucaryotes’ but later HAD to admit htiws was a lie when it was exposed as they bald faced lie that it was? Biolgy itself exposed this lie, but science and schools KEPT IT FROM THE PUBLIC UNTIL pressure became too great and htey HAD to admit that it was NOTHING but a symbiotic relationship between the two and NOT Macroevolution as they intentionally and falsely claiemd and taught!
IF they can’t even describe the simplest earliest examples, which SHOULD be a much simpler thing to do biologically IF there is common descent- concidering that there is far less biolgoical mass to sift and correlate and claissify and study, then what makes oyu think that they can accurately clasify the later, much more biologicaLLY complex systems without any supoporting evidence and be correct?
By "kind" I mean kind as in back on the farm. If you can show me that one animal actually did, unquestionably, (which means during my lifetime, in this case) descend from another, then I will consider myself to know that those two animals and all that's between them will be the same kind. If they look like the same kind to me (but they are non interbreedable and I didn't see them descend from the same granddaddy) then I will consider myself to believe them to be the same kind. If they can breed and produce viable offspring, they are almost certainly the same kind. Lack of inter-fertility does not however (by my definition of kind) disprove kindness: It is clear that if one species gets separated into two different geographically isolated regions for long enough, they will no longer be able to interbreed -- but they were still the same kind to begin with and are (by my definition) the same kind to end with.(and always will be the same kind.)
The fact that my car's lug nut fell of and got run over by a hundred and 50 loaded trucks and no longer fits onto my car's lug doesn't prove that it's now a different kind of nut -- it's just lost some of it's geometrical information.)
I realize that my definition of kind doesn't mesh perfectly with yours. I also realize that it's not perfect. For example, by genetic engineering if by no other means, a cat could be turned into any other kind (by my definition) or any creature that has never before existed, just like a computer program can be rewritten to become something entirely different. But my definition of kind has served me well for all practical purposes. Hopefully that answers your question.
You said the horse skeletons appeared to you to be variations within a species or genus--or whatever you meant by "kind"--and compared the variation to different kinds of dogs. My question, which I guess I didn't express very well, is how then do you account for the fact that these variations succeed each other in the fossil record?
I thought you would have known this (or maybe I don't understand your question) but intentional dog breeding has produced sort of a ring species, if I may speak loosely, where each of the different varieties have been preserved. But if, instead of wanting different varieties, dog breeders had only wanted the tiniest dog, we would have only the teacup poodle and all the other intermediate species would exist only as fossils. Same thing with the horses -- had selective pressure preserved some of each the many different intermediate species along the way, we would still have living specimens of many of the intermediate stages. Think of two trees growing: In the case of dogs, lots and lots of branches were allowed to grow. But in the case of horses, only one branch was left on, (or only a few) and so even though it could have had more branches, they got cut off and it doesn't have more branches -- but there's no reason to think that it couldn't have, just like the dogs. (I imagine it would have taken somewhat more generations since selective pressures may not have been as strong as those exercised by dog breeders. Maybe 10 times as long, but I highly doubt a hundred or thousand times as long.)
If they're just variations like dogs, how come there aren't any fox-sized horses running around now?
There are! Or very nearly! There are whole clubs relating to the raising of miniature horses!
Beech Island, SC Check this one out! Notice that these people riding and leading these horses are small children. Also notice that many of these small horses have well grown out mains, tails, and forelocks. (They aren't born with hair like that. And besides you wouldn't want to by riding a baby horse anyway. They don't obey very well. Not sure if you know much about horsemanship, but horses are trained for several years before being ridden by casual riders -- especially by children (I'm certainly no horse trainer, but I've watched horse trainers training and I've ridden horses and that one milk cow we had. I'm telling you, that cow was level headed -- nothing spooked her. And the looks from the people in passing cars was totally worth it.))
Anyway, just search google for miniature horse and you'll find plenty of info about them.
This is my favorite, because it's pretty extensive and has nice pictures. You'll find fish showing up about halfway down the orange-red group at the top left, near the label "450 m yrs." Mammal-y things show up a few branchings above that, in the same group.
Thanks very much! Exactly what I was looking for!
I did venture to go to the website that hosted it, and, well, it looks like the fellow's sort of a funny religious thing or something, I couldn't quite tell. Unless that's a website for a strange movie. Anyway, I guess if we have to go to a religious website to get good scientific documents so be it :-)(To be honest, I sort of expected a university or something. I hope this chart is accurate.)
Thanks again,
-Jesse
I guess there are lots of things missing from this chart. It's pretty and all, but I was hoping for something that showed everything, at least relating to animals.
Coyote, you work with actual bones and stuff, right? Surely there are some great giant charts which show the tree of life including all the transitional fossil species. I guess, working in the electronics design field, where a schematic diagram will show each and every part and how they connect, even if there are thousands of them, I'm used to having information in a usable comprehensive format.
I noticed that many intermediate species are left out.
I too found the Tree of Life Web project a little confusing, and a lot of intermediate species were non-clickable, and some of the pages say they haven't been updated since 1995, and said things like "Temporary page" so I'm not sure what's happening there.
But real scientists must have available to them a great chart or tree diagram or something that has all the documented intermediate species listed in order. With all this talk of mountains of evidence, I'd have expected someone to come forward and say "Well here. Here's a chart with pictures of all the extinct intermediate species we've found, see for yourself that they follow a logical evolutionary path.." if, of course, such evidence is in evidence.
I would be most grateful to understand how this information is actually stored and cataloged. Thanks,
-Jesse
