[[”Eucaryotic cells appear to have arisen from procaryotic cells, specifically out of the Archaea.” From The Origin, Evolution and Classification of Microbial Life, Kenneth Todar, University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Bacteriology, 2005.
Still deceiving the public, I guess. Maybe more of that pressure is needed. (From where or whom did that pressure come, anyway?)]]
Yes, still deceiving- Procaryotic cells invade the host and ingage in symbiotic relationships- symbiotic relationships- no matter the amount of adaption to hte invasion the host may go through, are not examples of Macroevolution.
[[I frankly don’t have a strong background in cell-level biology, so I can’t really address this. A little poking around makes it look like they still teach that Eucs evolved from Procs:]]
I’ve looked into the matter carefully, and it was admitted to be nothign more than symbiotic relationship between the two species- yet sadly, the current common data still falsely claim it to be an example of macroevolution.
[[The best he could do is a book from 1935 by someone who apparently believed that one fossil is as old as another, and that since there are Equus fossils out there, they must be as old as Eophippus fossils.]
Talkorigins is known for misleading and itnentional ommissions- Nowhere did I see the fella claim that all bones are the same age- He simply said modern bones have been foudn with older ones which obviously would sufggest they were aroudn at same time
I find it quite amusing that the telkorigin writing criticises the finding of ‘just five teeth’ in another instance and insinuates that onme can’t reasonably conclude a species was found when a great deal of macroevolutionary ‘evidence’ is based on nothign but bone fragments and indeed on nothign more than a few teeth as well.
I find it equally amusing, and intellectually dishonest for hte talkorigin writer to do his own reasearch and intimate that Rimmer ‘could have’ gotten his source from the same books- the writer is making a case out of nothign but unknowns about hte actual situation or references that rimmer used or didn’t use after the fact. It seems incredible to me that the writer can make his case without knowing the actual sources rimmer used, and do so with such selfproffessed authority to do so. Sorry- but your talk origin link is nothign but a biased assinine example of pompous guesswork passed off as an authoritive refutation.
Do you have a source for that? Or for the idea that eucaryotes have been around as long as procaryotes?
Nowhere did I see the fella claim that all bones are the same age- He simply said modern bones have been foudn with older ones
Who, Rimmer? In the excerpt, he talks about all the different sizes and shapes of horses around today, and then says "The fossil forms, which were probably equally contemporaneous..." [emphasis mine] In other words, he just makes up the idea that the fossil forms all lived at the same time. Later he says, "How can you show the evolution of a four-toed, rodent-like animal, the size of a cat, into the horse, that weighs a ton, if there was a true horse eating grass side by side with the Eohippus that was just starting in to evolve into a horse thirty million years later?" There's no basis given for thinking a "true horse" was eating grass side by side with Eohippus, except that there are fossils of both.
Okay, so if it isn't Rimmer's book, what is the source for your claim that modern horse bones have been found mixed in with fossil horse bones? You posted a link to a Web site, which references a book by Hitchings, who neglects to give a source for the claim. The TalkOrigins writer spends a lot of time following the trail and finds it leads to Rimmer's book. If you think that's just pompous guesswork, then tell us what the source really was.