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.
[[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?”]]
Wow- And you know htis rock badger was ‘evolving into a horse’ how again? Seems to me you accept that a species was ‘evolving’ with no evidence to support htis claim, yet when bones are foudn alongside those same rock badgers, you and talkorigins find it necessary to attack the character and itnegrity of Rimmer? as I said- ask him- he wrote what he wrote, and second guessing him or doubting him without any proof that he was lyign or stretchign hte truth isn’t a vald refutation.
[[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]]
Hmmm- so we should throw out all paleantologists finds because after all, they’re just fossils- I see
[[The TalkOrigins writer spends a lot of time following the trail and finds it leads to Rimmer’s book]
No- he doesn’t find that- He ASSUMES it must have- Assuming is soemthign Macroevolutionists excell at apparently, and by golly, their assumptions are gospel apparently.
[[If you think that’s just pompous guesswork]]
Yes I do! TO had no evidnece or direct quotes from Rimmer, yet TO felt ‘compelled’ to give his OPINIONS that lacked any factually verifiable evidnece- in other words, He is compeltely guessing after the fact. TO writer didn’t like bones being foudn alongside rockbadger bones, and in an attempt to wave it all away (per usual) he has opined with nothign but assumptions and unverifiable guesses.
[[and finds it leads to Rimmer’s book.]
I guess you missed hte part where the TO writer said ‘he thinks’ it led there- with no evidence or statements from rimmer to back it up- we have only a person’s word who incidently desperately needs to refute the modern horse bones with old bones find-