Replies

I'm not familiar with Pakicetus, and thus have no opinion on your position on same. But since you make the strong claim that evolution is impossible, any evolution disproves your "theory." You are of course familiar with eohippus.

Yes, I agree that "eohippus was dead long before there was a horse," for the trivial reason that once the animal grew to where it is called the horse it is no longer called eohippus. But the eohippus: 1) got much larger over time in a well-represented series of fossils; and 2)eventually evolved into the horse.

You obviously deny #2 above. Do you also deny #1? (That eohippus grew several-fold?) Or is it that the little eohippi were killed first by the flood?

Please post a link to my strong claim that evolution is impossible.

Please provide a link to my post advocating a global flood(one covering the entire third planet from the star known as Sol, to the depths of the highest mountains--attempting to preempt any more red herrings) causing the death of any creature.

Lastly, I have criticized the Talk-origins alleged horse tree because of its disagreement with other interpretations of the fossil evidence and its own internal inconsistencies. Thus I do not find it compelling to accept the validity of the tree in any form. Your questions are ill-formed and my response to them remains, absolutely not. If you rephrase your original question into -- Is there an "unbent" ancestral chain linking the "eohippus" fossil with the modern horse?, I would answer, I doubt it, but I do not reject it.

Please post a link to my strong claim that evolution is impossible.

First, I did not write that you claimed it strongly or intemperately, or wrote the exact words “evolution is impossible.” I am saying that your arguments against evolution often amount to the claim that evolution is impossible, and that that is a strong claim in the sense that atheism and Catholicism make “strong” claims, while agnosticism and Unitarianism make “weak” claims.

You have certainly claimed that a natural origin of life is impossible, or at any rate, would take about E+44 times longer than the age of the universe (e.g., post 142, no doubt your math is impeccable, your central assumption that the simplest self-replicating chemical structure must have DNA, and indeed a specific chain of 125 DNA base pairs, is not).

It’s clear you believe abiogenesis is impossible, and that evolution is impossible for that reason, and I inferred from other comments of yours that that’s not your only reason for believing that evolution is impossible. (e.g., in answer to AntiGuv’s observation that “Your argument is with abiogenesis, not evolution.” you say:

That's the beginning, yes, but evolution is touted as beginning with the first self-replicating system and includes aspects of randomness which are clearly also dependant on numbers.

So I have concluded, I think reasonably, that your position is that evolution is impossible.

If in fact you do believe that evolution is possible, say so here, and I will apologize for mischaracterizing your beliefs.

I wrote: "You obviously deny [that eohippus evolved into the horse]. Do you also deny.. that eohippus grew several-fold? Or is it that the little eohippi were killed first by the flood?

Then your wrote: Please provide a link to my post advocating a global flood.

Obviously, I was making a joke intended to ridicule your position -- or lack thereof. You do explicitly deny that there is an unbroken chain between eohippus and the horse. Fine.

But you refuse to say that eohippus never grew and became more horse-like (because the fossil record clearly shows that it did), and you refuse to say that eohippus did grow and become more horse-like (because that would mean conceding one example of evolution).

And the only way that eohippus did not evolve larger is if there were at one time eohippi of many sizes (perhaps babies and adults), but that during the Flood the little ones drowned first and ended up in the bottom layers. This is of course an absurd view, although it's one that people took seriously before Darwin.