Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: AndrewC
It was used in the argument that the sequence is Sino-Caudi-Archie.

I have not argued for a specific sequence, nor have I seen any claims that anyone knows what the specific ancestral sequence is. Creationists evidently intend to turn dino-bird evolution into horse evolution redux. They now quote one evolutionist after another saying that horse evolution was not a linear progression from eohippus to Mesohippus to Equus. (Wow! George Gaylord Simpson figured out back around 1944 that it's not a ladder, it's yet another tree. In fact, he's one of the people they quote.) Then they turn to us and say, "... and thus evolution is false."

You can still tell what diverged from what else by what converges as you go back in the fossil record. Birds and theropods visibly converge on each other as you go back until you can't tell what's what.

911 posted on 03/18/2003 3:40:02 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 905 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
I have not argued for a specific sequence, nor have I seen any claims that anyone knows what the specific ancestral sequence is.

Ok, but post 342 on this thread has that cladogram displayed. Someone drew it. Someone is using it. And I have posted what the site containing the cladogram states about cladogram meanings.

914 posted on 03/18/2003 3:58:35 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 911 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson