[[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.
I have to say, the claims you post do lead me to some interesting reading. Here is someone's account of trying to find where that often-repeated claim originated. 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. If you have another primary source for the idea that different fossils were found in the same timelines, I hope you post it.
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 Procaryote....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!
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:
"One important landmark along this evolutionary road occurred about 1.5 billion years ago, when there was a transition from small cells with relatively simple internal structures - the so-called procaryotic cells, which include the various types of bacteria - to a flourishing of larger and radically more complex eucaryotic cells such as are found in higher animals and plants." From Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th edition, 2002.
"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?)