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?)
[[”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.
Just got the latest ‘scientific American’ from my neighbor (he always sends them over as a joke), and there are two articles I ‘can’t wait’ to read titled ‘Hidden Natural Laws?” (this aught to be rich- now Macroevoltuionists can hide behind the idea of ‘hidden natural laws’) and “Unseen Dimensions?”
I guess Macroevolutionists are reading the writing on the wall and predicting that they will have to appeal to more supernaturalism in light of their biologically impossible macroevoltuionary scenarios.
The second magazine looks liek the typical “Man-caused global warmign will doom us all” alarmism “Su8per Hurricanes” “Warmer Water” blah blah blah- (Is ‘Scientific American’ a ‘peer reviewed’ magazine publication? If so- WOW~!)
[[Hitching cites this book elsewhere in “The Neck of the Giraffe”, but not in reference to this particular assertion. But this must have been Hitching’s source,]]
And
[[Could this be the essence of Rimmer’s claim? Not that fossils of Hyracotherium had been found in the same geological layers as Equus, but simply that there were fossils of Equus?]]
**Here Barber reads the mind of Rimmer- telling us what the deceased man was thinking and ‘Really meant to say’ (which incidently was NEVER mentioend by Rimmer at all)- very impressive Barber- you’ve missed your calling- you should have been a psychic mindreader of deceased people- not a writer on TO**
and
[[but even though it seems to be the basis for Rimmer’s outline of horse evolution, it makes no reference to either Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis.]] **Even htough it SEEMS? Barber? Is it or isn’t it? Forget the ‘it seems’ and ‘I thinks’ - either you have the verifiable facts or not- which is it?
[[And this would seem to be all the examples of Equus nevadensis that are available.]] **Hmmmm- you SEEM to use hte word SEEM a lot Barber- if you’re goign to attack someone’s credibility- how abotu writing facts next time instead of pure speculations and assumptions, eh? Your credibility is quickly shrinking here sir.**
[[ and so it would seem that my first guess about Rimmer’s claim was correct.]] **And it would SEEM that you used findings that SEEMED to fit to base your validating you GUESS about Rimmer on- Yup- this is gettign to be quite hte authoritive piece of investigation here Barber!**
[[But Rimmer was unaware that this shows nothing of the kind, and instead here veals a profound misunderstanding of geology.]] **Barber bases this latest accusation on the fact that ‘there [MAY] be nothing about the teeth that warrants them being placed in a separate species [emphasis mine]- there wasn’t even consensus at the time apparently, but Barber, being the seer into past events that he is, is able to inform his readers with a definitive statement, that Rimmer had a “PROFOUND” misunderstanding abotu geology**
[[But it is now over 65 years since Rimmer wrote these words, and in that time the techniques of scientific investigation have grown in ways unimagined in Rimmer’s day.]]
Yes, they have grown in such a way as to now be able to wave hte hand and make all refuting Macroevolution damaging evidence quetly dissappear so that noone ever questions the validity of the hypothesis
And htere you have it folks- the difinitive, authoritive debunking of modern horse bones found amoung ‘ancient’ rock badger bones- all is well again (IF you find “IT SEEMS” solid enough evidence to work off of- it SEEMS Barber certainly does so, and would like everyoen else to as well)
Sorry- but for reasons such as these, and many many more as laid out on Trueorigins site- I wouldn’t trust TO as far as I could throw it!