Posted on 05/05/2005 5:17:03 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
Nominee for an ID ping
Ping!
Uh huh.
If you knew anything about the Theory of Natural Selection, you would recognize that this variation in size as well as other characteristics is EXACTLY what Darwin would have proposed. Differentiation allows for selection. This is a PRO evolution article. Had horses increased in size over time in a linear progression regardless of habitat changes and other environmental stresses, it could have suggested a mechanism other than Natural Selection was at work, but not ID. In fact, evolution takes place over vast amounts of time in both cases. Noah must have had at least one boat dedicated to nothing but horses.
Of course it is. Everything proves evolution. There is no other possible explanation.
I should note there is nothing in this article about evolution. It is all about adaptation.
According to the article, horses appeared 20 million years ago. They did not evolved from another species, they appeared.
This has been known since about 1940 and many people have tried to point out the mistakes in the so called horse evolutionary line, this was all manufactured to push the evolution theory. They knew it was wrong but kept it in school books anyway along with lots of other misinformation about evolution. Nice to see the truth, actually only part of the truth about horses, come out publicly.
Yup. But evolutionists like to conflate adaptation with evolution, for obvious reasons.
I think what Aquinasfan and others are suggesting, is more along the lines of this:
"Evolutionists have long pointed to the simple, direct lineage of the horse as evidence of natural selection at work. Anyone daring to suggest that the fossil record might be misleading is immediately derided as an ignorant, superstitious Luddite or worse. And yet we find that the purported 'straightforward' evolution of the horse -- as suggested by the fossil record as it was known at that point-- was in fact misleading. Why, then, should it be thought incredible that there is uncertainty concerning other aspects of evolution?"
To which the canonical response is: "Evolution is a fact; the changes in the model governing our equine friends not only demonstrates evolution, but proves that science itself evolves in response to accumulation of additional data. When was the last time a Creationist ever changed their mind about anything, no matter what the evidence?"
In other words, I bet the Cre's would give the Evo's much less grief if the Evo's weren't so smug, given the cases where specific evolutionary pathways have been proven erroneouss. And I bet the Evo's would give the Cre's much more, well, "cre-"dence :-), if the Cre's didn't seize on any anomaly as overthrowing the entire logical framework.
Full Disclosure: Get Off Your High Horse, already!
Cheers!
I'll ping, but only as an interest in the topic.
This is an article that can be an argument for natural selection. "Horses growing diversly" and subsequently having some die out would be a strictly evo argument.
Though it DOES challenge conventional wisdom about an increase in size as being the "eventuality" in horses that they evolved to.
And the scenario here would suggest that MORE horses should exhibit the smaller statures than presently do, given the lack of "hostile" environments to a shorter horse. Anywhere a miniture horse CAN exist, there should be a more diverse sample of such (if the other breeds indeed "evolved" from these smaller creatures.)
That's what I see it as. Or like finch beak variation. Evo's can make their own determination.
The big story here, IMO, is that a bona fide paleontologist has wittingly or unwittingly, moved a case of "rock solid" evidence for evolution into the category of ambiguous evidence, at best.
And the textbooks soldier on with the old story, of course.
And then there's the aspect to the story of scientific orthodoxy being overturned; "most scientists" can be wrong; textbook evidence can be wrong.
"Evolutionists have long pointed to the simple, direct lineage of the horse as evidence of natural selection at work. Anyone daring to suggest that the fossil record might be misleading is immediately derided as an ignorant, superstitious Luddite or worse. And yet we find that the purported 'straightforward' evolution of the horse -- as suggested by the fossil record as it was known at that point-- was in fact misleading. Why, then, should it be thought incredible that there is uncertainty concerning other aspects of evolution?"
You read my mind ;-)
NFP
bump later
Not really they are evolving into extra terrestrial theories
trying to buy some time till they can come up with another God denying plan...
The little horse was probably picked up by ETs who tweaked the horses DNA a bit then returned a few breeding pairs...;)
Naturally when the so called ETs show up and start telling
folks this is what they did...
Well...stayed tuned for if and when this happens it should
make some for some interesting Letterman/Leno guests.
Luddite! 8-)
No it wouldn't. The successive small changes in a particular direction is the hallmark of Darwinian theory. Habitat changes and evironmental stresses are a given.
good call Garth.
You are factuall incorrect. Natural selection does not propose 'small changes in a particular direction". Environmental stresses creates evolutionary winners and losers. The winners do not "adapt" to a change in environment, they merely survive. The genetic advantage they have for survival existed as a result of variations in the gene pool due to genetic drift. The genetic differences existed before the particular selection event took place. It only became an "advantage", after the event. If a different selection event had occured, the same genetic difference may have been fatal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.