Replies

So which of these ancestors (bones) could mate with a modern horse and produce fertile offspring.

Don't know?

Can't know?

Morphology is not very convincing. Remember the horse skeleton collection that was used for YEARS to tout evolution in texts, and then was exposed as an evolutionary FRAUD. The curator sorted the skeletons by height.

This is reminiscent of Lamarck not Darwin.

>>As this third line of Miocene horses began to specialize in eating grasses, several changes occurred. First, the teeth changed to be better suited for chewing harsh, abrasive grass.<<

But even worse, TALKORIGINS is an evolutionary apologist site.

>>Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage. Many laypeople even have the (incorrect) impression that the situation is even worse, and that there are no known transitions at all. Why are there still gaps? And why do many people think that there are even more gaps than there really are? <<

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps

Morphological species determination is, as I have said before, crap science. NS Evolution is full of squishy definitions, and unsupported assertion about evolutionary "pressures" causing specific changes. NS Evolution does not go after the frauds that have been exposed with vigor.

The horse fraud, the transitional man frauds, the embryo development frauds, the textbook frauds, the requirement of faith in Evolution to advance in biology (or medicine which is worse!)
The more I see these threads the less I am convinced it is even a theory.
NS evolution is not a hard science yet.

It will be. And it will answer many of the above questions. But it will also tighten up the definition of species, and the nature of acceptable evidence.

Talkorigins will be an embarrassment to future biologists, and it will be fun to see.
DK

So which of these ancestors (bones) could mate with a modern horse and produce fertile offspring.

Bones generally don't mate.

Don't know?

So I guess nobody can make you see anything?

Can't know?

Things are morphing in stages in the fossil record, the very thing being denied as existing, and your excuse for allowing the denial is that bones are not genes?

So here's the sequence:

Creationist: "There is no fossil record of intermediate forms for horses. There used to be one presented, but science has admitted that that was a fraud."
Answer: "There are now more specimens intermediate in form and age between Hyracotherium and Equus than there have ever been. Here's a marvelously detailed tree of horse evolution with all the genera from Point A to Point Z (for zebra?)."
Creationist: "How many of those can mate with a modern horse?"

Hello? That there aren't any transitionals is one claim. That fossil bones don't usually contain DNA is another. Bait and switch much? Who do you think you're fooling? Your original claim is false. Got a valid answer?

Anyway, it amuses me to kick again at the new goalpost.

Morphology is not very convincing.

Only if you're fighting Holy-Warrior-style to stay unconvinced and pig-ignorant. Morphological data produce the same phylogenetic trees as molecular biological data to a remarkable degree. How can that happen if morphological data is useless. Molecular biology came along in the last 30 years and validated the tree of life morphology had created over the preceding 200 years. Useless? Is anything sort of whatever you want to be, perchance?

Remember the horse skeleton collection that was used for YEARS to tout evolution in texts, and then was exposed as an evolutionary FRAUD. The curator sorted the skeletons by height.

Actually, I don't know a fraud story involving horse specimens. You'd think I'd have heard of it after six years on these threads. Can you provide a reference to a credible source for this assertion?

But even worse, TALKORIGINS is an evolutionary apologist site.

It is a site which compares creationist claims to the actual scientific literature and thus exposes one creationist falsehood after another. If the claims of the T.O. papers and the actual literature were at variance (say, for instance, claimed transitional fossils were made up or did not have the properties claimed), this would be easy to show. Real scientists would be leading the charge against T.O., not creationists. But in fact what we find is that real, credentialed scientists are the people who write articles FOR T.O.

You would and do dismiss anyone who actually takes the trouble to expose creationist falsehoods ON THE GROUNDS that this person routinely takes the time to read creationist literature and rebut the lies. That is the essence of your charge here. Thus, science must either ignore you, and expose itself to the charge of "ducking the fight" with you, or answer you and be dismissed as "evolutionary-apologist." Catch-22.

No sale. What T.O. has compiled is the real scientific literature on horse evolution. It exists. The guy who says it doesn't exist is the fraud. Your wave-aways are a mix of the irrelevant and implausible.

Morphological species determination is, as I have said before, crap science.

You were wrong before, too, as I demonstrated by the convergence of molecular and morphological data. Guess what, you're still wrong.

NS Evolution is full of squishy definitions, and unsupported assertion about evolutionary "pressures" causing specific changes. NS Evolution does not go after the frauds that have been exposed with vigor.

You're too busy being militantly stupid to know if something is workable or not. The personal fulfilled predictions of Darwin himself include Precambrian life, whale ancestors, human ancestors, the distribution of flightless bird life, and the existence of a particular long-tongued tropical moth. Evolution works. The lying lawyerisms of evolution-deniers attempt to bury knowledge but cannot increase it.

Might as well mention that Kathleen Hunt in that article anticipated your straw-clutching denials:

A Question for Creationists: Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?
Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory.