evidence?

I have a few comments on this.First, rather than paging through old National Geographics, you probably got this information at AIG (Horse Find Defies Evolution) or Christian Answers (HORSE EVOLUTION - Did horses evolve from a small fox-like animal? - ChristianAnswers.Net) or one of many other Creationist sites which repeat this misinformation.Second, Pliohippus and Equus were not found in the same stratum. Some Creationist sites get this right, some don't. What was found in the same stratum were both Pliohippus, a three-toed horse, and a species of one-toed horse not identified in the article. Pliohippus lived some 12 million years ago (see chart at Horse Evolution), while Equus did not appear until roughly 4 million years ago.Third, maybe you weren't a participant in the threads where this was mentioned, but it comes up a lot. Just as a parent does not have to die before a child can be born, and just as a parent and child usually both live at the same time for a considerable period, a parent species and a child species also often live at the same time. In fact, unlike individual organisms, a parent species is not necessarily more likely to become extinct before the child species. The age of a species does not correlate with its mortality.Fourth, either this Creationist misinformation (which probably originates with the January 15, 1983, issue of Creation Ex Nihilo) is not accurately representing the National Geographic article, or the National Geographic article misstates the case, because it makes no sense to cite fossils of the same age as showing a progression.--Percy

The single-toed horse could have been Dinohippus, the most likely ancestor of Equus. Dinohippus appears to have been discovered about the right time, it lived in the right period and the discovery would be a plausible reason for National Geographic's article.

What constitutes a 'right time' or a 'right period'? What assumptions are involved? Are those assumptions empirically verifiable? What about the fully-formed crustaceans that were recently discovered in the Pre-Cambrian? Are they in the 'right' place?

lawdog,Welcome back. Please respond to post 46.Thanks,Mark

To answer the question which I was accused of avoiding, all of those were apparently distinct animals, with distinct characteristics. As I mentioned previously, it is not the evidence that is in question (both sides have examined the same pile of bones), but rather, it is the interpretation of said evidence that requires faith.I would also caution you of the plethora of popular animated drawings, sketches, etc. that may represent and/or reflect the bias and partisan presuppositions of the artists who drew them. It would behoove you to study the actual fossils, skeletal remains, etc. as the actually appear.Thanks for the exchange.

Perhaps, but not all methods of constructing an interpretation are equal. For instance the scientific method constructs interpretations based on the idea that recourse to entities that cannot be proven to exist is undesirable. Wheras the Chrisitan method constructs interpretations based on convergence with mythology.It's like connecting two dots. You can draw a straight line, or any squiggly path you like. You've got an equal choice of all of those alternatives, but clearly one of those paths gets you from A to B the fastest, with the least meandering.Creationism tries to pass off squiggly lines as "just as good as the straight ones!"

Crash, that was an excellent analogy!!

The "right time" is the early 1980s - i.e. shortly before the publication of the National Geographic in question. I hope that that requires no further explanation.The right period would be at the same time as pliohippus. I hope that that requires no further explanation.It seems to me that both should be quite obvious from the context. Is there any reason why you found it difficult to understand what they referred to ?I'm not an expert on the crustacea but "fully-formed" crustaceans in the Precambrian would likely help support the idea that the Cambrain Explosion is in part an artefact of the fossil record (for which there is reasonable evidence anyway). It sounds quite reasonable to me.

The fastest path from point A to point B is not always the right path. It was once thought that bloodletting was the best method to relieve fever. If the goal is truth, then all methods of obtaining knowledge should be explored. The scientific method is epistemologically limited.

How should we interpret them then? What theory best explains their position and presence in the fossil record? Remember, although two fossils may be found side by side, the important fact is which fossil appears first chronologically. If they were created at the same time they would be found throughout the entire fossil record. Give us a theory or method of interpretation that better fits the "stacking" of the fossil record, not only for horse fossils but all fossils, and can be used with fossils we have today. Point taken. However, these fossils are there for anyone to look at which prevents bias. Just like anything else in science, if you don't believe the results do the experiment yourself. In fact, if there is such bias in the drawings why don't the PhD's at ICR and AiG publish refutations of those drawings. Surely one of them has experience in vertebrate anatomy (which is required for almost every degree in the biological sciences).Simply, drawings allow us to discern important characteristics which are difficult to see due to the texture and discoloration of the fossil. The theory of symmetry allows the illustrator to draw the mirror image of a structure on the other side of fossil if its missing, which can fill in gaps. Also, inferrence from similar fossils allows for theorized additions to the drawing (e.g., if there is a hole in a human skull we wouldn't assume that a horn used to be there). By equating skeletal structure/characteristics to animals alive today they are then able to theorize on the appearance of the live animal. Using these techniques, drawings can be accurate and representative.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-12-2003]

quote:

---

The fastest path from point A to point B is not always the right path. It was once thought that bloodletting was the best method to relieve fever. If the goal is truth, then all methods of obtaining knowledge should be explored.

---

Then some people came and found that bloodletting was not the best method to relieve fever. They exposed a straight line as a squiggly line. They explored different methods of obtaining knowledge. Based on evidence they created different theories and they tested these theories. Before you know it, knowledge had expanded and even more squiggly lines were exposed.Who were these masked men you ask?Some people call them.... The Scientists[This message has been edited by docpotato, 09-12-2003]

Misunderstanding somewhere along the line. Oh well, that happens. :roll: I went to the National Geographic website but was not able to find the article; I don't have the issue myself.Could I please have a reply to the irreducible complexity issue concerning the horse leg? Also the fact that Hyracotherium is likely to have been a carnivore (note sharp teeth) and that hoof-like structures may have been from suction pads, like the modern hyrax, with which to climb.I'm not saying the Hyracotherium was identical to the hyrax, but rather that it was very obviously a similar genetic variant. Probably a subspecies or breed. That's why Talk Origins did not state the full case when showing the longer skull of Hyracotherium without making reference to the almost identical full skeletons of Hyracotherium and the modern hyrax.

quote:

---

Point taken. However, these fossils are there for anyone to look at which prevents bias. Just like anything else in science, if you don't believe the results do the experiment yourself. In fact, if there is such bias in the drawings why don't the PhD's at ICR and AiG publish refutations of those drawings. Surely one of them has experience in vertebrate anatomy (which is required for almost every degree in the biological sciences).
There seem to be several problems with the horse series, including that the series nowhere appears in sequence, was taken out of geological context (contradict me if there is contrary evidence) and Hyracotherium was a small carnivore very similar to a hyrax. There are also the problems of how the Equus' leg could have evolved with all parts in place and fully developed when natural selection would not have selected for any out-of-place or partially developed parts. Without a single part the entire mechanism would be useless. So, did all parts miraculously and through random mutations evolve in the right places at the right time? Did natural selection somehow allow this mutation to become dominant even while it was partially developed and therefore unusable? And, if horses had three-toed ancestors, why do we find no vestigial toes on the front legs of Equus?

​

Simply, drawings allow us to discern important characteristics which are difficult to see due to the texture and discoloration of the fossil. The theory of symmetry allows the illustrator to draw the mirror image of a structure on the other side of fossil if its missing, which can fill in gaps. Also, inferrence from similar fossils allows for theorized additions to the drawing (e.g., if there is a hole in a human skull we wouldn't assume that a horn used to be there). By equating skeletal structure/characteristics to animals alive today they are then able to theorize on the appearance of the live animal. Using these techniques, drawings can be accurate and representative.

---

BTW, drawings are good for enhancing comprehension, but sometimes bias can enter into the equation. Boxgrove Man, for example, was thought up on the basis of what turned out to be some teeth from an extinct pig.

lawdog, You may be interested in the comparisons of phylogeny/cladograms with stratigraphy, with the conclusions drawn fom this data.Given that the phylogenies under study are independent of stratigraphy, it is possible to compare the two to see how well they match. There are two main reasons for disagreement. 1/ The phylogeny is wrong, & 2/ the fossil record is so poor that the daughter species is found in older rock than the parent. Given that this is the case, we should expect a very low SCI (SCI is the ratio of consistent to inconsistent nodes in a cladogram) value if evolution were not indicative of reality. ie. Nodes (in complex trees) match by chance rather than signal. In other words, the null hypothesis is that the SCI value will be a low value.

quote:

---

Stratigraphic Consistency Index

​

The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3).

​

Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids.

​

SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)."

---

Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

It isn't irreducibly complex. I've already told you Dinohippus had a rudimentary version - that means it isn't irreducibly compex. Do you understand what irreducibly complex means? If there exists a simpler version then it isn't irreducibly complex. Now you may want to play silly buggers and say 'well maybe equus doesn't have an irreducibly complex version, but Dinohippus does', to which I say prove it.There's nothing particularly extrordinary about the horse leg, the 'stay' mechanism you make so much of is not a fundementally different design to an ordinary leg, nor is it the case that a 'partial' stay mechanism would be mechanically useless - any structure reducing the energy cost of the horse would be beneficial.This site No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.equinestudies.org/axial.htm has a fairly detailed discussion of the changes of the horse skeleton through time.

Sorry, forgot to deal with this: What? You want to maintain it's like a Hyrax, but now you also think it was a carnivore?!? Make your mind up. I refer you to this page: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.equinestudies.org/dentitio.htmIn particular you will note this passage: "The dentition of Hyracotherium indicates a dietary shift away from insectivory or carnivory and toward specialization on a leafy diet." and this one "The incisors of Hyracotherium, especially the lower ones, are larger and stouter than those of phenacodontids. The incisors are aligned close together to form a battery. They are shovel-shaped, with a flat terminus for nipping, not pointed as in condylarths and carnivores."Look at the skull in the previously supplied link; does it look like the skull of a carnivore to you?