Message 16 of 265 (345397) 12-18-2007 2:14 AM

Reply to: Message 15 by Beretta 12-18-2007 1:13 AM

We can come back to this later, for now we can assume that dog and eohippus may or may not be related, but their past is not the question.

We know there are some differences between them - one is carnivorous (meat eater) and the other is omnivorous (meat & vegetable eater}, so the teeth are different. We can also see differences in the skulls.

But the question originally was what could dogs hypothetically become given enough time - and to answer that we start with an animal with similar size, shape, posture and feet from the fossil record, one ancient enough to show some "macroevolution" in later descendants.

So we just need to look at the similarities of bones and their sizes and proportions, and at the shapes and posture of the legs and feet. We don't need to claim identity, just similarity.

That would make an interesting topic. For now the question is: can we use eohippus and what it evolves into as an analogy to a dog and what can hypothetically happen in the future.

Do the skeletons show overall general similarity in size, shape and posture, and do the feet in particular look similar, with toes and a "pad-footed paw" configuration, including "toenails"?

They don't have to be identical, just similar enough to be analogous.

If the answer is yes, then we can move on to the evolution from eohippus to later animals.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : found eohippus was omnivorous not vegetarian (like horse)

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle sp

Edited by RAZD, : .

Message 17 of 265 (345398) 01-08-2008 10:26 PM

Yes "something" ...

Something that - 55 million years ago, at a macro level ...
...• appears to be similar to a wolf\dog:
......• has a multi-toe paw like a wolf\dog
......• is the physical size of a wolf\dog
......• has the bone proportions of a wolf\dog
......• has the basic posture of a wolf\dog
......• etc
...• does not appear to be similar to a horse
......• does not have a single-toe hoof like a horse
......• is not the physical size of a horse
......• does not have the bone proportions of a horse
......• does not have the basic posture of a horse
......• etc

Something that - over a period of 55 million years ...
...• by changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation ...
......• in the length of a bone
......• in the position of a toe
......• in the overall size
......• in the overall posture
...• and by the division of a 'parent' species (S1) into two (or more) 'daughter' species (S2) ...
......• and the division of a 'parent' species (S2) into two (or more) 'daughter' species (S3) ...
......• and the division of a 'parent' species (S3) into two (or more) 'daughter' species (S4) ...
........ :
........ :
......• and the division of a 'parent' species (Sn) into two (or more) 'daughter' species (Sn+1) ...
=================
... by these accumulated micro changes ...

Becomes something that - today, at a macro level ...
...• appears to be similar to a horse
......• has a single-toe hoof like a horse
......• is the physical size of a horse
......• has the bone proportions of a horse
......• has the basic posture of a horse
...• does not appear to be similar to a wolf\dog
......• does not have a multi-toe paw like a wolf\dog
......• is not the physical size of a wolf\dog
......• does not have the bone proportions of a wolf\dog
......• does not have the basic posture of a wolf\dog

Becomes something that - today, at a micro\genetic level ...
...• is clearly related to sibling species
......• horse (1 wild species)
......• ass (3 wild species)
......• zebra (3 wild species)
......• quaggas (became extinct in historical times)
...• that can breed to make (generally) infertile hybrids
......• mule
......• zorse
......• zonkey
...• that share traits that clearly came from their common parent species
......• size
......• posture
......• bone proportions
......• gait
......• diet
......• etc
...• have traits that are not shared between sibling species
......• habitat
......• color patterns
......• ears
......• tails
......• voice
......• etc
......• etc
......• etc

Clearly in the present day forming 7 living out of 8 known daughter species of a common parent species, present day species that are the descendants of this general pattern of evolution, as shown by:

quote:

---

Florida Museum of Natural History - Fossil Horse Gallery:

(click link to access site, image is mirrored to save bandwidth)

---

Where we see the usual "family tree" representation of the fossil record for the evolution of horses, from our eohippus (Hyracotherium) where we started to Mesohippus, to Pliohippus, to Equus, complete with side branches and cousins. Note that the species shown are the "type" species for a whole genus of related (sibling) species, and that the fossil record contains many more species than are shown (Equus includes horses (1 wild species), zebras (3 wild species), asses (3 wild species) and quaggas (and other extinct species, some in N.America) ... at least 8 species known in historical times).

That's the usual "party line" of evolutionary biology based on the evidence of the fossil record.

Now, if cognitive dissonance hasn't already disrupted comprehension of the evidence of reality, the final steps are easy:

Differences vs Similarities

Step 1:

We start with the dog skeleton, the eohippus skeleton and a modern horse skeleton, and we start measuring every bone (length, diameter), joint (angle, movement), tooth (size, location, number), everything we can measure about eohippus and find analogous on dog and horse ...

And catalog the relative similarities\differences:
...• bone #1 lengths
......• eohippus length = e1
......• dog length = d1
......• horse length = h1
...• bone #1 comparisons^(a)
......• eohippus to dog, ed1 = max(e1,d1)/ave(e1,d1)
......• eohippus to horse, eh1 = max(e1,h1)/ave(e1,h1)
...• bone #2 lengths
......• etc
...• bone #3 lengths
...• etc

notes
^(a) - the trait comparison metric x = max(A,B)/ave(A,B) is thus always1 ≤ x ≤ 2 ,
where 1 would be identical: max(A,A)/ave(A,A) = (A/A) = 1,
and 2 would be entirely different: max(A,0)/ave(A,0) = (A/0.5A) = 2
^(b) - from this we can derive an overall "percent difference" measurement:

Notice that we have hundreds of bones to compare, plus joint angles, plus proportions of one bone to the next, plus teeth, jaw, skull elements ... and we can easily end up with thousands of metrics to measure and compare. This kind of thing has always been done, though it may have just been rudimentary comparisons of bone types and dimensions with a subjective conclusion. Now, with the aid of computers and digital scanning equipment we can process the data directly and objectively.

Now we can calculate the "%D" for eohippus to dog and for eohippus to horse, and the lower result will mean that the eohippus is closer in average characteristics to that species.

For eohippus to dog and horse comparisons, the results will clearly be that eohippus is much closer in average characteristics to dog than to horse.

Step 2:

We add another species to the mix: Orohippus

And catalog the relative similarities\differences:
...• bone #1 lengths
......• eohippus length = e1
......• dog length = d1
......• horse length = h1
......• orohippus length = o1
...• bone #1 comparisons^(a)
......• eohippus to dog, ed1 = max(e1,d1)/ave(e1,d1)
......• eohippus to horse, eh1 = max(e1,h1)/ave(e1,h1)
......• eohippus to orohippus, eo1 = max(e1,o1)/ave(e1,o1)
...• bone #2 lengths
......• etc
...• bone #3 lengths
...• etc

Now we can calculate the "%D" for eohippus to dog and for eohippus to horse and for eohippus to orohippus, and the lower result will mean that the eohippus is closer in average characteristics to that species.

For eohippus to dog, horse and orohippus comparisons,
(1) the results will clearly be that eohippus is much closer in average characteristics to dog than to horse (as before), and
(2) the results will clearly be that eohippus is much closer in average characteristics to orohippus than to horse, but
(3) the results will not be so clear that eohippus is closer in average characteristics to dog than to orohippus, but is likely to be closer to orohippus due to teeth, skull, jaw and toenail characteristics.

Step 3:

We switch to orohippus from eohippus and add Mesohippus in place of orohippus and repeat:

And catalog the relative similarities\differences:
...• bone #1 lengths
......• orohippus length = o1
......• dog length = d1
......• horse length = h1
......• mesohippus length = m1
...• bone #1 comparisons^(a)
......• orohippus to dog, od1 = max(o1,d1)/ave(o1,d1)
......• orohippus to horse, oh1 = max(o1,h1)/ave(o1,h1)
......• orohippus to mesohippus, om1 = max(o1,m1)/ave(o1,m1)
...• bone #2 lengths
......• etc
...• bone #3 lengths
...• etc

Now we can calculate the "%D" for orohippus to dog and for orohippus to horse and for orohippus to mesohippus, and the lower result will mean that the orohippus is closer in average characteristics to that species.

For orohippus to dog, horse and mesohippus comparisons,
(1) the results will clearly be that orohippus is closer in average characteristics to dog than to horse (but not as close as eohippus was), and
(2) the results will clearly be that orohippus is much closer in average characteristics to mesohippus than to horse (but closer than eohippus was), and
(3) the results will not be so clear that orohippus is closer in average characteristics to dog than to mesohippus, but is even more likely to be closer to mesohippus due to teeth, skull, jaw and toenail characteristics than was the case for eohippus to dog and orohippus.

Steps 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 ...:

Repeat for Miohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Dinohippus and finally Equus

Results

We start with eohippus and compared it to dog and horse skeletons and determine that eohippus is clearly closer in average characteristics to dog than to horse.

We then compare eohippus to orohippus and find that eohippus is about as different from orohippus as from dog.

When we move to orohippus and then mesohippus we find that they are closer to each other than to dog and not as different as eohippus was from horse.

This trend continues till we get to the end, where horse is similar to Equus (all 8 known species).

In general, the differences between each step in the lineage is less than the difference between eohippus and dog, and this demonstrates that "something" like a dog 55 million years ago can, step by step, by the dual process of

• changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation ...
plus
• the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species ...

... become something very like a horse ... or any one of the other branches of this lineage ... or it could have stayed an eohippus.

Of course I expect cognitive dissonance to have taken over before reaching this conclusion, and the responses will either be strong denial of reality, with attempts to change the subject, or an absolute silence from creationists.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : simplified (honest)

Edited by RAZD, : ...

Edited by RAZD, : clarity

Edited by RAZD, : time for bed

Edited by RAZD, : revised end comparison metric to be %difference

Edited by RAZD, : fixed repetiton

Edited by RAZD, : .

Message 18 of 265 (345399) 01-09-2008 10:05 AM

Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD 01-08-2008 10:26 PM

From Transitional Fossils FAQ by Kathleen Hunt:

quote:

---

Transitional fossils from early eutherians to hoofed animals:

Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like small mammals with classic mammalian teeth and clawed feet.

Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the arctocyonids, but with blunt crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened nails instead of claws.

Late condylarths, e.g. Phenocodus -- a fair-sized animal with hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a continuous series of crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type cusps, and no collarbone (like modern hoofed animals).

Tetraclaeonodon -- a Paleocene condylarth showing perissodactyl-like teeth

Hyracotherium -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps, compared to to Tetraclaeonodon. A small, doggish animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth.

---

That gives us four (4) more (transitional\intermediate) fossils to work with and even more archaic traits to include in teeth, nails and bones.

In Message 169 on the "scientific theories taught as factual" thread ICANT complains about the artist rendering of phenacodus on the OP (Message 1):

Even the best renderings are, of course, based on some guesses, as well as on the actual skeleton and known muscle\tendon\etc patterns (to be as accurate as possible), while coloration is based wholly on the artists imagination. They are not intended to deceive but to exemplify, act as an analogy if you will. I chose the rendering shown (from several different ones) that I thought looked most horse-like and plain to minimize this effect.

We do know what the skeletons look like, and we can compare those skeletons to the skeletons of modern animals and other fossils, we can see the hereditary traits that are common from one to another. This is what the skeleton of phenocodus (Phenacodus resartus)looks like:

Click to enlarge

Just for reference, here are the dog and eohippus again:

Click to enlarge

Dog Skeleton, by Cheryl R. Dhein, Washington State University

Click to enlarge

"dawn horse." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 16-Dec-07

Now, are these critters similar or not?

This is what a horse skeleton looks like:

Click to enlarge

(Also see Horse skeleton from the same source as the cat, fox, dog and wolf in the OP.)

Does that look like any of the critters above?

Again from Message 1:

quote:

---

So the questions that creationists must answer are:
(1) If your definition of macroevolution is different from evolutionary biology what is it?
(2) Why do you think it is a valid definition?
(3) How much change is necessary?
(4) Why isn't the difference between cat and fox a valid criteria?

---

(5) or the difference between chimp and human?
(6) or the difference between dog and horse?
(7) Are these different "kinds" or not?
(8) If you use the definition of macroevolution that is used in evolutionary biology does that change evolutionary biology?

If a tree falls in the forest is it evidence for evolution?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : format

Edited by RAZD, : added horse skeleton url

Edited by RAZD, : .

Message 19 of 265 (345400) 01-09-2008 10:29 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD 12-05-2007 8:00 PM

quote:

---

A common creationist argument is that evolution does not show that a sufficient level of change can be demonstrated to have occurred in the fossil record, and that thousands of years of breeding of dogs has not produced something that is not a dog:

---

Message 20 of 265 (345401) 01-09-2008 11:23 AM

Reply to: Message 19 by ThreeDogs 01-09-2008 10:29 AM

You mean from an agnostic skeptic point of view? Or based on scientific theory\evidence point of view? On way to find out is to ask your questions or state your objections.

Note that my point of view is based on my personal interpretation of evolution as laid out on Evolution and the BIG LIE, summarized in Message 89 of that thread:

quote:

---

Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. (See thread message 1 for definitions)

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species. (See thread message 89 for definitions)

---

So if you want to discuss those aspects of my point of view, please reply on that topic, so this one can address macroevolution issues - specifically on what happens after speciation has occurred.

It is designed for creationists to explain the problems they have with "macro"evolution in general and to get some working definition of the amount of change needed to qualify. In that regard it is designed for people that don't have a clear concept of what macroevolution is and think there is something else to the process of evolution than the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

Do you have a process that you want to discuss for macroevolutionary change that occurs after speciation?

Enjoy

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

Go to Forum Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

You can also set that cute smiley as your icon :D.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Message 21 of 265 (345402) 01-09-2008 2:44 PM

Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD 01-09-2008 11:23 AM

quote:

---

You mean from an agnostic skeptic point of view? Or based on scientific theory\evidence point of view? On way to find out is to ask your questions or state your objections.

---

quote:

---

It is designed for creationists to explain the problems they have with "macro"evolution in general and to get some working definition of the amount of change needed to qualify. In that regard it is designed for people that don't have a clear concept of what macroevolution is and think there is something else to the process of evolution than the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

---

Since you appear to draw a line between creationists and people in this paragraph, perhaps you do understood my questions and objections after all. You make your argument for your theory based on what creationists seemingly lack. Contrarily to your wishful thinking, they are, therefore, the focus of your argument, rather than what you purport it to be. And, actually, I have addressed your subject and your agenda as well.

Message 23 of 265 (345404) 01-09-2008 4:44 PM

Reply to: Message 21 by ThreeDogs 01-09-2008 2:44 PM

So what are they?

This is your first and so far only other post on this thread in it's entirety:

Message 19

quote: A common creationist argument is that evolution does not show that a sufficient level of change can be demonstrated to have occurred in the fossil record, and that thousands of years of breeding of dogs has not produced something that is not a dog: Is your argument reserved for creationists, strictly, or would you care to include non-creationists who also object to your views?

So there is a very real excuse for my missing these purported multitudinous and drastic objections, ones that you have yet to state in any way. Is there some point to this silly pretense of doing something you very clearly have not done?

Perhaps you think you have addressed it on another thread and everyone reading this thread should be physic and be able to figure it out.

All you have said is that you have some still undefined objections, and as yet we have no clue what that is. We could banter about this for 300 some odd posts until the thread is closed, which would be a total waste of bandwidth and time, OR you could just state what your objections are ...

Presumably you can argue your way out of a paper bag using good spelling, grammar and paragraph construction, and without a severe logic failure, yes?

Or is it 'creationist' and 'logic' that are the contradictions?

Since you appear to draw a line between creationists and people in this paragraph, ...

Creationists are people that don't have a clear concept of what macroevolution is and think there is something else to the process of evolution than the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. They are not the only ones, but I have yet to run across one that doesn't.

... perhaps you do understood my questions and objections after all.

Let me guess - your sole objection was to my use of the word "creationist" to describe people that call themselves creationists, you actually have no other argument to make, especially on anything concerning the topic, and you would rather play little semantic guessing games to waste bandwidth and time than actually say anything.

You make your argument for your theory based on what creationists seemingly lack. Contrarily to your wishful thinking, they are, therefore, the focus of your argument, rather than what you purport it to be.

You are welcome to your opinion, however opinion is not reality. Can you show me one creationist that says that macroevolution is just the accumulation of microevolution changes within species over many generations?

Or perhaps you want to discuss the definition of evolution? In addition to the thread already linked previously, you can reply to this thread (where it is the topic)

So you are done wasting time and bandwidth on this thread then? Excellent, the rest of us can get back to the topic then, the questions that creationists need to answer:

(1) If your definition of macroevolution is different from evolutionary biology what is it?
(2) Why do you think it is a valid definition?
(3) How much change is necessary?
(4) Why isn't the difference between cat and fox a valid criteria?
(5) or the difference between chimp and human?
(6) or the difference between dog and horse?
(7) Are these different "kinds" or not?
(8) If you use the definition of macroevolution that is used in evolutionary biology does that change evolutionary biology?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : yellow text

Edited by RAZD, : use peek to see hidden comments.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .

Message 24 of 265 (345405) 01-10-2008 9:27 AM

Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD 01-09-2008 4:44 PM

I would have read what you have to say about dogs and macro-evolution. But, you are biased about creationists and other people and whatever you have to say about dogs, etc., is subject to that bias. In other words, you're unbelievable. Leave out the qualifiers. Talk about something you know; creationists isn't it.

If your definition of creationists is valid, prove you have interviewed every creationist and evaluated the results with scientific accuracy. LOL

Why do you think my question is valid; invalid.

How much do you have to change to give credibility to your scientific observations.

What's the difference between a creationist and every other human being.

If you use the definition of creationist opposed to human being, show that one differs from the other with your data collected during your interviews with all creationists on this planet.

Who's the creationist that peed in your cereal.

Wasting time to observe a strong and unchecked bias. You are so common. This is so common.

Message 25 of 265 (345406) 01-10-2008 9:31 AM

Reply to: Message 24 by ThreeDogs 01-10-2008 9:27 AM

Humor is OK once in awhile, but you need to give the Topic Author a modicum of respect as the Forum Guidelines suggest.

Message 26 of 265 (345407) 01-10-2008 9:44 AM

Reply to: Message 25 by AdminPhat 01-10-2008 9:31 AM

If creationists are so inferior, how does he hope they will understand the stuff he talks about. Yet he wants answers from them. LOL

Edited by ThreeDogs, : No reason given.

Message 27 of 265 (345408) 01-10-2008 6:40 PM

Reply to: Message 24 by ThreeDogs 01-10-2008 9:27 AM

:eek:

Now you have a choice:

1. actually deal with the issue of the topic, and either prove your prophesy is right or invalidate your perception in the process,

   or

2. continue to avoid dealing with the topic -- in which case you can easily fulfill your prophesy in your own mind, whether it is valid or not, declare victory and go do something else.

Personally I hope you take the first alternative. If you take the second, please don't blame me if I just don't see any need to respond further to anything that does not address the topic.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : empty victory

Edited by RAZD, : .

Message 28 of 265 (345409) 01-11-2008 1:31 PM

Reply to: Message 24 by ThreeDogs 01-10-2008 9:27 AM

Easy on RAZD he is going through a crisis at this point in life. He is having to face something that he never thought he would face, just as most men do.

You have heard real men don't cry, real men don't go to doctors. In other words real men are invincible.

RAZD has come face to face with the fact that he is not invincible.

I came to that point a few years back and I don't think I have got over it yet, maybe soon.

Message 29 of 265 (345410) 01-11-2008 6:44 PM

Reply to: Message 28 by ICANT 01-11-2008 1:31 PM

Do you mean this: cancer survivers?

Pretty sad way to make an argument. It amazes me the depths some people will sink to in order to avoid discussing the topic.

Actually I would prefer ThreeDogs would attack the topic with as much as he\she can throw at it, rather than hide behind implications of some hidden agenda.

Maybe it's a problem with facing reality, something I do not have a problem with, however much you would like to imply otherwise.

Now that we have reached a nadir in personal attacks, anyone care to try addressing the topic?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Message 30 of 265 (345411) 01-11-2008 6:48 PM

Reply to: Message 26 by ThreeDogs 01-10-2008 9:44 AM

When you reach two conclusions from the same information that are contradictory, then it is your understanding that is faulty.

Perhaps the reality is that I fully expect creationists to be able to discuss the topic intelligently. Care to find out?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .