Message 1 of 265 (345382) 12-05-2007 8:00 PM

"The fossil record shows variations of all sorts of things but will time turn a dog kind into something that we would say is clearly not a dog?"
Beretta, Message 7

There are several issues involved in this question. One is just how much change is necessary to convince a creationist that large scale change has occurred. Another is whether macroevolution is defined by large scale change.

A final one is determining what you really means by "something that is not a dog" as "something" is not a very well defined scientific term. Do you mean when will a dog become a new species that is not a part of the wolf species (which we take as the basal dog from which all others have descended)? Or that it will become something that is as different from a wolf as say a domestic cat is from a fox?

To answer these questions let's do a little comparative anatomy:

Red Fox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fox
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Vulpes
Species: V. vulpes

House Cat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_cat
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Felis
Species: F. silvestris
Subspecies: F. s. catus

Where the standard for comparison of features is the extremes of variation within the dog varieties from the wolf, and that have been artificially bred by humans over the last several thousands of years

Dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. familiaris

Wolf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus

The question will be whether the difference in the traits between the cat and the red fox is MORE or LESS than the maximum differences found in varieties of dogs from the wolf. We'll call this factor "deltaFactor" with these categories:

  +3 = much more difference between cat and fox than between dog and wolf
  +2 = more difference between cat and fox than between dog and wolf
  +1 = a little more difference between cat and fox than between dog and wolf
   0 = no difference between cat and fox than between dog and wolf
  -1 = a little less difference between cat and fox than between dog and wolf
  -2 = less difference between cat and fox than between dog and wolf
  -3 = much less difference between cat and fox than between dog and wolf
Trait             House Cat         Red Fox    deltaFactor
Nose              small             small         -2
Whiskers          long              long          -2
Tooth size        small             small         -3
Tooth type        carnassial pair   canine        +1
Tongue            keratin hooks     standard      +2
food              carnivorous       carnivorous   -3
Snout             small/short       small/long    -3
Eyes              2                 2              0
Eye pupils        slitted           slitted        0
Eye color         several           gold/yellow    0
Ears              2                 2              0
Ear shape         Pointed           Pointed       -3
Ear size          small             small         -3
Ear control       good              good          -3
Head size         small             small         -3
Neck              short             short         -3
body size         small             small         -3
legs              4                 4              0
leg/body length   short             short         -3
paws              4                 4              0
claws             5x4               5x4            0
Claws             retractable       not           +3
Tail              long              long          -3
Fur               short to long     long          -2
Fur type          straight          straight      -3
....                                                
(subtotal)                                       -36
(average so far)                               -1.44

Those are most of the visible differences. Feel free to add to the list with whatever comes to mind. In a lot of the -3 cases the needle is pegged at much much less difference between cat and fox than between the extreme varieties of dog and wolf.

When we compare the skeletons, we can match bone for bone from cat to fox to dog to wolf, but we see much more variation in size and proportions between dog and wolf than between cat and fox. There are no bones that are special to cats or foxes or dogs. This can be counted as a -3 x number of bones.

For additional comparisons see:

Cat skeleton
Red Fox skeleton
Dog skeleton
Wolf skeleton

When we compare internal organs, we can match organ for organ from cat to fox to dog, but we see much more variation in size and proportions between dog and wolf than between cat and fox. There are no organs that are special to cats or foxes or dogs. This can be counted as a -3 x number of organs.

Conclusion: from feature to feature to feature, a cat is more similar to a red fox than some dogs are like wolves.

The dog is in the species C. lupus
The wolf is in the species C. lupus

The taxon level where dogs and wolves are related is in the C. lupis species.

The dog is in the genus Canis
The wolf is also in the genus Canis

The fox is in the species V. vulpes
The fox is in the genus Vulpes

The taxon level where dogs, wolves and foxes are related is in the Canidae family

The cat is in the species F. silvestris
The cat is in the genus Felis
The domestic cat is in the Felidae family

The taxon level where cats and foxes (and dogs and wolves) are related is in the Order Carnivora.

By biological evolution standards this means that there is greater macroevolutionary 'distance' between cats and foxes than between foxes and dogs and much more macroevolutionary 'distance' between cats and foxes than there is between dogs and wolves, and certainly much more than exists within the dog species, yet not much difference is involved.

Conclusion: "large scale change" (amount of difference) is not a measure of macroevolution ... as used by evolutionary biologists. If you want to discuss what macroevolution really is in biology you can go to MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?.

Back to the original quote:

"The fossil record shows variations of all sorts of things but will time turn a dog kind into something that we would say is clearly not a dog? "
Beretta, Message 7

So what would you like this to become?

Would a horse be enough? Would you dispute that a horse is clearly not a dog?

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?

We'll start with those - and see what turns up.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : changed dog/dog to dog/wolf for clarity

Edited by RAZD, : changed dog/dog to dog/wolf for clarity

Edited by RAZD, : " & clarity

Edited by RAZD, : late night repair work

Edited by RAZD, : more corrections

Edited by RAZD, : added thread link

Edited by RAZD, : clarity.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Message 4 of 265 (345385) 12-08-2007 12:15 PM

Reply to: Message 3 by Taz 12-08-2007 10:45 AM

The point of this thread is to show that the physical characteristics that creationists use to define "large scale change" are not that different from species to species.

Compared to the difference between a fox and a domestic cat, which are different "kinds" in any creationist classification I've seen, the changes that we see in dogs represents "large scale change" ... due to evolution under artificial selection.

The question has always been what do creationists define as "large scale change" ... other than using it as a smokescreen to hide their denial behind.

The creationist will just say that is microevolution, and that what they want is evidence that macroevolution occurs.

When you show them macroevolution occurring (in say the foram fossil record) they just say that doesn't show "real" macroevolution because it doesn't show "large scale change" occurring in species.

This thread is to define what "large scale change" means in reality and then see how it is shown in the fossil record.

It's for Beretta, TheWay, SomeoneWhoCares, and any creationist in denial of reality.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Message 6 of 265 (345387) 12-08-2007 12:46 PM

Reply to: Message 5 by Taz 12-08-2007 12:30 PM

From Beretta again (Message 199):

Notwithstanding the fact that the study in question only looked at foraminifera, and so it would exclude any evidence of forams that became non-forams, the problem for Beretta and others is that this does represent macroevolution as used in evolutionary biology by evolutionary biologists. Here's the excerpt from my post in question (Message 181):

You notice that Beretta did not argue with the record of change in hereditary traits in the population from generation to generation, nor with the evidence that speciation had occurred numerous times, nor with the evidence that branching above the level of speciation was also recorded in the foram fossil record. No, what Beretta did was to say that it is not enough change to satisfy him, or words to that effect. The fact that the change shown meets the criteria of macroevolution used by evolutionary biologists is irrelevant, for they just pull out the half-truth mixed with lie - that dogs will always be dogs, and forams will always be forams, and they will never become "something else" (which is undefined).

So the question for creationists is: how much change is needed to satisfy you?

If there is less "large scale change" between a cat and a red fox than there is between breeds of dog and a wolf, then how can "large scale change" be used to measure whether macroevolution has or has not occurred?

Denial of every piece of evidence only goes so far. "Something else" is not a scientific metric.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added another quote

Message 10 of 265 (345391) 12-13-2007 5:21 PM

Reply to: Message 8 by Beretta 12-13-2007 10:01 AM

First of it is not a matter of "surviving better" but just of surviving and breeding. The evidence shows a clear development of increasingly bird like characteristics in one branch of dinosaurs, dinosaurs that have feathers covering their bodies even though they have no long feathers on their arms, and then dinosaurs with longer and longer feathers on their arms (and legs) until the point is reached where the dinosaur can fly. Plenty of intermediate fossils are now known that demonstrate this transition from non-flight to flight.

In each case they also show fully formed individuals capable of surviving and reproducing with other members of their species (the other intermediates that are similarly developed for increasing ability to jump, glide, fly. Just as "fully formed" as archaeopteryx is even thought "archy" shows clear differences to modern birds, birds that show further development by the same process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

See the list of similarities of features for non-flight dinosaur ancestors to "archy" provided by JB1740 in Message 9.

Because what you think happened is not what happened. The difference between non-flight wing and flight wing is very little. The non-flight wing only need provide a minor net advantage to the individuals for survival and reproduction, and being able to make a "glide/jump" a little further to catch prey or escape a predator is that advantage.

Forams are a Phylum in taxonomy.

http://www.msu.edu/%7Enixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.html

quote:

---

Major Taxonomic Levels
. . Kingdom
. . . Phylum
. . . . Class
. . . . . Order
. . . . . . Family
. . . . . . . Genus
. . . . . . . . Species
Note: There are many subdivisions of the seven main taxonomic levels, such as Subphylum, Subclass, Infraclass, and so on. You may see many of these other sublevel taxa listed in the taxonomic tree of an organism.

---

"Macroevolution" - as defined and used in the science of evolutionary biology - is the accumulation of differences between groups above the level of species, differences that result from evolution within each species ("microevolution") in a different direction from other species. That means there is a lot of room for macroevolution between species and phylum and still be within foraminifera. For example, humans are in the phylum Chordata the group of animals that have a spinal chord, and which includes fish, but not worms.

Then there would be no ancestors of forams.

Ignorance of how evolution works does not make their opinion valid. Ignorance of what macroevolution really is and how it occurs does not make creationist or ID concepts valid, real or even worth considering. If they are using a definition that is different from the one above then they are not talking about the same macroevolution, they are discussing macroevolution_C and not macroevolution_E.

But whales are still mammals.

And birds are still dinosaurs.

What we have with the evolution of birds is the forelimb evolving into a feather covered forelimb and then into a wing that develops further once flight is achieved, but it is still a forelimb, it still has the bones, muscles and ligaments etc of forelimbs.

That would be because you are neglecting natural selection, a mechanism that is not random.

Would you care to walk through an example of such a transition? One that shows the development of a unique feature that did not exist before?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : “ = "
” = "

Message 12 of 265 (345393) 12-16-2007 2:04 PM

Reply to: Message 11 by Beretta 12-16-2007 10:55 AM

The starting point is a comparison of these two skeletons}

http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~crd/skeldog.html

quote:

---

Click to enlarge

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

---

and (sorry it's so dark, but I wanted the same general "pose" for the skeletons)

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9029542/dawn-horse

quote:

---

Click to enlarge

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

---

This establishes the basis for showing an example of the development of a unique feature that did not exist before. We have to start before the feature existed eh?

We don't need to worry about the skull and some other minor differences, because what I want to focus on is the legs and feet and how similar they are in size, proportion and position, with the foot showing splayed toes in the formation of a "paw" in both cases.

These animals wold be about the same size and weight and they would have similar walking, running and jumping ability, based on their similar skeletons.

Would you agree that these skeletons are similar in those features.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : changed links, flipped eohippus

Edited by RAZD, : sp subtitle

Edited by RAZD, : .

Message 14 of 265 (345395) 12-17-2007 10:45 PM

Reply to: Message 13 by Beretta 12-17-2007 1:12 AM

Yes, but only the general similarities we can see from these pictures are needed here -- size, general pose and proportions of bones, shape of the legs, shape of the feet.

There are a lot of differences that scientist studying the actual skeletons of the fossils would see that we can't, like the teeth or the claws:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

quote:

---

This famous little equid was once known by the lovely name "Eohippus", meaning "dawn horse". Some Hyracotherium traits to notice:

4 toes on each front foot, 3 on hind feet. Vestiges of 1st (& 2nd, behind) toes still present. Hyracotherium walked on pads; its feet were like a dog's padded feet, except with small "hoofies" on each toe instead of claws.

---

So there were differences as well as similarities.

We still call them homologies, and having a common ancestor also means they have a common archetype or design - the ancestor. Concepts are not necessarily contradictory.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : sp

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Edited by RAZD, : .

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 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 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 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 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, : .

Message 32 of 265 (345413) 01-11-2008 10:05 PM

Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT 01-11-2008 9:09 PM

Last post by someone else that addressed the topic was Message 13 by Beretta.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : last

Edited by RAZD, : .