Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

Hi, AlphaOmegakid. You are arguing that fossil horses like Pliohippus and others might just be "breeds" of horse, while simultaneously acknowledging that zebras, which are much more similar to modern horses than Pliohippus, are distinct from horses. Meanwhile, RAZD and Bluegenes are suggesting that the animals that more closely resemble one another are more closely related, and that Pliohippus is therefore less closely related to Equus equus than the zebra.Which of these two ideas makes more sense? Don't get me started on equivocation, man: ToE has nothing on ID in this regard.The problem isn't that evolution allows a broad definition with no boundaries, but that you're confusing ToE with natural history. The Theory of Evolution is only a description of the mechanism by which things evolve, whereas natural history is the documentation of how that mechanism has been reared its ugly head throughout the history of life. A different set of conditions a hundred million years ago would produce an entirely different natural history, while still conforming to ToE. Your missuse of the words "refute" and "falsify" is really starting to piss me off.----- Actually, Eohippus is 24" inches long, which makes it twice the size you say it is, which was "half the size RAZD says it is." Which, ironically, means that RAZD was right.Edited by Bluejay, : Consistency in reference fossil.

---

Darwin loves you.

Here I am, tackily responding to the same message twice again. Oh, well. Your complaint here is, what? That things aren't easy to organize into discreet categories? The entire gist of the ToE is change, variation and diversity: what the hell did you expect? Any theory that fundamentally predicts diversity and variation should also predict trouble with categorizing, indexing, defining and identifying. That much should make sense to anybody.Also note that ToE does not require usage of organizational categories in any particular way: the terms "species," "phylum," "family," "subclass," etc., are just for our convenience in trying to organize and communicate information with each other. So, if your argument is that ToE can't decide on a single definition of the word "species," your argument amounts to a strawman.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, AlphaOmegakid.I have got to stop making side comments on my messages.I'm very glad that you've done your research on the physical dimensions of Hyracotherium/Eohippus.I'm a little disappointed, however, that you decided to ignore all of the important parts of my message in order to respond only to the part that gave you a rub. It's become apparent to me that you only respond when you are attacked personally, and not when your argument is being challenged. I will refrain from attacking you personally, and I apologize if I've offended you.There was another part in my message that was actually a clear refutation of your argument, but, for some reason, you decided to ignore that part.Recap: The bold part is the summary of the argument you made. Bluegenes rebuts with donkeys and zebras, which are more like modern horses than fossil horses, yet can't interbreed with horses. Bluejay points this out to you. How could all the different fossil species of horse be conspecific with the modern horse, when animals that are virtually identical skeletally to the modern horse are clearly different species? AOkid ignores it.-----An addition to my argument: This was the entire point of RAZD's argument: dog breed evolved via "microevolution." Therefore, if the difference between the two most divergent dogs is equal to or greater than the difference between any two horses adjacent to each other in that outdated, linear evolution model, then the jump between those two horses is also microevolution, and thus, acceptable to creationists.If each step in the evolution of the horse is equal to or less than the difference between dog breeds, than each step is acceptable as microevolution. If each step is acceptable, then there is nothing stopping the entire process from going forward via "microevolution," and "macroevolution" is no more than "microevolution" happening over a longer period of time.

---

Darwin loves you.

This entire argument is called a "strawman argument," as I mentioned in Message #162. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity or validity of ToE. What the hell difference does it make whether the word "species" means anything in particular? What the hell difference does it make whether the word "macroevolution" means anything in particular (I don't know any biologists who use this word anymore, anyway). ToE doesn't require any discreet categories to work (that's why the term "clade" is more and more being used to replace the hierarchical Linnaean terminology).The fact that we're having trouble pinpointing an easy definition should be an indication to you that there isn't an easy definition, which rather indicates less "baraminization" and more "random variation."

---

Darwin loves you.