|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Show one complete lineage in evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
SkepticToall writes:
Ok, it is my conclusion that people like you are sexually attracted to logical fallicies. In this particular case, you are using a strawman approach, claiming that the theory of evolution is based solely on complete lineages.
Weak case so far... a. A complete series of horse fossils is not found in any one place in the world arranged in the rock strata in proper evolutionary order from bottom to top. The fossils are found in widely separated places on the earth.
And why is this a problem? The continents used to be connected, drifted apart, came back together, drifted apart again, etc...
c. Hyrocotherium (eohippus), supposedly the earliest, founding member of the horse evolution series, is not connected by intermediate fossils to the condylarths from which it supposedly evolved.30
Let me try to make this clear. The fact that there are missing samples doesn't disprove anything. Moreover, nobody is saying that the horse lineage is the absolute unchangeble truth. I am confident that it will change as the scientific community finds new evidence. You might want to see this more as a model and not the absolute unchangeble truth. By the way, I am skipping some statements because some are directly connected to others that I am responding to.
d. The first three supposed horse genera, found in rocks classified as Eocene, are named Hyracotherium, Orohippus, and Epihippus, and they are said to have evolved in that order. However, the average size of these creatures, sometimes called "old horses," decreases along the series, which is contradictory to the normal evolutionary rule, and they were all not larger than a fox.31 In view of their similarity, these genera could be considered to be members of an originally created biblical "kind." Notice the big words. Here is an example of an outright misrepresentation of the theory of evolution. What the heck does "normal evolutionary rule" mean?
e. Between Epihippus and Mesohippus, the next genus in the horse series, there is a considerable gap...
So?
g. According to the theory, in Europe and North America three-toed horses evolved into single-toed horses. It is interesting that fossil horse-like ungulates of South America would seem to tell the opposite story. If one kind of ungulate evolved into another in South America, it would appear from the location of the fossils in the rock strata that the following succession of evolutionary stages occurred: first, the one-toed Thoatherium gave rise to Diadiaphorus having two small extra toes, which then evolved into the three-toed Macrauchenia.33 But perhaps all of these animals were created, rather than evolved.
It is quite obvious what the author's agenda was when he wrote this.
h. In northeastern Oregon the three-toed Neohipparion is found in the same rock formation with the one-toed horse, Pliohippus.34
How the heck does this disproves the theory? Just because one species arises from another species doesn't mean that the parent species must be extinct. This shows the ignorance of the theory on the author's part.
i. There is a mystery about the theory of horse evolution.
So what if there's a mystery? I'm not well versed with horse evolution, but this sounds like this is BS. Here is an example of why this is BS. There is a mystery to me about you. I don't know what you look like. Therefore, you must not exist. See anything wrong with this?
j. Dr. Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History admitted in an interview that the Museum houses a display of alleged horse evolution which is misleading and should be replaced. It has been the model for many similar displays across the country for much of this century.36
This is the beauty of science. It always leaves room for modification of the any model in the theory of evolution. Again, don't take the model as the absolute unchangeble truth.
...There is no need to assume that horses were evolved rather than created....
The author was not being objective at all when he approached the evidence.
So far just two lineages (TWO!!!)- it is one thing for scientists to say that the evidence 'strongly suggests' common descent but to say evolution is a fact like gravity! We observe gravity all the time - not so with evolution....
The theory of evolution does not depend solely on lineages. Please get this fact straight. Here is an example of what your argument really looks like. You wake up in the morning and you notice that your tree in the backyard has fallen to the ground. There was a storm the previous night. There are traces of fire burning on the tree trunk. In fact, last night while you were in bed, you heard a lot of lightnings. At this point, the reasonable conclusion is that a lightning struck your tree and it fell to the ground. However, your neighbor won't believe this. He claims that since you were not there to see it and you can't describe every detail from the lightning struck to the tree hitting the ground. Therefore, he concludes, that god must have made the tree like that over night. Regarding observation of evolution happening, this topic has been beaten to death so many times on these boards. I, myself, have watched evolution happening in laboratory conditions (used to work in a genetics lab). It is an observable fact.
yet these oversimplistic text books geared for school children are filled with images showing complete lineages for primates, and various other animals. Even if evolution IS a fact - it should not be taught in high school in the current form. It is truly taught as religously antichristian doctrine.
Um, no. I don't think you were paying attention in high school biology class. Out of curiosity, what did you get for your grade? The Laminator For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
And why is this a problem? The continents used to be connected, drifted apart, came back together, drifted apart again, etc...
Not relevant in the time frames being discussed. The formation of the bearing land bridge is.
What the heck does "normal evolutionary rule" mean?
You're right about this one, of course. That is a total fabrication.
It is quite obvious what the author's agenda was when he wrote this.
I don't care all that much about the agenda. I'd be much more interested in how many creations the author is suggesting there were. The biblical creation week still doesn't explain these fossils either. Is he retracing history and suggesting not one but many creations. This was given up a couple of centuries ago when the number of creations got a bit too high to be anything but laughable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
NosyNed writes:
You're right. I'm going to the library tomorrow to pick up some books on dates and dating methods and geology. I need more weapons, damn it. Not relevant in the time frames being discussed. The formation of the bearing land bridge is.
The Laminator For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Skeptic,
So far just two lineages (TWO!!!)- it is one thing for scientists to say that the evidence 'strongly suggests' common descent but to say evolution is a fact like gravity! We observe gravity all the time - not so with evolution.... I think you'll find that people are providing examples rather than an exhaustive list. For the THIRD TIME (!), see post 4 & 14. It links to over 300 lineages. The original study was for 300, the total number of cladograms tested is now over a thousand. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 07-27-2004 04:51 AM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
First of all, I must admit that I have no intention of going to that link of yours. Why? Its a direct link about the problems with horse lineage. Can you not rebut his criticism?
Ok - try to rebut this then copied directly from Creation Explanation 3b
Why? I have already spend alot of time writing a refutation of your first site (even with pictures that I had to edit and host myself!), so why would I bother doing another one when you haven't even adressed my first one? If this is how you are going to argument on this site, you might as well leave, since ignoring other peoples responses is not a good way of discussing things.
So far just two lineages (TWO!!!)
Yes, two lineages which we discussed in detail. If you want more examples I suggest you follow Crashfrog's advice and take a look at the links given to you, which include hundreads of speciation events.
We observe gravity all the time - not so with evolution
I have already given you an example of evolution being observed on page 1, which you dismissed as not being evolution and not being a radically different species. You then went on to post a link which argues against horse evolution by saying that Orohippus and Mesohippus are too different!Please, I beg you to respond to my posts back on pages 4 and 5. I am very interested in your responses. "Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon Roman's drum blog
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
You must at least admit there have been a few scientists who have suggested the possibility that Homo erectus is a modern human closely related to the Australian Aborgines.
Modern Human!?! With a massive eyebrow ridge and a cranial capacity of 850cc!?! I would love to see those "scientists" who claim that erectus are modern humans.
This message has been edited by RRoman, 07-27-2004 06:41 AM "Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon Roman's drum blog
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Please define "kind". It is not a scientific term, so I don't know what it means. Specifically, I'd like to know how to tell the difference between various "kinds". For instance, are bonobo Chimanzees andhumans the same "kind"? Are my housecat and Bengal Tigers the same "kind"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, according to you, Newton's laws were all "just speculation or history. Not science.", is that correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
There are some serious misrepresentation of Evolutionary theory in your cut n paste.
quote: Strawman. Why is this a problem? Nowhere in Evolutionary theory is it predicted that fossils from any species have to be found in one place.
quote: Strawman. Again, Evolutionary theory does not predict that all members of a lineage's fossils must be found in exactly the same place. You do know that the arrangement of continents wasn't always the one we have now, don't you?
quote: Strawman. There is no "evolutionary rule" which states that creatures must get larger.
quote: Please define "kind". That is not a scientific term, so I don't know what it means. Specifically, I would like to know how to tell the difference between "kinds". Are Humans and Bonobo Chimpanzees the same "kind"? Are my housecat and Bengal Tigers the same "kind"?
quote: Please explain why this is a problem for Evolution.
quote: Well, were they a new "kind" or not? The fossils are readily available, and have been for decades. How do you know if they are another "kind" or not?
quote: Strawman. Evolution is a bush, not a ladder. Evolutionary theory does not predict that a parent species must completely die out before it's daughter species can exist. It is predicted that many branched-off species will be contemporary with the parent species.
quote: OK, this is just stupid. As intelligence increases for any animal with a brain, so do the number of brain surface sulci. To make the cattle/hyracotherium brain fold connection and extrapolate a more likely special creation is so painfully uneducated and ignorant I can hardly believe it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
i. There is a mystery about the theory of horse evolution. It arises from the fact that the brain of little Hyracotherium was simple and smooth, as indicated by the smooth inner surface of the fossil skulls. The brain of true horse, Equus, has on its outer surface a complex pattern of folds and fissures.35 Cattle brains are quite similar and equally complex and have an almost identical pattern of fissures. Cattle and Hyracotherium supposedly evolved from a common ancestor which had a simpler pattern of fissures. Therefore, it must be assumed that parallel evolution by chance processes produced the same complex brain pattern possessed by both modern cattle and horses. Such a tale is difficult to swallow. Intelligent, purposeful creation provides a more believable explanation. Lets look at the brains of the various houses in the evolutionary sequence: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ponyexpress/pony2_4/Pe24.htm#Tilly (scroll down a little) Notice the continuum of brain formations we note from Hyracotherium to Equus - looks pretty much like we'd expect from evolution to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Thanks for the responce but you made my points.
I know there was no transitionals for Darwin. There aren't "really" now any either. Thats the discussion here. You admitt it. That PE says it was an error about gradualism and "stasis". The Yanks here are saying there was no error. PE just was added on they say. PE demonstrates conclusively that the fossil record is all about interpretation. NOT science.If it was science then PE advocates would of have to disprove test results verifying gradualism 100 years ago. But there were no tests. It was speculation and finally in these swmall circles someone came up with a new idea to deal with the embarrasment of fossil poverty on gradual change. Unless my thinking is wrong somewhere. regards Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I know there was no transitionals for Darwin. There aren't "really" now any either. Sorry RB, you can't use an undefined word; it makes your statement meaningless. Since transitionals (using the understanding of that word that we have so far) do exist you must be using a different meaning of the word. When you supply your definition of the word we can continue the discussion.
Unless my thinking is wrong somewhere. It appears to be wrong indeed. If you want to discuss PE and tell us what you think it is all about I suggest you propose a thread on the topic. I won't bother to do that in case you don't wish to persue it. So far it appears you have a pretty weak understanding of what it is about. You also haven't offered you interpretation of the fossil record in any meaningfull way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: PE was put forth not as alternative but as an additional method of speciation. Gradualism does occur, but so does PE. PE involves the "quick" evolution (by "quick" I mean thousands of years) of a subpopulation that is not likely to be fossilized. This subpopulation then suddenly (in geologic terms) overwhelms the gradually evolving population. Tell me where this theory goes wrong? Tell me why we should see incremental changes in the fossil record? Tell me why you refuse to accept the already accepted transitional fossils? Oh, that's right:
quote: The fossil record is about evidence that you can't counter, so you redefine everything (including "transitional" and "PE") so that you can beat down the strawman. Nice try, but science is a tool used in interpretation. It is the preferred tool because it is based on objective measures, not bias. This is in stark contrast to creationism which relies on a subjective translation of a 3,000 year old text that says nothing about the fossil record (except that it shouldn't be sorted, see Noah's Flood). This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-27-2004 03:13 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That PE says it was an error about gradualism and "stasis". I'm sorry, but I refuted this claim. It's in violation of the forum guidelines for you to repeat it here.
Unless my thinking is wrong somewhere. If you're thinking that PE and gradualism are mutually exclusive, then your thinking is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SkepticToAll Inactive Member |
This is from an evolutionist who believes in the regional theory..
Discover Financial ServicesIt seems you have to register though.. And this is the point I was making about erectus being a racial variant (subspecies) ...http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_05.html
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024