Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Show one complete lineage in evolution
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 76 of 246 (127973)
07-27-2004 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 1:16 AM


Re: Weak case so far...
SkepticToall writes:
Weak case so far...
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.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 1:16 AM SkepticToAll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2004 2:08 AM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 92 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:45 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 77 of 246 (127976)
07-27-2004 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by coffee_addict
07-27-2004 1:51 AM


Re: Weak case so far...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by coffee_addict, posted 07-27-2004 1:51 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by coffee_addict, posted 07-27-2004 2:19 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 78 of 246 (127980)
07-27-2004 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by NosyNed
07-27-2004 2:08 AM


Re: Weak case so far...
NosyNed writes:
Not relevant in the time frames being discussed. The formation of the bearing land bridge is.
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.

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2004 2:08 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 79 of 246 (128007)
07-27-2004 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 1:16 AM


Re: Weak case so far...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 1:16 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
RRoman
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 246 (128015)
07-27-2004 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 1:16 AM


Re: Weak case so far...
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?
Perhaps he didn't want to waste his time with refuting yet another creationist website, and trusted that somebody else would do so. I already refuted the "problems" on that site (All two of them!) back in message 59. While I do realize that you have a lot of people to respond too, it would be nice if you could respond to my questions and refutations before going around and accusing people of being unable to refute your site.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 1:16 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
RRoman
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 246 (128026)
07-27-2004 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 12:50 AM


Re: Transitionals
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 12:50 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 82 of 246 (128047)
07-27-2004 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Robert Byers
07-26-2004 3:22 PM


quote:
Its about Major kinds journey into different major kinds
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"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Robert Byers, posted 07-26-2004 3:22 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 83 of 246 (128048)
07-27-2004 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Robert Byers
07-26-2004 3:54 PM


Re: Missing transitionals?
quote:
The old ideas could easily be thrown out because they had no science behind them. Its all speculation or history. Not science.
So, according to you, Newton's laws were all "just speculation or history. Not science.", is that correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Robert Byers, posted 07-26-2004 3:54 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 84 of 246 (128050)
07-27-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 1:16 AM


Re: Weak case so far...
There are some serious misrepresentation of Evolutionary theory in your cut n paste.
quote:
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.
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:
b. The currently accepted sequence of fossils starts in North America, then jumps to Europe and back to America again. But there are still differing opinions on whether one of the jumps was from America to Europe or vice versa. Many different evolutionary histories for horses have been proposed.
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:
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,
Strawman. There is no "evolutionary rule" which states that creatures must get larger.
quote:
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."
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:
Between Epihippus and Mesohippus, the next genus in the horse series, there is a considerable gap.
Please explain why this is a problem for Evolution.
quote:
32 The size increases about 50 percent and the number of toes on the front feet decreases from four to three. The series of genera, Mesohippus, Miohippus, and Parahippus, sometimes called the (small) "new horses," were three-toed animals much more similar in appearance to modern horses than the previous group discussed. These, perhaps, were members of another created kind.
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:
h. In northeastern Oregon the three-toed Neohipparion is found in the same rock formation with the one-toed horse, Pliohippus.34
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 1:16 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by nator, posted 07-28-2004 10:04 AM nator has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 85 of 246 (128057)
07-27-2004 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 1:16 AM


Re: Weak case so far...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 1:16 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 86 of 246 (128116)
07-27-2004 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by mark24
07-26-2004 5:09 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by mark24, posted 07-26-2004 5:09 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2004 3:48 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 88 by Loudmouth, posted 07-27-2004 4:12 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2004 4:20 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 99 by mark24, posted 07-27-2004 6:54 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 87 of 246 (128119)
07-27-2004 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Robert Byers
07-27-2004 3:40 PM


There's that word again.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Robert Byers, posted 07-27-2004 3:40 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 246 (128127)
07-27-2004 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Robert Byers
07-27-2004 3:40 PM


quote:
You admitt it. That PE says it was an error about gradualism and "stasis".
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:
PE demonstrates conclusively that the fossil record is all about interpretation. NOT science.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Robert Byers, posted 07-27-2004 3:40 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 246 (128129)
07-27-2004 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Robert Byers
07-27-2004 3:40 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Robert Byers, posted 07-27-2004 3:40 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
SkepticToAll
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 246 (128146)
07-27-2004 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by NosyNed
07-27-2004 1:35 AM


Re: Transitionals
This is from an evolutionist who believes in the regional theory..
Discover Financial Services
It 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2004 1:35 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Loudmouth, posted 07-27-2004 5:44 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 95 by Loudmouth, posted 07-27-2004 6:10 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 97 by RRoman, posted 07-27-2004 6:20 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 101 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2004 8:56 PM SkepticToAll has replied
 Message 103 by nator, posted 07-28-2004 10:14 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024