|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
A real horse ancestor would be a horse, of course. Evolution didn't take place or there would be real, not speculative, evidence. So why all the "pre-horses"? and where did the "real horses" come from? I think Kathleen Hunt put it well:
Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?
From Horse Evolution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6953 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
Exactly my point. You accept the idea that sub species that will not or cannot interbreed is a new species, when clearly a finch is a finch and a salamander is a salamander. If anything, genetic diversity is lost.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
If you evolutionists redefine terms every time there is a new development that exposes your past errors, it's hard for anyone to keep up. Yep. Real science admits mistakes and discards or revises hypotheses and theories, and sometimes it is hard to keep up. Why exactly are you criticising science for revisions? Especially since it was a lack of change in science that you were complaining about a few pages back?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6953 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
How about evolutionists that disagree?
) Some animals used in the sequence have differing numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae, indicating that various species have been used to compile the series, but this is ignored as this contradicts the theory. Most of these fossil animals have been found in America. Yet the first fossils of modern horses they are supposed to lead up to are found in Europe. (Present American horses are a recent introduction). Two evolutionists - Prof. George Gaylord Simpson said "It never happened in nature" and Charles Deperet called it "a deceitful illusion"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
You accept the idea that sub species that will not or cannot interbreed is a new species, when clearly a finch is a finch and a salamander is a salamander. A clarification: Are you stating that there is a single "finch species" and a single "salamander species"? Here's a nice page on salamander diversity to peruse while you think about it.
If anything, genetic diversity is lost. Loss of genetic diversity does not impact the validity of theories of speciation or evolution. Do you think that it does somehow? If so, explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Please explain how the number of ribs and lumbar vertebrae contradict the theory. Remember to show that what is contradicted really IS part of the theory.
And you do realise that most criticisms are not directed at the idea of horse evolution but at early attempts to work out the relationships between fossil horses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Exactly my point. You accept the idea that sub species that will not or cannot interbreed is a new species, when clearly a finch is a finch and a salamander is a salamander. If anything, genetic diversity is lost. It is very clear that you are not using the biological definition of species. Since you are choosing to construct your own definition will you please specify what that is so we may continue the discussion? Without the terms being clear the sentences being posted can not possibly make sense to both sides. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-25-2005 16:26 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You accept the idea that sub species that will not or cannot interbreed is a new species, when clearly a finch is a finch and a salamander is a salamander. How would you tell if a bird is a finch or not? How would you tell if an amphibian was a salamander or not? You don't seem to get it yet - species essentialism is dead. Do you understand what I mean when I say that? You don't appear to, which is why I'm asking you these questions.
If anything, genetic diversity is lost. Lost through selection and speciation, yes. Gained through mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
xevolutionist -
Your entire post save six words can be found word-for-word at this site and others. You are violating forum guidelines, and as many in this thread suspected, are simply parroting Creationist websites. Grow up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: With the discovery of DNA, the genetic material involved in heredity, our views of what a species is had to change. A species is a group of isolated DNA, a population that only breeds within itself. It is not a question of if they CAN interbreed, but if they DO interbreed. Even if two species are interfertile (ie they can produce fertile offspring) they are still considered separate species if they DON'T interbreed. Species and speciation is about isolating genes to one gene pool, not differences in morphology. Species has been defined in this fashion because of mutation. If two gene pools are isolated from one another different mutations will accumulate in the different gene pools leading to different morphology overtime. This is why speciation is the root cause of the changes seen in the fossil record, it isolates mutations away from each other resulting in different morphological outcomes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6953 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
Yes, I am stating that the variations of finches are sub species, in that they are all recognizable in form as finches. The species will never produce a woodpecker for example. There are many variations of many domesticated animals but a cat is still a cat, and a dog is still a dog. After all, doesn't the theory of evolution require totally new species to appear, as in the wolf whale, actually becoming a whale?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yes, I am stating that the variations of finches are sub species, in that they are all recognizable in form as finches. So, if their form changed enough through mutation, they would no longer be considered finches? Why are you so sure this is an outcome that would never occur?
There are many variations of many domesticated animals but a cat is still a cat, and a dog is still a dog. And a mammal is still a mammal, and a vertebrate is still a vertebrate, and an animal is still an animal, and an organism is still an organism. I guess everything is just subspecies of one big species of "living thing."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6953 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
Different morphological outcomes that can never be more complex than the ancestors. Observed mutations always impact negatively. There is a limit to the results you can obtain from selective breeding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Observed mutations always impact negatively. Oh, except for lactose tolerance in humans; or resistance to atherosclerosis; or immunity to HIV; or all those examples of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Except for those and countless other examples, all mutations impact negatively. Oh, oops, except for those that don't impact at all, which I guess is most of them. Other than that, you're right. Every single mutation is negative. Except for most of them. Sheesh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: If I look at the feet of the horse lineage I see two things. I see the dissapearance of three phalanges and the appearance of a hoof. So while the horse lost toes it gained a more complex hoof. The evolution of the horse shows that you are wrong. As to selective breeding, how long has man bred animals and plants? Maybe 5-8 thousand years? This is not enough time for mutations to produce completely new featurs to be selected for. Remember, evolution is MUTATION and selection. Man is only able to do one of those, select. Man is not able, until very recently with genetic manipulation, to produce new features to select from. Selective breeding, or artificial selection, over such a short span can not be used to extrapolate to evolutionary changes that have spanned millions of years.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024