RAZD writes:
One source -
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm - says that Orohippus is the only one in between, but it is not surprising that there are differences of opinion. Orohippus also coexisted with Hyracotherium, so one could argue that they are sibling rather than parent/child. It depends on whether you are a "lumper" or a "splitter" when talking about taxon divisions.
Wow, I really don't know where to start with this comment, but let me try here. Maybe we should start with a legitimate source of horse evolution. I suggest you go here if you can.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;307/...
This has an excellent cladistic chart showing old world, North America, and South America Equis evolution. Orohippus is definitely (not opinion) a supposed transitional genus. Also, I am not aware of any coexisting fossils of Orohippus and Hyacotherium. The cladistic chart shows very little overlap if any.
RAZD writes:
I also note that these are genus level taxons and that there are species within those levels, and many fossils, none of which are identical. In other words there are many fossils that would be classified as intermediates between any of these forms, but which are lumped into one category or the other for convenience of discussion.
Yes, these are genus level names, but the species within the genus all show the changes that I listed in my prior post. There actually is very little difference in species fossils of the genus. Location and time generates the species differentiation more than anything.
And finally, as you know, the pictures you have been using of the fossils represent species not genus'. So if you want to claim that there is wide variation within each genus, then I suggest that you present evidence for this. Actually there isn't wide variation.
I use the term wide variation in the sense of what we observe in species today. There is wide variation in the modern equis genus. But there isn't in H-O-E-M. All of the fossils found (species)have the same number of ribs, toes, and tooth configurations within the genus. They also have the same relative size/shape. Equis has a wide range of size/shape, but little variation in ribs, toes, and teeth. The distinctions are indeed important to this discussion.
RAZD writes:
Very good, we agree that they are very similar animals. Now the question is, do any of the differences amount to a significant change.
I understand your question, but this question doesn't help your argument. I and most other creationist agree with "significant" change within species and microevolution. We do not agree with significant "feature" changes (especially morphological ones) that show up in the fossil record that lead to the concept of one common ancestor. Therefore, I argue that population changes in the number of ribs, the number of toes, and the type and number of teeth are indeed significant changes in the species. In fact, these are the changes that are highlighted by evolutionists as evidence of evolution. I do not argue that size/shape/color/skull shape are necessarily "significant" in macroevolutionary terms. I suppose that what you are trying to suggest is that the fossils indicate a macroevolutionary chain of horse evolution.
RAZD writes:
I would say that this is a neutral change, thus variation back and forth without any sever evolutionary consequence. As we see today, there is variation among all species with occasional differences in numbers of repeated sequences (fingers, toes, teeth, ribs).
The question is not whether such a difference needs to be beneficial, the question only needs to be that they are non-detrimental. A mutation that is neutral cannot be selected against. Perhaps you can demonstrate how a difference in the number of ribs can be detrimental?
I'm not sure if you are confused here or what, but I will try to make this simple. Evolutionary change that becomes dominant in a population can only happen with two causal effects. Natural selection and genetic drift. For a new allele to achieve dominance in the population through natural selection, the the feature from the allele must generate some fitness advantage in the environment. Therefore by definition the mutation that caused the allele must be beneficial. (Not neutral or negative) There is no question that evolutionists argue that the changes in teeth and toes are beneficial mutations. They never mention the ribs, because they don't fit a "beneficial" picture. They work best with a genetic drift model. A neutral mutation as you have declared can only become dominant through genetic drift which requires small populations. Natural selection requires large populations.
You apparently do not recognize the conflict. We have large population secting for toes and teeth as beneficial features while at the same time we must have a small populations to genectically drift from 18 to 15 to 16 rib pairs.
RAZD writes:
Actually we do see it, because the wolf/dog has already lost one, with a "dew claw" being a remnant visible in some dogs. The loss of another would just continue that trend.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. The dew claw is not visible in "some" dogs/wolve. The dew claw is unique feature of dogs/wolves and it is rare if dogs are missing this feature.
We do not "see" this as a remnant feature. This is again a biased interpretation of assumed fossil ancestors. The dew claw has many documented uses. It doesn't appear to be vestigial.
There is nothing here that we "see" that is observable and repeatable.
RAZD writes:
But again the issue again is not that such minor differences need to be beneficial, just that they need to be non-detrimental. As we have seen there are instances of dogs with fewer toes among other variations, and these don't necessarily affect the animal. Of course when it comes to dog breeds, the breeders will select against any such mutations (as you point out) purely on the basis of aesthetics, in order to maintain the "characteristics" of the breed -- the breeds are actually selected for stasis. There is no evidence I am aware of, however, that shows that the loss of a toe is any hindrance to the behavior and survival of a dog in the wild. Perhaps you can demonstrate how a difference in the number of toes can be detrimental to survival or breeding in the wild? There are many instances of hunting dogs that have lost toes and are still able to be capable and productive hunting dogs.
Again, I don't think you understand the mechanisms of ToE. Having a dog loose or gain a toe doesn't evolution make. Evolution is a population change. For dogs which have lost a toe to become dominant in the population they must have a fitness benefit from that alteration in their environment. We don't see that with wolves for instance. We don't see it with any vertebrate for that matter. The only thing scientists "see" is their imagination with the fossil record. That is why I put forth the so called irrelevant challenge to produce a beneficial mutation that causes morphological change that would show up in the fossil record. There haven't been any presented, and this is not a red herring. This is relevant to the discussion.
RAZD writes:
Now we compare these to differences in dogs that are not seen between Mesohippus and Hyracotherium: large difference in size, difference in proportions of legs to back, differences in the proportions of front legs to hind legs, differences in the skulls, differences in the size of the eyes compared to the skull, differences in the lengths of the tails (with various numbers of tail bones, many dogs with no tail at all).
The question is not whether there are traits that do not change in dogs that do change in Hyracotherium to Mesohippus, but whether overall the difference is more or less than the variation seen in dogs.
Now if you look at Message 1 of this thread you will see that I compared domestic cat to red fox by a number of characteristics, and then did the same for dog and wolf, and then compared the overall difference of cats to foxes to the overall differences of dogs to wolves.
Do you think that if we did this in depth an analysis that the results for Hyracotherium to Mesohippus would be more or less than the results for dogs and wolves?
Again, you are putting forth an argument that doesn't "show" macroevolution. Your use of the term "overall" in regards to the differences doesn't give weight to the macroevolutionary argument. Sure overall difference in some statistical accounting method may show no more differences than in dog evolution. But that is not the point. My wife and I are the same species. Overall we are very similar genetically and skeletally. But if you concentrate on the differences, we are significanly different. The toes and teeth are difference that evolutionist have argued as evidence for macroevolution. They ignore the ribs, because they have difficulty explaining the progression of evolution there. However, we don't see any of this type of population evolution in dogs, wolves, horses or any other vertebrate for that matter. The evidence is in the imagination caused by the acceptance of the theory. That's called circular reasoning.
RAZD writes:
The question is whether the sum differences between...
My question is how do you determine the sum differences? An once you have defined that, how does that make your argument?
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shortened display form of very long URL, to restore page width to normal.
™ Version 4.2
