New abiogenesis news article 4/12/02

Hi Percy,Just a quick note while I'm trying to catch up on a month's worth of posts. Andya is quite correct about Denton's volte-face. His most recent book, "Nature's Destiny", is about a solid a recantation of his first book, "Theory in Crisis", as you could ask for. "Destiny" is an omphalos-type "fine tuning" argument - so he's gone from YEC to "god set the laws in motion" for life. Here's my favorite quote from the preface to "Destiny":

quote:

---

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies." (page xvii-xviii).

---

Interestingly, "Nature's Destiny" is out of print, even though published about ten years after "Theory in Crisis", which is still highly touted and well-publicized by the creationists. Go figure.

I simply can't let this bit slide:

quote:

---

Checked out the site. Nice pics. But eohippus is only a hyrx, which has been found in Europe as well. But here's the catch. A fossil of a supposed ancestor to a "later" branch on the horse tree was found buried in the same layer with it. You would expect to find them in different layers. Also, the differences between the fossils are found in modern horses as well. Even Marsh recognized this.

---

You really should look at the differences between Hyracotherium and a hyrax (Procavia capensis). They're not anywhere near alike - they don't even have the same dentition, not even approximately. You've been gulled by a creationist website - probably AiG (this was one of Gish's favorite misconceptions). Looky here:
Hyrax: Hyracotherium: Hmm. Don't look very similar, do they? Bottom line: Not one of the identified 18 species of Hyracotherium (note the name refers to a genus, not a species) is even in the same order as hyrax (order Hyracoidae) which is more closely related to elephants than horses, and are exclusively African...As far as the "modern horse found in same strata" bit, it appears that AiG (which I again assume is your primary if not only source of information) is once again in error. Jon Barber did an excellent bit of detective work to trace down the origins of this claim. You can read about the whole thing at Did Hyracotherium and Equus Live at the Same Time?.I obviously don't expect you to change your tune. I've never yet met a creationist who's willing to consider evidence and change their mind (with the possible exception of TC from this board). But perhaps you should spend some time double-checking your creationist sources for accuracy?

Hi Peter,Weeell, I can see the very start of the horse in ol' Hyracotherium, especially in what can be seen of the skull and teeth. OTOH, remember that Hyracotherium was a fairly undifferentiated perissodactyl - the family that eventually gave rise to modern equiids (Hyracotherium vassacciense is the most likely species ancestor), modern tapirids (probably Homagalex), and rhinos (probably Hyrachyus). You're talking 55 my of change and dozens of species before you get to the two modern horses. There was a lot of change in that period.I honestly don't see a relationship between the hyrax and elephants, but both molecular systematics and paleontologists claim the common ancestor of both was a condylarth called Hyopsodus. I don't see it from the skull - but the point was to show the profound differences between a hyrax and a Hyracotherium. You can see that much, n'est-ce pas?

And yet another lengthy quote mine from ol' bart. When are you going to learn that "argument by spurious quotation" and "appeal to authority" doesn't cut it? You been reading the infamous "Quote Book" again?Moving on to the only substantive remarks you've made:

quote:

---

Taking the entire skeleton into account, the Hyracotherium is a lot closer in appearance to the modern Hyrax than it is the the horse. Like Hyracotherium, the Hyrax has four toes on the two front feet and three on the hind legs. The two are about the same size in height and have the same number of ribs. Evolutionists like to show sketches of Hyrcotherium standing like a horse, but sketches could just aas well be drawn to show hyracotherium in the same posture as a modern day hyrax as the legs of both are very similar.

---

Really? I'm impressed by your knowledge of comparative anatomy. Let's take a close look, shall we?Dentition:Hyracotherium3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3Equus (modern horse, male)3.1.3-4.3/3.1.3.3Hyrax1.0.4.3/2.0.4.3Guess which one's more similar?On toes: As far as it goes, you are correct. Both hyrax and hyracotherium have four toes on the front foot, and three on the back. However, from the actual arrangement of the bones, Hyracotherium was digitigrade (as are modern horses). The location of the pads are at the end of the toes. The hyrax is plantigrade (flat-footed), with a noticeable heel (absent in Hyracotherium). There is an excellent fossil series - a perfect "gradualism" example, btw - showing the change in numbers of toes in the Equus lineage over time. Here's a rough graphic: Please bear in mind that Hyracotherium IS NOT A HORSE! Rather, it is a stem perissodactyl - fairly undifferentiated - whose sister lineages included rhinos and tapirs.The legs of Hyracotherium and the hyrax are nowhere near similar. Details of the hind leg/pelvis show that Hyracotherium's femur, for example, is proportionally significantly longer than that of the hyrax. The hyrax resembles a large guinea pig, hyracotherium resembles a small dog.

quote:

---

It is possible that Hyracotherium is unrelated to the modern day Hyrax, but then, it would then be even more possible that it is not ancestral to the modern day horse. Especially since it coexist in the fossil record with a much more horse like creature that stood 3 to 4 feet high. I can't remind this horses name, but it is on display at AMNH where it is shown to be contemporary to hyracotherium.

---

Possible? You mean you don't know? Since you're unable to offer any evidence that some other "more horselike animal" lived contemporaneously with Hyracotherium, not even a name, I find your assertion to be (as usual) baseless.Oh, and as to your quotations... Anyone interested can read this essay debunking at least the Gaylord Simpson quote mine. Another example of AiG's stellar intellectual honesty.As to your quibble that I get my info from talkorigins - that's fundamentally incorrect. Only when I need info on debunking specific creationist claims is it even necessary to go to that site. Here's where I got my horse lineage: Groves CP, Ryder OA 2000 Systematics and Phylogeny of the Horse, for example. It often helps to actually look at the evidence rather than relying on long-refuted, spurious claims. It is especially galling when you're dealing with lineages, like the various equiids, which have such GOOD transitionals.Edited to fix what must have been a Freudian slip: "cretinist" instead of "creationist". [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-22-2003]