Hi, AlphaOmegakid.
I have got to stop making side comments on my messages.
I'm very glad that you've done your research on the physical dimensions of
Hyracotherium/
Eohippus.
I'm a little disappointed, however, that you decided to ignore all of the important parts of my message in order to respond only to the part that gave you a rub. It's become apparent to me that you only respond when you are attacked personally, and not when your argument is being challenged. I will refrain from attacking you personally, and I apologize if I've offended you.
There was another part in my message that was actually a clear refutation of your argument, but, for some reason, you decided to ignore that part.
Recap:
AOkid, msg #154, writes:
So scientist have many horse species, when in reality they may be just different "breeds" of horses all coming from one horse ancestor. Just like the dogs/wolves/foxes??.....???
We have just as much variation in horse breeds today as we do in dog breeds. Miniatures to Clydesdales. They vary widely. The question is not the skeletal variations, the question is genetic reproduction.
Is it truly macroevolution or is it just a different type of horse.
The bold part is the summary of the argument you made.
bluegenes, msg #155, writes:
We also have donkeys and zebras. While horses and donkeys can produce mules, the mules are only very rarely fertile, meaning that horses and donkeys would effectively be different species in the wild, and would not exchange genetic information.
Bluegenes rebuts with donkeys and zebras, which are more like modern horses than fossil horses, yet can't interbreed with horses.
Bluejay, msg #159 writes:
You are arguing that fossil horses like Pliohippus and others might just be "breeds" of horse, while simultaneously acknowledging that zebras, which are much more similar to modern horses than Pliohippus, are distinct from horses.
Bluejay points this out to you. How could all the different fossil species of horse be conspecific with the modern horse, when animals that are virtually identical skeletally to the modern horse are clearly different species?
AOkid, msg #163 writes:
...
AOkid ignores it.
-----
An addition to my argument:
AOkid, msg #154, writes:
Dog evolution is undeniably microevolution. The many dog breeds are the same species. Dogs also can interbreed with wolves, indicating common ancestry and possibly that they are actually the same species.
This was the entire point of RAZD's argument: dog breed evolved via "microevolution." Therefore, if the difference between the two most divergent dogs is equal to or greater than the difference between any two horses adjacent to each other in that outdated, linear evolution model, then the jump between those two horses is also microevolution, and thus, acceptable to creationists.
If each step in the evolution of the horse is equal to or less than the difference between dog breeds, than each step is acceptable as microevolution. If each step is acceptable, then there is nothing stopping the entire process from going forward via "microevolution," and "macroevolution" is no more than "microevolution" happening over a longer period of time.
Darwin loves you.