Religion of Evolution: UTEOTW

[Gina B]

I wanted to move the whole thread, but can't. I'm moving the specific posts where you and I were talking to it can continue here.

It'll be broken up into a few posts.

UTEOTW: The facts are these. Early on, biologists thought that evolution was slow and steady going from A to B to C. When they started finding horse fossils, they constructed a series that matched this. Well as more fossils came in, they found that the series actual had a number of branches and that it was slow at times and then there would be rapid change and that sometimes things would change in one direction and then the other. IOW, it was bushy and jerky instead of smooth and steady. And they wrote papers on this where they said that the smooth series was wrong and that additional information had yielded better and more accurate data. Imagine that, learning as you research a topic. What a concept.

Gina: You are saying that there is fossil evidence of the evolution of horses, true fossils that show the inbetween stages, it's not simply a belief written down, there's literal physical fossil proof?
Where? I want to see it.

UTEOTW: This might be something for you.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm

You can see a greatly simplified tree. Clicking on each genus will bring up a page with more information on that animal. Many have complete skeletons or at least what is known of the genera. I say greatly simplified because it is broken down by genus and leaves out many of the known genera. I think less than half are represented on the tree. Furthermore, each genus is known by at least one species. I think some are know by 30 - 40 species. So the whole tree would be quite involving. And since it is so bushy, it might be difficult (I'd say impossible.) to get all of the ancestor / descendent relationships correct. In places, the trail is so well known that it is difficult to decide where to change the classification of individual species from one genus to another. For instance, the last of the Parahippus (Parahippus leonensis) is so similar to Merychippus that it is difficult to know where to swap. So parts are very detailed indeed.

You might also find the following interesting.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wildhorses/wh_origin/wh_origin3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

Gina: I will look further into these links than the brief overview I have just now given them, but immediately two things come to mind.
First, they are all what appear to be different types of horses, with whole bodies and characteristics drawn from imagination stemmed by extremely limited findings.
The main point though, is they are all horses. Your statement was that these horses evolved. From what? Your links seem to show different variations of horses, but none show what they were before they were horses, or what they were between what they started from up until they became horses.
That is the evidence I am looking for. That is the claim of evolution. I already believe in horses!

UTEOTW: Strictly speaking, only the most recent genus, Equus, is really considered to be a horse. You would not recognize many of the animals on the list if you were to see them as horses, either.

The differentation may be easiest if you go all the way back to eohippus, the "Dawn Horse." Labeled as Hyracotherium oon the chart. This animal was the size of a small to medium sized dog. It was 10 - 20 inches at the shoulder and about 30 - 40 lbs. It did not have hooves like a horse. Instead it had pads somewhat like a dog except that the toenails resembles small hooves. Instead of one toe per foot it had 4 toes in front, three in back. Its teeth were very generalized. It was small brained with a short snout, short neck and arched back. And its "legs were flexible and rotatable with all major bones present and unfused." It was quite unlike anything you would call a horse.

From here, you can trace the development of various traits affecting most of the body. The legs are different, the feet are different, the teeth are different, the back and neck are different and so on.

Specifically...

"First, they are all what appear to be different types of horses, with whole bodies and characteristics drawn from imagination stemmed by extremely limited findings. "

I hope I cleared up that they were very different from what you or I would call a horse. The quality of the evidence varies widely. Some may only be known from a jaw. Some from nearly complete skeletons. See these for example.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/hyraco1.htm
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/oroh.htm
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/mesoh1.htm
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/parahippus.htm

Those were just the first four I clicked on and you can see full skeltons. I clicked around until I found one without afull skeleton.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/megahippus.htm

"Your statement was that these horses evolved. From what? Your links seem to show different variations of horses, but none show what they were before they were horses, or what they were between what they started from up until they became horses. "

Well, not exactly. This is the evolution of the horses from a small, general perissodactyl. Other animals from today whose ancestors were closely related include rhinos and tapirs. One of the striking things is that the fossil record connects such unlike animals as a horse and a rhino as being closely related. But even more striking is that the DNA confirms it. I point you to Use of mitochondrial DNA sequences to test the Ceratomorpha (Perissodactyla:Mammalia) hypothesis, C. Pitra and J. Veits, Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research, Volume 38 Issue 2 Page 65 - June 2000. Without going down to your local university to find it, suffice it to say that genetic testing confirms the relationship.

(The same technique can be used to confirm the fossil record that shows whales as being most closely related to hippos and deer and such. DNA testing looked at Hippopotamus, Cow, Sperm Whale, Humpback Whale, Red Kangaroo, Human, Mouse, Cat, Asiatic Elephant, Domestic Horse, Pig, and Bactrian Camel. Just as the fossil record predicts, the whales were most closely related to the cow and the hippo. Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates, Shimamura et al, Nature 388,666 (14 August 1997).

I don't know if you want to start tracing this back further in time. For instance, you could go back on additonal step to H. vassacciense if you wish. And Radinskya yupingae before that. And to the condylarths before that. And to Protungulatum before that.

You let me know what you desire and I will try and provide it. If I can.

I am not sure that I made it clear that the perissodactyls from which the rhinos and tapirs (plus some other extinct creatures such as the Indricotherium, a "house" sized mammal over 20 feet tall and twice as tall as an elephant. The largest land mammals ever!) were of the genus Homagalax. The differnce between Homagalax and Hyracotherium were extremely slight. All that I know of are some differences in the details of the shape of the teeth. As I said, you would not recognize these creatures as horses and especially not as rhinos or tapirs.

Gina: UTE: From this link that you gave me
CLICK HERE
it appears to be implying by the photos that horses started out very tiny, and with evolution became larger. Is that an accurate statement?
Also, perhaps I'm missing the link, but didn't you say there were ones that showed fossils of what these horses were before they were horses? These skeletons on the site still look really horselike to me! Except for the ones that look like dogs. LOL
For example, I'd imagine if they came from a bird, there would be a stage where they had wings If they came from sea animals there would be in between fossils of horses with scales or other properties.
I'll try to explain this more simply as I'm even confusing myself.
What was the dawn horse before it was what is being called a dawn horse?

 

[Gina B]

UTEOTW: "it appears to be implying by the photos that horses started out very tiny, and with evolution became larger. Is that an accurate statement?"

Yes. The sequence of creatures attributed to the evolution of the horse start off very small. You start off with a very small, very generalized browsing animal. A foot or so tall and less than fifty pounds. The descendents go in all directions. Some toward horses. Some rhinos. Some tapirs. And some other, now extinct, animals. This generalized animal was probably Tetraclaenodon. From this you get two genera, Hyracotherium which led to the horses, and Homagalax, which led to the rhinos and tapirs. These two genera differ only in some very specific details of the teeth.

"Also, perhaps I'm missing the link, but didn't you say there were ones that showed fossils of what these horses were before they were horses? These skeletons on the site still look really horselike to me! Except for the ones that look like dogs. LOL"

Well... Like I said, only the last genus, Equus, is really considered to be a horse. I was trying to give you the skeletons to show you that many of these are known from nearly complete specimens. But it is difficult to get a feel for what something looked like from the skeleton. Especially since the reference I provided scales them all to fit the same size box. I might could find some artist's representations, but those can be suspect.

But you are on the right track. I am not sure that I think that they look like dogs. It would not be completely unfair to say they look like little horse with toes and claws and a short neck and a short snout and an arched back and some really flexible legs. No worse than saying a bear looks somewhat like an overgrown wolf / raccoon hybrid.

The earliest examples, eohipus, orohippus and epihippus were somewhat similar with changes happening in the teeth largely, but other places too.

With mesohippus and miohippus you start seeing some other changes. Again, the teeth are prominent. It is during this time that they archieve the basic characteristics of the horse teeth. They also are getting a little larger, now around 2 feet tall and the head / snout begins to get a bit bigger. By the end of this period, you have an animal that has gone from a generalized browser to one suited for grazing on grass, which is very hard on the teeth. This is also the beginning of the move towards running ability.

Once you get to this point, changes start happening as the creatures become more suited for grazing on grasslands. The teeth continue to modify for chewing grass accompanied by a lengthening head. For running on grasslands, the body gets bigger, the legs get longer, and the animals start standing / running up on the toes instead of the pads on the feet. Some animals from here are parahippus and merychippus.

At this point you have a lot of different "horses" running around. You would likely even recognize them as horses if you saw them, though they are not yet what were known as true horses.

From here you have an evolution towards the horses, zebras, donkeys, etc. of today. You get the classic horse traits of "rigid spine, long neck, long legs, fused leg bones with no rotation, long nose, flexible muzzle, deep jaw." Now that they are running up on their toes, the claws turn into hooves and you see the loss of the two side toes as they come to use just the center toe. The size gets to the modern size.

"For example, I'd imagine if they came from a bird, there would be a stage where they had wings If they came from sea animals there would be in between fossils of horses with scales or other properties."

Well. they were just browsing, placental mammals.

"What was the dawn horse before it was what is being called a dawn horse?"

Well, I think we stepped through that. The common ancestor of the horses and rhinos was part of a group called perissodactyl, which just means that they are / were ungulates (hooved animals) with an odd number of toes. (The Artiodactyls are even toed ungulates and include sheep, goats, camels, pigs, cows, deer, giraffes, and antelope.) Before this came the condylarths. They date back to the time of the dinosaurs (give or take a little, there are still some questions) and are not known from much more than teeth and jaw bones. The teeth though were beginning to look like the teeth of later animals. There are some possible earlier ancestors, but now you are getting back close to the origin of placental mammals in general. So, for simplicity, just think of a rat. You are close enough for government work.

Gina: Will answer more tomorrow, but a quick question before I fall asleep at the wheel here!
Does the dating done for where these skeletons were found line up with the order of evolution claimed? (small to large)

UTEOTW: Well, its jerky.

The general trend is towards larger but that does not mean every step along the way got bigger. You may also be getting to the point of asking questions that are not only out of my knowledge (well, you have already done that, I am having to look up a lot as I go. That last post took a couple of hours.) but getting into things that would be hard for me to find out.

The general order for chaging traits, including size, yeah that is the general order in which they are found. Perfectly? I doubt it. Remember that you may not get the actual intermediate to fossilize. You may get one of its decendents that eventually went extinct and ended that specific line while a parallel branch lives on. So a bit out of order and a few traits that do not make sense is actually to be expected.

Some of the references I gave you put the genera into the time frame they were found, say within a couple of million years. Now exactly when they date to and the method of dating and where they were found is beyond me. I would imagine that many of the fossils are dated using the index fossils of the layer in which they were found though I would expect that some were able to be dated more directly. But that is a complete guess on my part.

I am off to bed myself. I am not looking forward to Monday. I have been working nights. Worked out Monday morning and I have been off all week. Back to the cubicle Monday, though.

(UTEOTW posts again the following morning)

Now that it is morning, or afternoon, let me talk a little more about you last question.

What you are talking about has a name. It is called stratiography. Basically where in time, in the geological column, things are found. Now this can be a contentious area of science and is often used by YEers too. It goes something like this. What if you find a series of fossils and when you compare all the physical traits it appears that the order is A to B to C to D but the order they are found in the ground is A then C then B then D? There are some who are quite adament that this is a problem. And there is a point to made about things not being found in the right order. Others would say that you are seeing the quirks of the fossil record. Things do not necessarily die out because something else evolves from them. Lineages can often split. One branch may preserve the original while another turns into something new. The decendant could be found before the ancestor because they both lived through the same period of time.

This is a big enough issue that there have been studies on it. I am going to try and relate the results of one. This is my take on it. Since I am not an expert I may not get everything quite right. If you really want, I think I can track down some PDFs on the web if you want to wade through 20 - 30 pages of technical talk.

The one I can remember, they took about 400 transitional series and compared the order derived from the physical traits to the order in which they were found in the ground so see how closely they agreed. About one third were immediately thrown out as being no closer than would be expected for a random distribution. Many of these were very short sequences where just a couple out of place would be ebough to doom the series but this ended up not being statistically significant because so many of the shorter sequences also worked well.

An aside: For there to be no transitional series, they sure were able to get a lot of samples to do their testing with! Maybe there really are few.

For the remaining samples they compared the agreement. Now the calculations they used were complex but let's simplify them to say they came up with a percentage of how closely the two agreed that could be compared to what would be expected in a random distribution. The percentages were then averaged into groups. Say like mammal, bony fish, etc. Each group usually ended up being somewhere in the 70 - 90 % agreement range and almost 100 % being better than 50%.

Now you may see this as good agreement or bad but let's play odds. 80% agreement is very high. You would be at long odds to get even one this close. Without knowing exactly how they did the calculations I hate to put a number on it, but you could be talking about millions to one. Now when you repeat this for hundreds of samples, you have a very convincing case that trees from phylogeny match those from stratiography in a statistically significant way. It is the overall evidence you must measure.

Now contrast this with the predictions of YE. Most YE people say that most of the fossils were laid down in the Flood. They try and explain the sorting we see of creatures through some sort of hydraulics. Without getting into the vast problems with that, it should be obvious that the creatures of a given series should be similar enough that there should not be any physical differences to sort them on. If you have 20 different clams, what will be different about them to sort them? What would sort a series of apes into an order that looks like human evolution? In short, for such a narrow slice of life as a possible transitional series, the locations should be completely random.

But they are not. But they are in an order that shows agreement with what common descent would suggest.

Another aside. I am glad to finally be getting on to things like this. The agreement between the genetic data and the fossil record and the stratiographic placement is powerfull evidence for common descent. Most of these discussions I spend all my time playing defence trying to refute that same old silly claims over and over. This is finally a chance to get to answer good questions in a way that, to me lays out a convincing case from one narrow part of the evidence. The most important thing to consider is the evidence as a whole, and that is hard to see. But this begins to show how different things arrived at through different means all come together to the same conclusion.

It also lets me highlight the inability for YE to make predictions. I have highlighted a few above where there is just no way for a YE person to make the predictions of genetic evidence from the whales or horses. Let me give another. For instance Sarfati of AIG likes to make the claim that "The a-hemoglobin of crocodiles has more in common with that of a chicken that that of a viper (their fellow reptiles)." ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4059.asp ) The problem is actually his. A person who supposes individually created kinds and who explains the common genetics through a common designer would have to predict that the two reptiles should be closer genetically. But from the fossil record, we know that chickens and crocodiles share a common ancestor in the archosaurs, a type of ancient reptile, and therefore have a much closer last common ancestor than that of a crocodile and a viper. So this is actually something that evolution would have predicted. It is counter intuitive on the surface and it goes against a YE. But it fits in perfectly with whay we know about common descent.

I do not know if everyone has lost interest or if no one has any opposition to what I am asserting here. I hope someone is paying attention because this is good stuff.

Gina: I'm still looking. This could take years. LOL
For a little bit I'm ignoring both of you (in a nice way)and reading what Richard Milton has to say. He seems like a nice mix of both of you.
By the time I get done with this and am ready for to comment again it'll be time to close this thread, but we can continue it in another, of course.

UTEOTW: A few things.

If you look around at what else Milton has to say, you will see that he is a bit of a quack. For instance, on his site he says that when gas collapses to form stars (not possible in a young universe) that the center cools to near absolute zero and cold fusion then powers the star.

Most of his critique boils down to a Gish style series of multiplying gaps. So what if you have dozens of genera and hundreds of species, I want to see the intermediates between those. That game can go on for ever.

He criticizes the sudden change between Mesohippus and Miohippus even though the artticle he is criticizing says "This transition also occurred suddenly, but luckily a few transitional fossils have been found that link the two genera."

He criticizes the article for being to general. If that is his problem, he should go to the bottom and go read the references. There he can get all the details he wants about what specific traits and factors are used to connect the various specimens.

He claims that the is no genetic evidence when I have already given you one reference that uses genetic evidence.

He also claims that speciation has never been observered. Well it has, but that is a subject for a different discusion.

We can fill the next page with comments before you hit you limit. That allows for a few more back and forths. And, like you said, if we are still having a nice conversation, we can continue it in a new thread.

 

[Gina B]

Gina: That may be true. Neverless, this part of what he said here caught my eye:

If Kathleen Hunt wishes to prove that horses have evolved she must first prove that speciation takes place,...

I am not a creationist so I won’t try to offer a creationist's answer. But I will offer Kathleen Hunt a scientific answer. I answer her challenge very simply: I explain the fossils by recognising that the word 'sequence' which she uses twice is nothing more than a subjective value judgement on her part and is not supported by any strong direct evidence.

Once she recognises that simple fact, she will not have to convert to creationism to realise the error of her conclusion, merely convert to becoming a scientist.

In one sense, I strongly sympathise with Kathleen Hunt and all the other scientific rationalists who say, in effect, 'How else can it have happened? It must have been like this. There's no other reasonable explanation'.

The trouble with this statement is that it is emphatically not a scientific statement. It is reminiscent of Antoine Lavoisier telling the Academie des Sciences, 'Gentlemen, stones cannot fall from the sky, because there are no stones in the sky.' In other words her anguished challenge is nothing more than an expression of our current state of ignorance in evolutionary biology.

I could have forgiven Kathleen Hunt for preferring what appears to be the rational theory, had it not been for her casual falsification and misrepresentation of the scientific facts in the name of compiling a "FAQ". There is NO scientific evidence at all that the fossils found are connected in a SEQUENCE except a general anatomical resemblance which, scientifically, is almost trivial. And there are no valid examples known of SPECIATION, but there is plenty of scientific evidence of genetic homeostasis -- a natural tendency of species to resist change and to become sterile when put under pressure to inbreed.

From THIS LINK

What are your thoughts on that?
Am I repeating myself yet?

If I do that simply point out to me where you've answered before, I'm an airhead when it comes to remembering sometimes.

Another question. I'm gonna ramble and put out some very basic thoughts that will help seal any doubts you may have had that I'm not an odd person.
What do you believe God's role in evolution is? Does he stop it when he thinks the evolved creature is good enough, or does that depend on surroundings? Why is a worm still a worm? How long is average to begin expecting a change in a creature once the surroundings begin to change? If we took enough food out of a forest to make bears struggle to survive, but surrounded the forest with sealed iron boxes of food, wouldn't it be a relatively short time before we started seeing baby bears born with longer, stronger teeth to help them puncture the boxes and get them open?

*Galatian's comment*
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we took enough food out of a forest to make bears struggle to survive, but surrounded the forest with sealed iron boxes of food, wouldn't it be a relatively short time before we started seeing baby bears born with longer, stronger teeth to help them puncture the boxes and get them open?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep. In fact, that's kind of what "The Beak of the Finch" is all about. Exhaustive studies of finches on an island in the Galapagos showed that evolution moves at tremendous speed when the environment shifts to food that requires a sturdier "opener."

The thing is, when conditions improve, it swings back again. Only when there is a permanent change in the environment do you see permanent large-scale change.

*End of Galatian's comment*

Gina: Hasn't extreme doubt been spread on Darwin's finches, including no proof that the noted bit of a millimeter was truly growth, but may have been measurable because of the birds being leaner?

Since extreme doubt has been cast, shouldn't it be relatively easy to create circumstances that would cause such changes? Why not start developing the digestive system of a fish in order to survive? If there is no food for a bird and it is surrounded by water, why would it not start developing into a fish?
The bible does say that nature was commanded to reproduce after it's own kind.
Do you believe that verse is misinterpreted by creationists UTE and others, and if so what do you believe is the proper meaning of it?

UTEOTW: A few topics here.

First, I have a better example of Milton as a quack. In one of his books, he claims that the Roman Empire never existed and that Latin is a language invented by English schoolmarms to keep the teachers employed.

Second, you quoted him on speciation. This is getting into a different topic and the reason I said so in the short review of his website that I made. There are planty of examples of speciation, but I need to know if this is a path you wish to go down. There are planty of good examples, even a few from very modern times. I would just like to know more specifically what your questions about speciation are.

Finally, the short answer to your last question is that all creatures reproduce after their kind. You will never see a species give birth to a different species. Change happens very slowly and to populations. So that verse is not a problem. That is just how things work.

As for it is still just a bear... That is the beauty of it. The changes happen slowly. You will never have a change in a short time and see something recognizable as completely new. But the change is additive. Go back to the horse series. The change from species to species, even genus to genus was not that great. Another cusp on a tooth here, a loss of a toe there. But in the end, you saw a great change from the start to the end. And not only down the path that gave us horses and zebras. The same starting point also led to rhinos. But all through small changes.

Gina: If all things started out as one species though, that would kinda make that verse pointless. If they started as 200 species it would still be hard.
If a man is a half monkey and a half man, is he biblically allowed to breed with a monkey or does he have to find a half monkey half woman?

And no, I don't really want to get into the species thing right this second.

On the horse tree site given, I can't find where it says which horses or parts of them are made directly from the fossils found and which parts aren't. Can you help me out with that? It may be on here and I'm missing it.

UTEOTW: "If all things started out as one species though, that would kinda make that verse pointless. If they started as 200 species it would still be hard. "

No, not really. Change is something that happens very slowly and generally to populations. At any point in time, the organisms alive at that time are simply making more of themselves. Now let's consider a hypothetical speciation event. YOu have this group of unicorns. They live in this mountain valley. They are well adapted for the vegetation and geography and predators of this area. Now during one rough patch of weather, a small herd goes looking for food and stumbles through a difficult pass to the other side of the mountains and cannot get back. Now let's say the first group is living on the windward side. They get a lot of rain, there is good soil, and the vegetation is lush. Now this new group finds themselves on the leeward side. It gets less rain and the vegetation is of a different type and more scattered. The first group continues reproducing after its kind, maintaining a kind of status quo. Maybe small changes. The second group will now have a new and strong set of selective pressures. Maybe changes in teeth to chew the vegetation. Maybe a change in color to blend in better. Maybe a change in size due to food restrictions. Maybe less natural cover means they need to become more mobile to escape predators. The new pressures wil force change. Maybe they cannot adapt and die out. Maybe they do adapt and eventually turn into a new species. In either case, they too continue to reproduce after their kind. It just happens that after thousands of years, the two species of unicorns separated by the mountain range are now new species.

Made up and simplified, I know. But you see things like this in nature where different populations will settle into a particular niche and eventually, as each population adapts to their specific niche, they become new species. Always reproducing after their own kind.

"If a man is a half monkey and a half man, is he biblically allowed to breed with a monkey or does he have to find a half monkey half woman?"

I think we would both agree that this is something God would frown upon. Let me make a more extreme version of the statement to show its flaw. You and a cow are both mammals, so why should you not be allowed to mate?

Even the animals have enough sense to not try and mate outside of their species. Well, except for that occasional dog who must think my leg is some strange breed. Even when we humans are unable to tell two species apart, they can when it come time to reproduce.

Mating is about reproducing. (Yes for us humans it is more than that. Maybe bonobos, too.) There is no point in it between the species. Some very closely related species can hybridize. But in general, mating between the species is unnatural and pointless.

You and a monkey share a large amount genetics. You and an ape, especially a chimp, share an extreme amount. For any mammal even the numbers will be very high. And even for single cell life, the numbers are higher than you would imagine. But you are still different species. It has been, guessing, 30 million years since you shared an ancestor with the monkeys and maybe 10 millon for the apes. You cannot mate with them. Morally it would be unnatural and physically there is no hope of hybridization.

"And no, I don't really want to get into the species thing right this second. "

That's fine. Let me know when you do and what you would be interested in seeing. We can come at it from the modern perspective of showing where species have split say do to geography or we can look at some very finely divided series from the fossil record.

"On the horse tree site given, I can't find where it says which horses or parts of them are made directly from the fossils found and which parts aren't. Can you help me out with that? It may be on here and I'm missing it. "

I am sorry, but I do not follow your question.

If you are asking which fossil horses went on to give us the modern horse and which died out, then try looking at the tree on this page.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html#part2

If you are asking for a history of how different traits arose and were passed down in the series, that is kinda of complicated. You may either need to keep reading or you could give us a specific trait or two and let us go through it for you. Above, the Galatian already did just this for just the toes. I think it was on the previous page near the bottom. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/19.html#000277

If you have a different question, just help me out by letting me know a little more clearly what you question is. I'm sorry, but I just do not quite understand.

Gina: That's ok. I COULD have said it more easily.
Are all of the horses shown on the chart images completely from fossil evidence? Did they find the whole fossils of all of the ones shown on the chart? If not, which parts were found, and for which models?
This is what else I'm looking for on the site and cannot find.

Ok, hope that's easier.
As for breeding of the half man half monkey, you're saying it would be unnatural for him or the monkey to breed with anything that is not at the same stage of evolving as themselves?

UTEOTW: Second question, first. Basically yes. Or what Brett said. YOu have to be the same species or things don't match up right.

First question. Boy, that is a hard one to answer. Part of the answer is that I just do not have enough resources to give a good answer. That answer would also be quite long as there are dozens of genera and for each genus there can be dozens of individual species. I was under the impression from what I clicked through on the original page I gave you from U. of Florida that the skeleton they showed was how much of a complete skeleton they had recovered for that genus. I am only basing this on the fact that some were represented by nothing more than jaws and teeth while others had whole skeletons. I might see if I cannot find something for you.

 

[UTEOTW]

Like I said, finding out what specific specimens hav been found will be somewhat hard to do. I tried searching specifically on Eohippus first, but that just led to a bunch of general websites. So I tried Mesohippus next. I came up with this.

http://www.sprucemeadows.com/Mesohippus.pdf

This is about one specific specimen. It was 80% complete. Complete enough that they remark that for the skull, all that is missing is a single tooth. The preservation is astounding. They can tell that the animal once broke its right, front leg and survived. The preservation was even good enough that they were able to confirm behavoir by another species, the sabre toothed tiger. It was believed that these cats would mark their kills by...uh...going potty on or near them. They found evidence not only that this animal was killed by a sabre toothed tiger, but surrounding the fossil was fossilized dung (a coprolite) that contained some bone fragments from the mesohippus.

I'll have to keep looking and see what else I can find for other genera. But, at least in this case, a very good and complete specimen was found.

There is also another side to this. Many, but not all, of the YEers will claim that there was no predation before the flood and that all fossils were laid down in the flood. This fossil shows unmistakeable signs of predation, as do mant, many other fossils. They might need to reconsider how they claim things happened.

 

[UTEOTW]

Here is a very well preserved Miohippus. This specimen shows the continuing loss of the two side toes into the shin splits seen in modern horses.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ponyexpress/PONY4_2/PE42.HTM#tbfc

Also from the same page, you will find this article.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ponyexpress/PONY4_2/PE42.HTM#dig

It discusses the results of a couple of fossil digs. They found a lot of different fossils including several Parahippus specimens. If you read the chart, they list the parts that were found with each. These are not complete, mind you, but they do show a pretty good part of the body. This may be typical of the typical fossil, with some individual fossils being more fragmentary ands some more complete.

For different Parahippus leonensis:

right mandible w/cheek teeth, teeth, distal radius, patellae, lateral and medial metapodials, proximal sesamoids, carpals, tarsals, phalanges

teeth, radius, ulna, tibia, metatarsal, carpals, tarsals, phalanges

teeth, mandibles, vertebrae, carpals, tarsals, metapodials, phalanges

radius, proximal sesamoid, phalanges

teeth, vertebrae, femur, pelvis fragment, tibia, tarsals, metapodials, phalanges

lunar, sesamoid, phalanx

maxilla with cheek teeth, teeth, radius, scapula, femur, carpals, tarsals, phalanges

teeth, scapula, carpals, tarsals, metapodials, phalanges

proximal scapula, medial metacarpal, lateral metapodials, tarsals, medial phalanges, vertebra

teeth, vertebra, distal tibia, patella, carpals, tarsals, sesamoids, phalanges

2 right mandibles with teeth, isolated teeth, tibia, calcaneum, metapodials, phalanges, vertebrae

teeth, skull fragment, metapodial, tarsal, phalanges

skull with complete cheek dentition, maxilla frag., mandible with complete cheek dentition, teeth, proximal radius, proximal ulna, right innominate, sacrum, patella, carpals, tarsals, metapodials, phalanges

teeth, vertebrae, scapula, innominate, carpals, tarsals, metapodials, phalanges

teeth, carpals, tarsals, metapodials, phalanges, vertebrae, patella

carpal, tarsal, phalanx

tooth, vertebrae, radius, patella, femur, carpals, tarsals, metapodials, phalanges

Some lots of important parts, though it does not look like any of these were complete. And this is just two digs in FLorida, I think.

If you look through the list, you will see that they also found specimens of at least one other "horse," Archaeohippus blackbergi.

 

[UTEOTW]

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ponyexpress/pony3_2/PE32.HTM#bones

For a specific part, the leg bones of the ulna and radius, this gives you change through four different animals to let you see the changes that took place.

Also below it are the results from another fossil dig at the same place referenced above and with more examples of the two animals listed above. I did not read through the list to see how complete they were.

Edit:

Wanted to add this above, but out of time. You should now be able to see, just from the results given on two digs at one site, that there are many, amny fossils available for this and that it is not just built on a handful of fragmentary fossils.

 

[Gina B]

How do we know they are not extinct breeds within a species, rather than showing the evolution of a species?
Why would there have been no predation before the flood?
Gina

 

[UTEOTW]

First question. Good question.

Let's take a look at something we are familar with first. Dogs. Now this, I think, is sort of your point. We have all of these widely varying breeds and yet they are all still dogs. So if we did not have them and dug them up, would we not think that they might not be different species and maybe even make a series out of them.

The answer is probably not. There is a lot more to it than size. Much of the work determining the different species and their relationships comes down to details about the bones. How many and what types of teeth. How are the bones shaped. The size and location of the different processes for attaching muscle. How to the joints fit together.

When you look at dogs, even the ones that vary widely in size, you would find that for the most part, they have the same basic structure, just scaled differently. If you were to try and put them in some sort of series, you would not be able to do, say, a smallest to largest arrangement that actually made sense. It would become apparent that you had a continuum of sizes all with the same basic structure.

Now, a few other points about dogs. First of all, we like to think of them as all breeds of the same species. But a convincing case can be made that you should break them into different species. Take the ability to mate criteria. Let's put a toy poodle and a St. Bernard together and see how well they can mate. Not likely. Though the counterpoint is that you could still make a hybrid of the two if you intervened in the right way. So let's take two giant breeds. From what I understand, you should not mate different giant breeds together. They all use a different set of genes to grow so large and when you mix them, you can get some very deformed offspring if they survive.

The other thing about dogs. Someone, I think the results were published last year, actually tried to group up the dogs into an evolutionary pattern. The way they ended up falling out was that you were able to trace the various breeds back to one of about 10 or 11 basic breeds. So even as similar as they are, they were able to trace them backwards. I think they may have been primarily using genetics.

Before I get to horses, let me make some concessions. This discussion does bring up an important point. When you dig up two fossils, it is awfully hard to tell if they could have actually mated. It is almost certain that there are cases where two specimens of the same species have been assigned to different species because of a difference in size. Sometimes you will even see where they will take what was being called two species and combine them because the figure out that the two species were actually the males and the females of the same species in cases of sexual dimorphism. (I don't think ai spelledthat even close.) By the same token, you should be able to look around and think of animals that are actually different species that are similar enough that if you found their bones, you would consider them to be the same species. Maybe two similar types of deer. So, it is likely that some species are being split based on a wide range in size and that some are being combined because the bones are not different enough.

Now horses. The changes that you see are far more than just the variety you would see amoung breeds. There are major changes to the teeth. They grow new cusps and shapes and change specific teeth into different types to get more molars for grinding grass. The bones of the legs go from free and limber to long and fused. Toes disappear and become shin splints. The feet change until they are running on their toes and then the toenail becomes a hoof. The foot pads disappear. I am not knowledgable enough, but I would be quite certain that you see all sorts of changes to the bones. The shape and function of the joints. The vertebrae. I posted yesterday about the changes to the radius and ulna. The placement and size of processes for muscle attachment. These are all things that have been looked at in detail by the scientists actually digging up and studying the fossils. The changes are much more than you would ever see between breeds. Also, they are not all living at the same time. There is a progression through the different strata. There is a good bit of overlap. But that is normal.

I hope that points you in the right direction.

 

[UTEOTW]

Second question.

Genesis 1:29 - 30
"29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so."

Only the plants are given as food at this point.

Then Genesis 9:2 - 3
"2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. "

Now the strict literalist interpret this to mean that only after the flood were man or beast permitted to eat meat. The cynical side of me sees that possibility that it is a cop out on having the predators survive a year in a boat with no fresh meat and without eating all the herbivores either on the boat or immediately after getting off.

You do get some humor out of it. I laughed out loud when I heard "Dr." Carl Baugh talking on his TV show about how T-rex really used those big ugly teeth for stripping vegetation and swallowing large branched essentially whole. More seriously is that predators have whole bodies adapted for doing nothing but killing, eating and digesting meat. The digesting part is key. They do not have the teeth for gathering plants, for stripping plants or for grinding plant matter. They do not have the digestive tracks to get the proper nutrition from plants. Try this. Feed you dog some cracked corn in his food for a few days. Examine his droppings. See all the intact corn.

BTW, do you need more information on the quality of the horse fossils or are you good? I think I have got you pointed in the direction where you should at least see that there are very many individual fossils and thet they range from partial to exquisitly preserved and nearly complete.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
You do get some humor out of it. I laughed out loud when I heard "Dr." Carl Baugh talking on his TV show about how T-rex really used those big ugly teeth for stripping vegetation and swallowing large branched essentially whole.

How about a fruit bat? Why the long and sharp teeth needed just to eat fruit? Or the Panda, why the long and sharp teeth? Could be b/c bamboo is pretty dang tuff to eat.

 

[UTEOTW]

There are certainly a few exceptions, a few animals that have evolved an omnivorous or herbivore diet from a carniverous one. Or the other way around. In fact, it should not be that surprising since in the course of evolution diets continually change. You even gave a good reason yourself for the panda. From what you said, it is adapted to its diet. But T-rex is no panda.

But here you have not just T-rex, you have a whole series of creatures. Both the very closely related animals, such as allosaurus, and the broader relatives such as the rest of the theropod dinosaurs. The fossils indicate that they were built for hunting, scavenging, and eating meat. Those daggers that T-rex had would have no effect on the type of plants that he could get in his mouth. You just are not going to get much nutrition swallowing whole branches.

But we do not even have to blindly trust that kind of evidence. We have fossils of the prey that show the tooth mark from the hunt and from meal on the bones. We can match these up with the jaws of the particular predators. We don't have to guess that they ate meat just because they had the teeth and th jaws for it, we can see the effects they had on their prey. We can also examine coprolites to see what they had been eating.

Teeth are a great indicator of what something eats. Just the shape is telling, but as I said, animals do evolve to eat different things and the teeth may lead or lag that process. But there is also the pattern of wear that can help confirm that the teeth were used for what they look like they were used for. Because of reality, you can obviously throw out a few outliers, creatures that eat only plants who are closely related to meat eaters. But those are just that, outliers. The vast majority of the time form and function are related. It is silly to think that for whole classes of animals, that form did not follow function. Especially since we have other lines of evidence to confirm.

And "Dr." Baugh is as silly as they come. He still supports the Paluxy tracks even!

 

[john6:63]

As I pointed out w/ the Panda, teeth don’t determine the diet. My argument isn’t that the T-Rex never ate meat. Even though there’s a growing debate among paleontologists over whether or not T-Rex was a hunter at all. See here and here. If the fossils indicate that T-Rex did in fact eat meat, after the Fall as recorded in Genesis, then I don’t have a problem with this, due to the fact that God created these creatures the way they were for a purpose, it is quite possible that they were created w/ a dual purpose in mind. Plants before the Fall, meat at some point after. And now we get into yet another debate that’s been beaten like a dead horse, are the fossils dated accurately?

My argument is pre-Fall. My contention is again the teeth don’t dictate the diet. Let’s just say my Panda example became extinct some thousands of years ago. An old geezer unearths a fossilized skull of a Panda tilling up his garden and sent it to a paleontologist, and he/she concluded from its teeth, that it was “clearly a carnivore.” What we know now, clearly demonstrates that fossils don’t speak for themselves. If the base assumptions are wrong, as in the case that all animals with sharp teeth must be meat eaters, then the interpretation will also end up wrong.

 

[UTEOTW]

But, as I said, there are exceptions. You expect this since diets can change with time. But, in the case of T-rex, you have more than just the shape of the teeth. In fact, with essentially all examples, you have the pattern of wear on the teeth which just might allow your hypothetical paleontologists determine that the panda eats plants. But with the dinosaurs, you have other lines of evidence. You have tooth marks on the prey, for one very good example. I think, but do not know without looking it up, that you also have evidence from coprolites of what was being eaten. T-rex may have been a scavenger rather than a hunter. But I don't think any scientist thinks that it was a fruit eater.

But you also expose a rift in YE. You don't have problem with predation after the Fall. But many literalists insist on no predation until sometime after the Flood. That is a big difference. But that gets swept under the rug.

 

[Gina B]

BTW, do you need more information on the quality of the horse fossils or are you good? I think I have got you pointed in the direction where you should at least see that there are very many individual fossils and thet they range from partial to exquisitly preserved and nearly complete.

I do want to look it up more. Don't go out of your way to find it as I am as capable of using a search engine as the next person, but if you run across anything feel free to post it.
Unfortunately I think I read about it some not long ago and have now forgotten what was said. Grrr to getting older!
Gina

 

[UTEOTW]

Well,I'll be unavailable for several days and I may be on strike duty after that. SO it may be a while before you hear from me any way.

If it helps, to find the above I Googled "fossil specimens xxxx complete skeleton" (without quotes of course) where xxxx is a genus name from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html#part2 .

I'll be back. Just don't hold your breath.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[QB] Second question.

Genesis 1:29 - 30
"29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so."

Only the plants are given as food at this point.

Good point. And since we can trust what God's Word says - and it is written here in such easy language - no possibility claiming "not to get it".

Gen 1- vegeterian humans. "I have given YOU" (you know - the "details")

And of course - God gave animals - a vegetarian diet at creation and before the fall.

God Word eliminates the vain speculation that He "really created" using the sin-model's "death, predation, disease, suffering, extinction and survival".

Then Genesis 9:2 - 3
"2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. "

Now the strict literalist interpret this to mean that only after the flood were man or beast permitted to eat meat.

No that is the silly notion that evolutionist insert as they "try" to obfuscate scripture.

It is doubtful that the animals hung around listening to sermons on diet - but you never know what an evolutionist is going to suggest.

However "the common sense believers" approach WOULD be to admit the the humans should have been able to "understand" the message of Gen 9.

So "yes" - God gives mankind permission to eat animal flesh after the flood - but He only does this after showing the distinction between clean and unclean animals in the ark.

(oops! That would be "another detail" we are paying attention to - sorry.)

The cynical side of me sees that possibility that it is a cop out on having the predators survive a year in a boat with no fresh meat and without eating all the herbivores either on the boat or immediately after getting off.

You do get some humor out of it. I laughed out loud when I heard "Dr." Carl Baugh talking on his TV show about how T-rex really used those big ugly teeth for stripping vegetation

I have to admit - evolutionist "stories" intended to obfuscate the Word of God and insert doubt - are pretty funny. No question they are the clear winners in the "humor" category.

UTEOTW
BTW, do you need more information on the quality of the horse fossils or are you good?

No problemo - that 1951 series appears to be totally contrived - fortunately evolutionists -- atheist evolutionists are even more forthcoming on this than the Christian evolutionists here - so we can "all" see what evolutionists think on this one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

However getting back to the topic "The religion of evolutionism".

This religion believes in slice-and-splice with scripture "bending it according to the dictates of the junk science needs of evolutionism" and then by "faith" believes that such a compromise will not affect what remains of scripture.

That is pretty sad.

However the worse thing is that atheist evolutionists appear to be "more clear" on the claims of evolutionism and the fact that you can not "marry it" to the Gospel of Jesus Christ - than Christian evolutionists will allow themselves to be.

That has got to be instructive for the reader.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

You have yet to offer any shred of evidence that the series presented from the 50's on is anything but good science. For that matter, you fail to support any of your assertions. How about by the time I get back you come up with support for your claims about the archy conference, OK?

 

[BobRyan]

I am sorry UTEOTW - I meant to post that here.

Here it is "again".

Although a leading 20th-century evolutionist writer, *George Gaylord Simpson, gave this epitaph to the burial of the horse series we still find false belief and errors among evolutionists on these points.

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."— *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

Earlier, *Simpson said this:

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."—*George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution."
G.G. Simpson, Horses, 1951, pg 215.
The enormous increase in fossil evidence since Simpson's time has allowed paleontologists .... to falsify this view. In other words, bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.
S. J. Gould, Full House 1997, pg 67-69.

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.
B. Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, Nov 5, 1980, sec. 4 pg 15.

"Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years."
S. Gould, Full House, p. 69.

"High schoool textbooks propose that, ..., the rabbit sized Eohippus commenced his move up through the evolutionary ranks, one incremental step after another. ... The high school progression is an artifact; .... The facts are discrete. There is no hint of gradual change, no hint either of selective advantages accumulating."
D. Berlinski, review of Full House, O&D 18(1), pg 30.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The series is made up of a probable non-horse and multiple varieties of true horses.
The many different types of horses are static and coexistent in the fossil record.

There is no macroevolutionary transition! The varieties come about by microevolutionary mechanisms.

There is no gradual phyletic transformation of horses in the fossil record!

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.