-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Religion of Evolution
- Thread starter jcrawford
- Start date
I've been to the sequoyias (sp?) and they are indeed breath taking. There was one toward the entrance of where we were with room carved out in the trunk to drive through the middle of the tree.Originally posted by UTEOTW:
That was a good post Gina.
Though I disagree with you on the details of how all this came to be, I agree on God as ultimately being responsible. My views on origins in no way takes away from my wonder of God's creation. You post reminds me of the awe I felt in seeing the Tetons for the first time last year. I think I even mentioned it in a post around here somewhere. I had been skiing Grand Targhee all week at it had lived up to its billing as Grand Foggy. And then the very last day, the clouds broke and the sun came out. I went to the top of the mountain hoping to catch a glimpse of the cathedral group in the distance. I had not realized that they were only a few miles away. Cresting the ridge and seeing them for the first time nearly took my breath away in awe of God's creation. Being at nearly 10000 feet may not have helped.But I am constantly in awe of such things as I travel. I had similar feelings at Big Sur a year year ago. I am expecting the same thing next month in Yellowstone.
For me, the animals that stir my soul are the large cats. Such regal and powerful creatures. Not quite the juxtapostion of the slug and the redwood. (I so want to see the sequoyia variety of redwood.) But, again, for me it takes nothing away that I do not see them as getting here in quite the same way as you. I still feel that same awe, that same appreciation.
Yellowstone is nice too, but I was afraid of the animals. LOL Getting trampled by a bison or gored by one of those antlered creatures wasn't exactly how I wanted to be amazed by nature.
Gina
Hi Gina. I didn't mean to misinterpret you. However, since you said this after quoting most of my post, I'm not sure which statement was inaccurate. Did you mean the first sentence (that you don't realize people who disagree over creationism can still appreciate God's grandeur evidenced in creation)? If so, what did you mean when you said that a person who saw what you saw and then was thankful for modern scientific understanding of it would be similar to a person who tried to throw themselves into Satan's arms? To me, it seemed you were saying that accepting evolution limits the way one can enjoy such a scene.
Yes, completely!
I don't know how to spell sequoia either. (How about that, between us we have spelled it differently 3 times! It took me going to Merriam-Webster to get it right. http://www.m-w.com/home.htm I have this as a link right on the Links toolbar in IE because I am such a bad speller. Any chance of us getting a spellchecker? ) I have only seen the redwoods near the coast. I want to see the bigger around ones inland. Though the ones near the coast are a little taller, they are no where near as big around. I think the largest I saw was about 18 ft in diameter. You sound like my wife over the upcoming Yellowstone trip. I keep looking for trails to hike and she keeps asking about the bears. On this year's ski trip, her goal was to never stand for 10 minutes at the top of a run scared to make her first turn. She did that just about every time the first time we went together but would disappear, flying away, once she got that first turn.
Now I am more curious about your more recent statement. You said "My doubts about a literal 7 day creation and inability to believe fully in a young earth are rapidly changing in the face of what I've seen, listened to, and read in the short space of a week. I cannot speak for you, but there is a definite change in the emotional content one feels toward creation when the viewpoint between young/old changes, or belief in the possibility of evolution fades. This isn't the first time I've seen nature in this magnitude, but it was the first time it "spoke" to me like this."
Now I think I can guess that you moved closer to a young earth. I wonder what it is that you read? I would be curious to know. I agree with the emotional change that comes from changing your mind on something as deeply rooted as this can be.
You also asked "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."
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
) I have only seen the redwoods near the coast. I want to see the bigger around ones inland. Though the ones near the coast are a little taller, they are no where near as big around. I think the largest I saw was about 18 ft in diameter. You sound like my wife over the upcoming Yellowstone trip. I keep looking for trails to hike and she keeps asking about the bears. On this year's ski trip, her goal was to never stand for 10 minutes at the top of a run scared to make her first turn. She did that just about every time the first time we went together but would disappear, flying away, once she got that first turn.Now I am more curious about your more recent statement. You said "My doubts about a literal 7 day creation and inability to believe fully in a young earth are rapidly changing in the face of what I've seen, listened to, and read in the short space of a week. I cannot speak for you, but there is a definite change in the emotional content one feels toward creation when the viewpoint between young/old changes, or belief in the possibility of evolution fades. This isn't the first time I've seen nature in this magnitude, but it was the first time it "spoke" to me like this."
Now I think I can guess that you moved closer to a young earth. I wonder what it is that you read? I would be curious to know. I agree with the emotional change that comes from changing your mind on something as deeply rooted as this can be.
You also asked "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."
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
I experienced something similar. Both when I was certain about YEC and now that I am nearly certain about TE, I experience wonder and awe in creation. When I was on the fence and not sure what to think, creation did not seem to speak to me as forcefully. I think that's because at that in-between time I knew I wasn't being honest with myself about creation, so I couldn't fully embrace it.
Let me add one more thing.
For those who are genuinely curious, I like to encourage them to look at both sides of the debate and see what makes the most sense to them. So in fairness, here is a link to a criticism of the horse sequence by our own Helen.
http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/horsevolution.htm
If you have questions, feel free to ask. I am by far not an expert, but I might could track down things. If you wish me to look critically at Helen's write-up, let me know. Just in posting the link for you, a few obvious questions popped out. One already addressed above!
For those who are genuinely curious, I like to encourage them to look at both sides of the debate and see what makes the most sense to them. So in fairness, here is a link to a criticism of the horse sequence by our own Helen.
http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/horsevolution.htm
If you have questions, feel free to ask. I am by far not an expert, but I might could track down things. If you wish me to look critically at Helen's write-up, let me know. Just in posting the link for you, a few obvious questions popped out. One already addressed above!
UTE:
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!
What did I read? I have no clue. LOL! I pick up books and read and rarely pay attention to the author or the name of the book. If the first few pages interest me I keep reading. There was a variety of reading material available and only a week to take advantage of them, so I think I only made it through two books and the rest was pages, photos, maps, etc. within a variety of others.
Mercury:
With the statement about Satan, I was conveying my personal emotions and thoughts on the situation, which are impossible to attempt to apply to others. Only you can say what thoughts and emotions apply to yourself in such instances!
Mercury, I don't know much about you personally. Who are you?
Would you be willing to share your testimony with me?
Actually, I'd like for everyone involved in these debates to do so. You know what? I'm going to start a thread just for that. Of course you don't HAVE to involve yourself, but it would be deeply appreciated if you would. We're all Christians here as far as I understand it, yet we've not have much discussion or sharing with each other on that level. It might help us to have better quality discussions on these types of threads if we share with each other how God has worked in our lives. Ok? http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2780.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!
What did I read? I have no clue. LOL! I pick up books and read and rarely pay attention to the author or the name of the book. If the first few pages interest me I keep reading. There was a variety of reading material available and only a week to take advantage of them, so I think I only made it through two books and the rest was pages, photos, maps, etc. within a variety of others.
Mercury:
With the statement about Satan, I was conveying my personal emotions and thoughts on the situation, which are impossible to attempt to apply to others. Only you can say what thoughts and emotions apply to yourself in such instances!
Mercury, I don't know much about you personally. Who are you?
Actually, I'd like for everyone involved in these debates to do so. You know what? I'm going to start a thread just for that. Of course you don't HAVE to involve yourself, but it would be deeply appreciated if you would. We're all Christians here as far as I understand it, yet we've not have much discussion or sharing with each other on that level. It might help us to have better quality discussions on these types of threads if we share with each other how God has worked in our lives. Ok? http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2780.html
Gina
Let's see if I can help a little. I'll try to get to your other thread in the next few days.
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.
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.
For Gina
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.
For Bob
While you are explaining why the Simpson quote does not mean what I claim that it means, why don't you wade into the evidence a little, too. Instead of relying on quoting, look at what we have in reality. What is there in your view of life that would suggest that we should be able to find a series of animals going back in time from the horses to a small browsing animal that can the nbe followed down different paths to give us such diverse creatures as the rhinos, the tapirs and Indricotherium? These creatures seem nothing alike today, so why should they be connected through all those intermediates? And if you want to claim that the intermediates really do not exist, then you have an even harder time telling us why these diverse creatures should genetically test closer to one another than to any other animals. Why does the fossil record and the genetics agree if there really is nothing to it?
That is the power of the evidence for evolution. Looking at horses and rhinos, why would the average person think they should be related. But then the fossil record shows us that they are. Therefore the prediction is that they should show a similar relationship when genetically tested. YE could have never made such a prediction. I'd have a hard time believing that anyone would seriously put horses and rhinos in the same "kind." So you have no reason to predict that they should be any closer related to each other genetically than to any other mammal. But with common descent, the two match up.
Just as the whale DNA matched up with what would be predicted from the fossil record. Strange, don't you think, if all those claims about the lack of tranitional species were actually true? Not strange at all when you consider the evidence as a whole.
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.
For Bob
While you are explaining why the Simpson quote does not mean what I claim that it means, why don't you wade into the evidence a little, too. Instead of relying on quoting, look at what we have in reality. What is there in your view of life that would suggest that we should be able to find a series of animals going back in time from the horses to a small browsing animal that can the nbe followed down different paths to give us such diverse creatures as the rhinos, the tapirs and Indricotherium? These creatures seem nothing alike today, so why should they be connected through all those intermediates? And if you want to claim that the intermediates really do not exist, then you have an even harder time telling us why these diverse creatures should genetically test closer to one another than to any other animals. Why does the fossil record and the genetics agree if there really is nothing to it?
That is the power of the evidence for evolution. Looking at horses and rhinos, why would the average person think they should be related. But then the fossil record shows us that they are. Therefore the prediction is that they should show a similar relationship when genetically tested. YE could have never made such a prediction. I'd have a hard time believing that anyone would seriously put horses and rhinos in the same "kind." So you have no reason to predict that they should be any closer related to each other genetically than to any other mammal. But with common descent, the two match up.
Just as the whale DNA matched up with what would be predicted from the fossil record. Strange, don't you think, if all those claims about the lack of tranitional species were actually true? Not strange at all when you consider the evidence as a whole.
I think that this demonstration of relationships through the fossil record and through genetics of creatures quite dissimilar today is powerful evidence and I would like to present another.
Often, when presented with genetic evidence showing the closeness of humans and other apes, or similar comparisons, it is simply dismissed by the "common designer" approach. They look similar so why not suppose, without proof, that this means that similar genes would be used to make them even in a created kinds scenario.
But by showing cases where we have very different animals, connected both through the fossil record and through genetics, makes that a much tougher dodge to accomplish. Why would we think that whales and cows should be genetically similar except through what we know in the fossil record? (The study I cited above actually uses viral insertions so the "common designer" dodge is yet more difficult to make for that case.) Why would we expect horses and hippos to be genetically similar except through what we know from the fossil record?
Well, here is another. Birds and crocodiles. Both of these can have their ancestry traced back through the fossil record to the archosaurs. I know some people try and cast doubt on the record of the birds. But, if the tree showing the birds to have come out of the archosaurs is incorrect, then why to birds and crodiles and alligators all genetically test as such close relatives? ( Phylogenetic relationship of birds with crocodiles and mammals, as deduced from protein sequences., Larhammar D, Milner RJ, Mol Biol Evol. 1989 Nov;6(6):693-6. ) One strange ohysical trait to add to this. Reptiles generally have a three chambered heart. Birds four. Crocodiles...? Four.
Often, when presented with genetic evidence showing the closeness of humans and other apes, or similar comparisons, it is simply dismissed by the "common designer" approach. They look similar so why not suppose, without proof, that this means that similar genes would be used to make them even in a created kinds scenario.
But by showing cases where we have very different animals, connected both through the fossil record and through genetics, makes that a much tougher dodge to accomplish. Why would we think that whales and cows should be genetically similar except through what we know in the fossil record? (The study I cited above actually uses viral insertions so the "common designer" dodge is yet more difficult to make for that case.) Why would we expect horses and hippos to be genetically similar except through what we know from the fossil record?
Well, here is another. Birds and crocodiles. Both of these can have their ancestry traced back through the fossil record to the archosaurs. I know some people try and cast doubt on the record of the birds. But, if the tree showing the birds to have come out of the archosaurs is incorrect, then why to birds and crodiles and alligators all genetically test as such close relatives? ( Phylogenetic relationship of birds with crocodiles and mammals, as deduced from protein sequences., Larhammar D, Milner RJ, Mol Biol Evol. 1989 Nov;6(6):693-6. ) One strange ohysical trait to add to this. Reptiles generally have a three chambered heart. Birds four. Crocodiles...? Four.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Gina
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.
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.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
#1. In "reality" we have no smooth sequence of horse feet progressively evolving to what we see today (IN the fossil record).
#2. In "reality" Evoutionists CLAIMED that we had this and LINED up fossil examples to back up their claim. In "reality" evolutionists ADMIT that the sequence that they were SHOWING did not exist.
#3. In "reality" evolutionists here seek to obfuscate the "obvious" at every turn. And who know - maybe some people "buy it". What do you think?
I am not the one coming with contrived sequences, for that we need the devotees of evoltionism.
I am not the one claiming that the horse series and Archaeopterys (TRUE BIRD) represent the BEST in transitional "EVIDENCE" that we have today.
For THAT we need "evolutionists".
Obviously - because there are no transitional in the fossil record and there are none in genetics.
I thought we all knew that.
Question - is this where you simply ramble or is this where you take evolutionists speculation and merely "assert and assume" rather than deal with the inconvenient facts?
In any case - All the atheists today would gladly swallow the myths and fables of evolutionism rather than believe the truth of Genesis 1-2:3 and I think we can all agree on that point (at the very least).
In Christ,
Bob
Let's try this again, Bob.
You say that the Simpson quote says that "In "reality" evolutionists ADMIT that the sequence that they were SHOWING did not exist."
I claim that when you put the whole quote back together that the quote actually says that as they learned more about the horse sequence (read "Dug up more fossils") they found that there initial smooth sequence was found to be jerkyand bushy. Simpson was telling us that orthogenetics was not correct based both on the horse sequence and others in the record. If you disagree with this interpretation of what he was saying, then you should show this throug hthe full quote and quit asserting the same false claims over and over.
"#1. In "reality" we have no smooth sequence of horse feet progressively evolving to what we see today (IN the fossil record)."
I believe we do. I don't really feel like wasting my time with someone who will not listen but if you follow the links I gave you, you will see this. Basically you see a move towards walking up on the toes, which develop hooves, through most of the sequence and then a loss of the two side toes there at teh end.
"#2. In "reality" Evoutionists CLAIMED that we had this and LINED up fossil examples to back up their claim. In "reality" evolutionists ADMIT that the sequence that they were SHOWING did not exist."
Nope, it exists. Just follow the links I gave you or read what I wrote for Gina above.
"[i#3. In "reality" evolutionists here seek to obfuscate the "obvious" at every turn. And who know - maybe some people "buy it". What do you think?[/i]"
Just what do you see as obfuscating about presenting the full quotes to counter your misquotes, presenting the fossil evidence and presenting the DNA evidence. YOu are the one trying to divert from this by making false assertions.
BTW who are you quoting as saying "obvious," "reality," and "buy it?"
"Obviously - because there are no transitional in the fossil record and there are none in genetics."
False assertion. Can you not at least give us a logical, factual reason to not accept the references I have given you? I guess not.
"Question - is this where you simply ramble or is this where you take evolutionists speculation and merely "assert and assume" rather than deal with the inconvenient facts?"
I gave you the references for this one to. Deal with the facts or quit making false assertions. I don't really have the time to deal with your factless, false, misrepresenting ramblings.
BTW, who are you quoting as saying "assert and assume?"
You say that the Simpson quote says that "In "reality" evolutionists ADMIT that the sequence that they were SHOWING did not exist."
I claim that when you put the whole quote back together that the quote actually says that as they learned more about the horse sequence (read "Dug up more fossils") they found that there initial smooth sequence was found to be jerkyand bushy. Simpson was telling us that orthogenetics was not correct based both on the horse sequence and others in the record. If you disagree with this interpretation of what he was saying, then you should show this throug hthe full quote and quit asserting the same false claims over and over.
"#1. In "reality" we have no smooth sequence of horse feet progressively evolving to what we see today (IN the fossil record)."
I believe we do. I don't really feel like wasting my time with someone who will not listen but if you follow the links I gave you, you will see this. Basically you see a move towards walking up on the toes, which develop hooves, through most of the sequence and then a loss of the two side toes there at teh end.
"#2. In "reality" Evoutionists CLAIMED that we had this and LINED up fossil examples to back up their claim. In "reality" evolutionists ADMIT that the sequence that they were SHOWING did not exist."
Nope, it exists. Just follow the links I gave you or read what I wrote for Gina above.
"[i#3. In "reality" evolutionists here seek to obfuscate the "obvious" at every turn. And who know - maybe some people "buy it". What do you think?[/i]"
Just what do you see as obfuscating about presenting the full quotes to counter your misquotes, presenting the fossil evidence and presenting the DNA evidence. YOu are the one trying to divert from this by making false assertions.
BTW who are you quoting as saying "obvious," "reality," and "buy it?"
"Obviously - because there are no transitional in the fossil record and there are none in genetics."
False assertion. Can you not at least give us a logical, factual reason to not accept the references I have given you? I guess not.
"Question - is this where you simply ramble or is this where you take evolutionists speculation and merely "assert and assume" rather than deal with the inconvenient facts?"
I gave you the references for this one to. Deal with the facts or quit making false assertions. I don't really have the time to deal with your factless, false, misrepresenting ramblings.
BTW, who are you quoting as saying "assert and assume?"
The Galatian
Active Member
We do have such a sequence.
Hyracotherium - Fossils found in strata from about 55 million years to 35 million years ago.
Padded feet like a dog's, with tiny hooflike nails. Front feet had four toes, plus one nubbin of a vestigial toe. Hind feet had three toes with two vestigial toes. Vestigial toes became smaller in the more recent ones.
Orohippus appears in deposits about 50 million years ago.
Pretty much like Hyracotherium, except the vestigial first and second toes are now absent.
Epihippus appears about 47 million years ago. Not much change in feet, but the teeth are slightly modified so premolars look more like molars.
Mesohippus shows up about 40 million years ago. At this time, the forests were shrinking and grasslands spreading. This one is a little bigger, but now it has three toes on front and rear feet, and the second toe on the front is now a nubbin.
Miohippus shows up about 36 million years ago. It's a little bigger, still pad-footed, with three toes fore and aft. But the ankle is changed a bit, in a way that limits movement of the foot. Bad for slipping through brush, but good for running fast on plains.
Later on, about 20 million years ago, Miohippus evolved into several different populations. One continued the primitive browsing teeth. One became quite small. The third evolved into the animals we would recognize as horses. This is what Raup meant about the earlier phylogeny of horses being wrong. It wasn't a ladder, it was a bush, with several lines coming off of the original. He never meant that horse evolution was incorrect.
Kalobatippus is not well known; remains are incomplete, but the teeth were intermediate between Miohippus and Parahippus, which shows up about 22 million years ago. It still has pads, but there also there are springy ligaments now under the foot, and the ankles are further modified to limit side movement, and permit fast running.
Merychippus (15 to 20 million years ago) was still three-toed, but the pads were gone, and it ran only on tiptoe. The side toes were reduced and bore little of the weight, even in running. It was again, a little bigger than previous horses, and the ligaments under the feet were very large.
Pliohippus (about 15 million years ago) started out pretty much like Merychihippus, but over time, the side toes got smaller, and late ones were single-toed, with a large hoof.
There was a radiation of many species from about 15-5 million years ago, with many different lines. One led to Equus, which was recognizable as modern horses, with only a single toe. Rarely, one is born with the side toes visible, to remind us of how they got that way. Caesar was said to have owned one.
Bob, I don't know how a clearer or more gradual change could be possible.
You betcha. Nicely graduated changes, precisely in the fossil record where they should be.
You've been misled. Raup was merely pointing out that there were a number of different lines of horses, not just one.
The best cure for obfuscation is education. Go learn about it.
UTEOTW
Why does the fossil record and the genetics agree if there really is nothing to it?
Surprise. Now you know better. And yes we do see the same phylogenies we see in the fossil record by comparing DNA of existing organisms.
UTEOTW
Just as the whale DNA matched up with what would be predicted from the fossil record.
Nope. He's right. Whales turn out to have DNA most like ungulates. We know this works, because we use the same method to determine paternity in humans.
I don't think so. "Evolutionism" seems to be the Cartoon Theory of Evolution you've been taught. The real one isn't like that. But I guess they resist believing Genesis.
That's why atheists and creationists alike refuse to accept that the creation of life occured by natural means at God's command.
But that's what Genesis says.
Bob, let's make it simple. You want to make a point, then deal with the evidence presented. If you really think that SImpson was saying the horse sequence does not exist rather than saying that the simple, smooth sequence was incomplete until more fossils came in, then prove it using the FULL quote found here. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/17.html#000251
If you want to say there is no genetic data linking horses and rhinos then go look up the following reference and tell us what is wrong with it. 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.
If you wish to claim that there is not any genetic data connecting the whales with the other ungulates, then go look up the following reference and tell us what is wrong with it. Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates, Shimamura et al, Nature 388,666 (14 August 1997).
I would love for you to show us how Safarti is wrong at AIG with the claims of crocodile proteins being closer to chickens than vipers. Especially since that claim supports the fossil record for the evolution of birds from archosaurs that you claim did not happen.
And the biggie you keep avoiding. If you want to keep making the claim that the 1980's conference decided that archaeopteryx was a bird only and not related to reptiles at all, then give us some references. Then refute the following claims that are contrary to your assertions. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/18.html#000258 That deal with what the two authors you cited had to say. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/21.html#000302 And that is what other authors had to say.
Please let us know when you can post facts instead of unsupported assertions that have been shown to be completely false many times. Your obfuscation becomes boring after a while. Though I must admit, you make my case for me better than I can. The contrast is amazing.
In the mean time, Gina and I are having a nice conversation.
[ August 28, 2004, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]
If you want to say there is no genetic data linking horses and rhinos then go look up the following reference and tell us what is wrong with it. 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.
If you wish to claim that there is not any genetic data connecting the whales with the other ungulates, then go look up the following reference and tell us what is wrong with it. Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates, Shimamura et al, Nature 388,666 (14 August 1997).
I would love for you to show us how Safarti is wrong at AIG with the claims of crocodile proteins being closer to chickens than vipers. Especially since that claim supports the fossil record for the evolution of birds from archosaurs that you claim did not happen.
And the biggie you keep avoiding. If you want to keep making the claim that the 1980's conference decided that archaeopteryx was a bird only and not related to reptiles at all, then give us some references. Then refute the following claims that are contrary to your assertions. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/18.html#000258 That deal with what the two authors you cited had to say. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/21.html#000302 And that is what other authors had to say.
Please let us know when you can post facts instead of unsupported assertions that have been shown to be completely false many times. Your obfuscation becomes boring after a while. Though I must admit, you make my case for me better than I can. The contrast is amazing.
In the mean time, Gina and I are having a nice conversation.
[ August 28, 2004, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]
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.
Gina
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.
Gina