Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there any unexplained branches of evolution?
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 35 (107342)
05-11-2004 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by coffee_addict
05-11-2004 2:50 AM


Re: ...
And i quote from the book "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science" - page 55 - "No one saw the evolution of one toed horses from three toed horses, but that does not mean we cannot be confident that horses evolved" - So whats the deal here? If theres no such evidence where are they getting this information? My opinion is that its really just the opinions and interpretations of the evolutionists themselves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by coffee_addict, posted 05-11-2004 2:50 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 3:05 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 20 by coffee_addict, posted 05-11-2004 3:11 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 29 by Loudmouth, posted 05-11-2004 7:26 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 31 by extremophile, posted 05-12-2004 12:20 AM almeyda has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 17 of 35 (107345)
05-11-2004 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by almeyda
05-11-2004 2:56 AM


off topic, on evidence
almeyda writes:
"No one saw the evolution of one toed horses from three toed horses, but that does not mean we cannot be confident that horses evolved" - So whats the deal here? If theres no such evidence where are they getting this information?
It does not say "no evidence". Of course there is evidence. It says we did not see the evolution. We know it occurs, however, by the evidence that remains behind.
By the way, can you please stop putting three dots in the Subtitle box of your posts. Leave it blank for preference; and it will maintain the topic, which almost everyone else manages to make into something meaningful. Thanks.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:56 AM almeyda has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 35 (107346)
05-11-2004 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by almeyda
05-11-2004 2:51 AM


How do they know there was billion passenger pidgeons if theres no record?
Of course there's records. There just aren't any fossils.
Maybe you're not aware that the passeneger pigeon (no "d", my bad) went extinct in 1914? At one point:
quote:
Their flocks, a mile wide and up to 300 miles long, were so dense that they darkened the sky for hours and days as the flock passed overhead.
(from Page not found - Wild Birds Unlimited | Wild Birds Unlimited)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:51 AM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 35 (107347)
05-11-2004 3:10 AM


What evidence? Whats been left behind?. Evolutionists believe they evolved so they must have had 2-3 toes etc. How can they prove or observe such claims? Besides imagination?..

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Gary, posted 05-11-2004 8:10 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 23 by JonF, posted 05-11-2004 9:02 AM almeyda has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 20 of 35 (107348)
05-11-2004 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by almeyda
05-11-2004 2:56 AM


Re: ...
That sentence sounds very suspicious to me. When refering to single sentence to make a point, the person usually ignores that the author gives as evidence of certain event without any witness.
For example, a forensic scientist, on the stand, could be asked by the defense attorney if there was any witness that could testify that the defendant raped and killed the victim, and the scientist says "no, but..." and the defense goes "thank you very much. No further question."
What the defense attorney is doing is suppress information. The scientist was going to say "no, but we found the defendant's sperm sample in the victim, his finger prints were all over the victim's clothing, and his saliva samples were all over the victim's face."
Going back to your quote there, of course noone saw the evolution of one toed horses from three toed horses. If anyone ever claim that he saw such an event happening, he belongs in a mental institution.
"...but that does not mean we cannot be confident that horses evolved" sounds to me like the author have already or will give evidence to support his belief in such an event taking place.
Without the rest of the texts, I can't really answer your question.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:56 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 35 (107376)
05-11-2004 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by almeyda
05-11-2004 3:10 AM


While they do use their imagination to some degree to try to figure out what primitive horses looked like, but the evolution of horses is extremely well documented in the fossil record. For example, most pictures of Eohippus have spots of stripes, similar to those on a young deer. This is because they were small and lived in a similar environment, so they might have evolved similar markings.
Here are pictures and descriptions of fossils:
Page Not Found | Department of Chemistry
Here is a link from Talk Origins about the subject, that describes their evolution:
Horse Evolution
From the first site, I found this picture:
Scientists can also look at the layer that fossils are in to determine the relative age of the fossils to reconstruct the phylogenetic tree of horses. Its not a perfect method, but using more than one method helps to see where an animal fits in the evolution of later animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 3:10 AM almeyda has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 22 of 35 (107391)
05-11-2004 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by almeyda
05-10-2004 11:56 PM


Re: ...
I recall reading that there was only found a few bone fragments and pieces here and there but was bloated in a transition of whales etc. The legs and arms were pure imagination if i recall.
Well, you don't recall correctly. You are 100% wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by almeyda, posted 05-10-2004 11:56 PM almeyda has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 23 of 35 (107392)
05-11-2004 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by almeyda
05-11-2004 3:10 AM


What evidence? Whats been left behind?. Evolutionists believe they evolved so they must have had 2-3 toes etc. How can they prove or observe such claims? Besides imagination?..
Fossils. Lots and lots and lots of fossils.
Horse Evolution

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 3:10 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Empirin, posted 05-11-2004 1:44 PM JonF has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 24 of 35 (107411)
05-11-2004 10:15 AM


More Horse Evolution
The American Museum of Natural History has one of the larger collections of Horse fossils and also one that can show many of the transitional features. It helps understand that changes did not happen all at once and that the evolution was not the straight line progression so often pictured by Creationists but rather a series of branches where you can see examples with more toes existing at the same time as those with fewer toes.
This message has been edited by jar, 05-11-2004 10:20 AM
{ AdminSylas: Thanks; much better. I've removed earlier objection. }
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-11-2004 10:49 AM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 25 of 35 (107430)
05-11-2004 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by almeyda
05-10-2004 11:56 PM


Re: ...
I recall reading that there was only found a few bone fragments and pieces here and there but was bloated in a transition of whales etc. The legs and arms were pure imagination if i recall..
A Google on "whale" with each of the names "Thewissen" and "Gingerich" will correct your recollection. Both Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are at least 50% complete, with pelvisis, legs, skulls, etc. Not "pieces here and there." Heck, National Geographic had an issue a few years back that showed a bunch of the fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by almeyda, posted 05-10-2004 11:56 PM almeyda has not replied

  
Empirin
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 35 (107475)
05-11-2004 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by JonF
05-11-2004 9:02 AM


Hunt's horse evolution page is a joke.
There are no macroevolutionary transitions! The varieties come about by microevolutionary mechanisms.
Here are two of the many papers that question her conclusion(s):
No Horse Evolution
No Horse Evolution
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-11-2004 12:55 PM
This message has been edited by Empirin, 05-11-2004 02:39 PM
{ AdminSylas says: This attempt to give content of your own to your post is invalid. All you have done is cut and paste one line from the first link. Since the first two sentences are not your own text, and not marked as a quotation, and actually separated from the link to their source, there is no hint or indication that you are not using your own words. You are in clear violation of guideline 6. As I informed you previously, you are meant to make some kind of case in your own words, and it should bear some relation to what you are attempting to refute; which is about the fossil sequences; not the mechanisms. However, I will let it stand. The cited material is incompentant, and JonF has already given a response. So this post can stay. }
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-11-2004 04:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by JonF, posted 05-11-2004 9:02 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by JonF, posted 05-11-2004 3:44 PM Empirin has not replied
 Message 28 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2004 5:13 PM Empirin has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 27 of 35 (107530)
05-11-2004 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Empirin
05-11-2004 1:44 PM


Re: Hunt's horse evolution page is a joke.
Here are two of the many papers that question her conclusion(s):
No Horse Evolution
You call that a paper? What a waste of time.
80% of it is dishonest quote-mines, especially the last one, which is a rather well known out-of-context quote. No references. The first original words on the page:
quote:
Traditional (Darwinian) view:
Moving up the stratigraphic column, fossils reveal a main line of evolution progressing continuously from Eohippus [hyracotherium] to Equus
is exactly what Hunt is not saying. There are some flat-out lies:
quote:
Bones of the supposed earliest horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils.
(perhaps referring to the silly claim that Hyracotherium and Equus lived at the same time, debunked in Did Hyracotherium and Equus Live at the Same Time?)
The conclusions:
quote:
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!
are laughable. They have almost nothing to do with the rest of the page, and they derive only from the unsupported assertions of the page's author.
Ah, Sarfati. What a marooon.
Again heavy on the dishonest quote-mining, but at least with some references. Unfortunately, his major claims, such as:
quote:
Previous evolutionary theories would have asserted that because they all had high-crowned teeth, they must have been grazers. But the amounts of stable carbon isotopes 12C and 13C impregnated into the teeth indicated that the horses were browsers, not grazers.
The researchers also claimed that once hypsodonty evolved, it was impossible to return to having short-crowned teeth again. In a creationist model, this suggests that hypsodonty is a highly specialized condition, which has lost genetic information for any other sort of teeth.
are not referenced, they're just .. wait for it .. here it comes ... unsupported assertions!!
He makes the classic old "evolutionists think vestigial organs are non-functional" error, and builds a major portion of his argument on it.
His "discussion" of morphological similarities of legs is classic Sarfati; pure unsupported assertions, arrogant, and wrong.
Sylas requested that you post more of your own thoughts; I request that you think about what you are posting.
Is that enough of my own thoughts, Sylas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Empirin, posted 05-11-2004 1:44 PM Empirin has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 35 (107556)
05-11-2004 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Empirin
05-11-2004 1:44 PM


The joke is on you.
Again with the old "there are no transitional fossils" schtick!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Empirin, posted 05-11-2004 1:44 PM Empirin has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 35 (107588)
05-11-2004 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by almeyda
05-11-2004 2:56 AM


Re: ...
quote:
And i quote from the book "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science" - page 55 - "No one saw the evolution of one toed horses from three toed horses, but that does not mean we cannot be confident that horses evolved" - So whats the deal here? If theres no such evidence where are they getting this information? My opinion is that its really just the opinions and interpretations of the evolutionists themselves
First of all, that there were three toed horses is not in doubt. Given that creationists claim that humans have been around since the dawn of time, how come there are no human records of three toed horses?
Thirdly, there is a chronological progression of horse evolution. That is, older "horses" had three toes and slowly lost two of the toes. The middle toe is all that is left, as seen on living horses. Got to catch the bus, but I can link you to the actual fossils later if you want (or someone can post them for me).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:56 AM almeyda has not replied

  
extremophile
Member (Idle past 5595 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 30 of 35 (107642)
05-11-2004 11:41 PM


The major thing about the fossil record (and in the biota in general) in favor of evolution is not some orthogenic-like sequences found, but the total absence of a single species that seems totally unrelated with something else - what would not be a problem at all, if species were not product of descendent with modification - such as a walking-carnivorous-tree, aquatic mammals with gills, a mammal polyp, etc.
Any other imaginable origin of species would not explain the patterns of heredity that are observed. If every now and then a new species popped to existance, or a creator(s) were desiging new ones and putting them here sporadicaly (or had put them all once), wouldn't be a reasonable explanation to this pattern. Species could look totally odd from each other.
If a creator or creators were really creative, they'd not need to be so repetitive, almost leading to the exhaustion the theme "tetrapod". Why not a hexapod pegasus, a gryphon, or a dragon? Could not he/they do any of that, or simply did not want to?
If the first suposition is correct, it implies a lot in the common concept of the majority of proposed creators concepts I know; if is the second which is right, is at least a bit... disappointing... all the variation that is theoretically possible, and the guy(s) do exactly what we would expect if the restriction were the restrictions of heredity mechanisms? Why? o_O

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024