Macroevolution:

[pitabread]

Did someone say that it was not useful?

Then what were you suggesting from this:

"BTW, how about evolutionists that depend on grants and a salary from companies, universities that promote evolution. Especially, when they require a belief in evolution as a prerequisite for a job?"
​

Evolution is a useful science. Ergo, it's both taught and funded for that reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then what were you suggesting from this:

"BTW, how about evolutionists that depend on grants and a salary from companies, universities that promote evolution. Especially, when they require a belief in evolution as a prerequisite for a job?"
​

Evolution is a useful science. Ergo, it's both taught and funded for that reason.

And of course I do not know of any university that requires one to accept evolution. They only require that scientists use the scientific method.

Meanwhile AiG and ICR both require their workers to promise not to use the scientific method. They do require their workers to swear that the seven day creation story is true, no matter what the evidence says.

It appears that someone has some whale sized projection issues here.

 

[pitabread]

Life from Nonlife
“Life comes from life” is a fundamental law of biology, and yet formation of the first living thing must violate this law. How this could happen still stumps scientists.

This is highly misleading. The 'law of biogenesis' specifically refers to the idea of fully-formed modern life (i.e. molds, fungi, etc) springing into existence from non-living chemicals. It has nothing to do with prohibiting the origin of life via chemical evolution.

Information of Life
Life consists of more than all the physical parts working in unison—it requires the information to run the parts. Scientists still don’t understand where this information could have come from.

This one really comes down to how one defines 'information'. And in that regard I find creationists are extremely evasive.

That said, 'information' in DNA as its commonly used in biology is a result of evolutionary processes (replication, mutation, selection, etc).

Irreducible Complexity
Darwinian evolution requires that every complex component of life arose step-by-step. The discoveries of genetics and cell biology have highlighted this impossibility, which scientists still can't explain.

IC has been long debunked as an argument against evolution. Part of the problem is that a lot of traditional "IC" examples have been shown to be reducible, thus rendering the identification of so-called IC systems to be rather suspect.

 

[pitabread]

And of course I do not know of any university that requires one to accept evolution.

Exactly. I can't think of any job postings I've ever seen that list "belief in evolution" as a job requirement.

 

[tevans9129]

It's a list of identified fossils for Perissodactyls or Perissodactyl-like fossils, including Orohippus, Hyracotherium, and Radinskya, among others.

I still do not see it. This is a chart about the horse from the source that you referenced, why would it not show on the chart?

 

[pitabread]

I still do not see it. This is a chart about the horse from the source that you referenced, why would it not show on the chart?

That chart cuts off at 55 million years ago. The site I directed to you includes fossils from earlier than that.

I'm still not sure what you're not seeing?

 

[tevans9129]

Then what were you suggesting from this:

"BTW, how about evolutionists that depend on grants and a salary from companies, universities that promote evolution. Especially, when they require a belief in evolution as a prerequisite for a job?"
​

Evolution is a useful science. Ergo, it's both taught and funded for that reason.

Oh my, the subject was about bias from evolutionist and creationist and equate that as me claiming that evolutionary biology is not useful, really? That is logical for you, is it?

BTW, if it is any clearer for you, my question, which you did not answer, was about biases in the workplace, that is what I was suggesting.

 

[pitabread]

Oh my, the subject was about bias from evolutionist and creationist and equate that as me claiming that evolutionary biology is not useful, really? That is logical for you, is it?

BTW, if it is any clearer for you, my question, which you did not answer, was about biases in the workplace, that is what I was suggesting.

I just fail to see where the "bias" you are suggesting is coming from though.

 

[tevans9129]

That chart cuts off at 55 million years ago. The site I directed to you includes fossils from earlier than that.

I'm still not sure what you're not seeing?

OK, what is the species that evolved into the Eohippus? Yes, it did, but where did it say, and show evidence of any of those fossils evolving into an Eohippus?

 

[tevans9129]

I just fail to see where the "bias" you are suggesting is coming from though

That is OK, I fail to see you answer my questions but I can understand why.

 

[pitabread]

OK, what is the species that evolved into the Eohippus? Yes, it did, but where did it say, and show evidence of any of those fossils evolving into an Eohippus?

Did you look at the link I provided? Because it lists a few prior fossils including Radinskya and Tetraclaenodon. It does mention there is a gap in the late Paleocene fossils, although that particular site is about 20 years old at this point so there may have been discoveries since then.

You'll want to research Phenacodontidae fossils from the Paleocene epoch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, what is the species that evolved into the Eohippus? Yes, it did, but where did it say, and show evidence of any of those fossils evolving into an Eohippus?

Why the fixation on Eohippus? Do you realize that gaps are expected in the fossil record, especially of land based animals?

What we can see of horse evolution would be equivalent of seeing man's evolution from an early primate.

You should not be fixating on the expected gaps. You should be looking at the patterns of fossils that can be observed. Every fossil found fits very nicely into the theory of evolution. Creationists have no explanation of fossils that has not been thoroughly refuted.

One side has mountains of evidence. The other side has none. And yet for some reason your are sticking with the side that has no evidence at all.

 

[pitabread]

That is OK, I fail to see you answer my questions but I can understand why.

Which questions? Are you talking about Post #582?

Also, sometimes I treat questions the way they are written as rhetorical (i.e. not needing an answer). Or in some cases, they appear to be loaded with incorrect assumptions in which case the answer is going to address the assumptions, not the question itself.

 

[tevans9129]

You'll want to research Phenacodontidae fossils from the Paleocene epoch.

So you have no answer for my question, just as I thought. I did appreciate the honesty from Jimmy's answer to the question. I did research the fossils and there was no verifiable evidence of them evolving into a horse.

 

[pitabread]

I did research the fossils and there was no verifiable evidence of them evolving into a horse.

Radinskya looks like a candidate for a pre-horse species, albeit fossil evidence is a bit scant. And the ancestors of perissodactyls were likely from the phenacodontids clade, or something similar to it based on the morphological similarities between early perissodactyls and phenacodontids.

There are gaps in the fossil record, thus its difficult to find exact unbroken lineages for every clade especially given the time period in question when there was a mass extinction of the dinosaurs and subsequent radiation of the mammals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you have no answer for my question, just as I thought. I did appreciate the honesty from Jimmy's answer to the question. I did research the fossils and there was no verifiable evidence of them evolving into a horse.

Sorry but you are in no position to make such a claim. This is another honesty fail on your part.

 

[Jimmy D]

Bolded for attention.



IF, we were talking about creation and the only source I would accept as authentic and the only sources that I quoted were from Bible believing Christian sites, would you accept my data without question?

No one should accept any data without question. Do you have any issues with the data presented, there are links to the papers referenced in the article if you would like to check.

 

[Jimmy D]

There are many different breeds but they are still horses.

"Dawn horse (genus Hyracotherium), extinct group of horses that flourished in North America and Europe during the early part of the Eocene Epoch (55.8–33.9 million years ago). Even though these animals are more commonly known as Eohippus, a name given by the American paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh, they are properly placed in the genus Hyracotherium, the name given earlier by British paleontologist Richard Owen."

So what did the Hyracotherium "evolve" from, what evidence that can be verified?

Before we move on to additional questions, do you accept that modern horses descended from Hyracotherium?

 

[Jimmy D]

OK, does anyone know, do you have any verifiable evidence or did Eohippus just magically appear and then "evolution" took over from there?

Why do you say "magically appeared"? We have no evidence of such a thing ever happening. I take it that you are aware that fossilization is not only a fairly rare occurence but that they are also difficult to find (being hidden nder the ground in rock and all)? It is not very logical to assert that because we don't have every single fossil in a particular branch of evolution that either the sequence that we do have is wrong or that whenever we find a gap we need to insert "magic".

Has there been any different species coming from the Equus caballus and if so what evidence?

Not as yet, as far as I'm aware.

 

[tevans9129]

Radinskya looks like a candidate for a pre-horse species, albeit fossil evidence is a bit scant. And the ancestors of perissodactyls were likely from the phenacodontids clade, or something similar to it based on the morphological similarities between early perissodactyls and phenacodontids.

There are gaps in the fossil record, thus its difficult to find exact unbroken lineages for every clade especially given the time period in question when there was a mass extinction of the dinosaurs and subsequent radiation of the mammals.

That sounds very convenient to me but the bottom line is there is no evidence for a species that evolved into the Eohippus. Just one species adapting to the environment. Ok, I can agree with that "evolution" because in the Creationist's vernacular, it is still the same "kind".