Are there transitional fossils?

[pshun2404]

Maybe because the front legs AREN'T backwards and the animal does share more similarities with equines that any other animal. Just because you solely don't see it does not mean that you are right.

Ha, I also just noticed the fossil of the little fish beneath it's left front paw.

Correct, it does not mean I am right, but it also means they may be wrong (consider it and do not just buy the narrative because they say it's true)..."share more similarities" depends on what you are comparing. Many unrelated creatures share similarities. Maybe it is the vastly different size? The double nasal bone instead of the single found in all true equines? The paws? Carnivore while all true equines are herbivorore? The front legs jointing in the opposite direction of all equines as far back as we can go? The great geophysical separation?

Did this creature find the fish or go get it? I ask this because equines do not hunt. And their digestive system is totally different from carnivores...or maybe EO was an omnivore...still dissimilar...

What are your thoughts on the differences?

 

[pshun2404]

Ever notice this is the only area of science where its proponents find it necessary to create court cases and even spend millions in political lobbies to exclude any other view but their own? The ONLY area of science that makes its existence political?

The ONLY one forever producing doubters, and legally and academically trying to silence those who question it? The ONLY area filled with many many examples of intentional fraud that uses professional propaganda techniques in educating students? The ONLY area that affects politics and the way people are treated? The ONLY area with applied racist and sexist roots? The ONLY area where assumption often precedes conclusion, and hypothesis sometimes shapes interpretation of the data (instead of the other way around)? The ONLY area whose adherents sling muckracking, blanket dismissal, and character assassination against dissenters to secure their influence?

Please understand, to question things in this area is not to be anti-Science as some accuse (science is so much more than this tiny area), it's to insist they stop pushing the story they attach as established fact over and over to new generations of students.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Wow! That's some story is that the one they tell?

Actually, that is the story the fossils tells. Thousands of fossils of horse ancestors have been found in North America. Then horses appear to have crossed over the land bridge into Asia, at roughly the same time that humans crossed it to America. All the horses in America died out, but horses then continued in Asia until they were brought back to America by Europeans. See Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

A quick look at the chart at that link shows how wrong you are about species coming into existence suddenly with no ancestors in the record. Just look at the horse ancestor series that has been found.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ever notice this is the only area of science where its proponents find it necessary to create court cases and even spend millions in political lobbies to exclude any other view but their own? The ONLY area of science that makes its existence political?

Uh, all scientists resist pseudoscience.

Astronomers resist astrology.
Physicists resist free energy proponents.
Climatologists resist global warming deniers.
Doctors resist quack medicine.

The supply of pseudoscience is endless. It should not be taught as science.

The ONLY one forever producing doubters, and legally and academically trying to silence those who question it?

Nope, there are global warming deniers, deniers of the link of tobacco to cancer, deniers of vaccine effectiveness, etc. The supply of science denial is endless, and must be resisted.

The ONLY area filled with many many examples of intentional fraud that uses professional propaganda techniques in educating students?

Unfounded accusation.

The ONLY area where assumption often precedes conclusion, and hypothesis sometimes shapes interpretation of the data (instead of the other way around)?

You might want to spend a day in the library, seeing the massive amount of evidence for evolution before you say it is all just hypothesis.

Please understand, to question things in this area is not to be anti-Science as some accuse (science is so much more than this tiny area), it's to insist they stop pushing the story they attach as established fact over and over to new generations of students.

I ask only for the evidence. The problem is with people who attack the science with no evidence to back them up. If you have evidence, publish away.

 

[Job 33:6]

@pshun2404
So, do you think mastodons are related by lineage to modern day elephants?

If so, you sound as though you're aware that mutations can lead to morphological changes in living beings

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ever notice this is the only area of science where its proponents find it necessary to create court cases and even spend millions in political lobbies to exclude any other view but their own? The ONLY area of science that makes its existence political?

The ONLY one forever producing doubters, and legally and academically trying to silence those who question it? The ONLY area filled with many many examples of intentional fraud that uses professional propaganda techniques in educating students? The ONLY area that affects politics and the way people are treated? The ONLY area with applied racist and sexist roots? The ONLY area where assumption often precedes conclusion, and hypothesis sometimes shapes interpretation of the data (instead of the other way around)? The ONLY area whose adherents sling muckracking, blanket dismissal, and character assassination against dissenters to secure their influence?

Please understand, to question things in this area is not to be anti-Science as some accuse (science is so much more than this tiny area), it's to insist they stop pushing the story they attach as established fact over and over to new generations of students.

Take that up with Xianghua, who says Eohippus is as close to a modern horse as a person without a pimple is to one with a pimple. It is this fishing for answers that seems so strange. Eohippus is obviously quite different from a modern horse, but it is part of a long chain of fossils that lead to modern horse, as has been discussed repeatedly on this thread. Creationists are desperate to deny that. So one claims the evolution from Eohippus to horse is so minor, it is like growing a pimple. The other creationist says the two are completely different with no possible relationship. Perhaps the answer is in the middle.

Where do you draw the line between horse family and not-horse-family? Is Dinohippus a horse ancestor or cousin? How about Pliohippus?

 

[Job 33:6]

Correct, it does not mean I am right, but it also means they may be wrong (consider it and do not just buy the narrative because they say it's true)..."share more similarities" depends on what you are comparing. Many unrelated creatures share similarities. Maybe it is the vastly different size? The double nasal bone instead of the single found in all true equines? The paws? Carnivore while all true equines are herbivorore? The front legs jointing in the opposite direction of all equines as far back as we can go? The great geophysical separation?

Did this creature find the fish or go get it? I ask this because equines do not hunt. And their digestive system is totally different from carnivores...or maybe EO was an omnivore...still dissimilar...

What are your thoughts on the differences?

The leg bones appear to be going in the correct direction on that eohippus. As for the nasal bones there, it looks like its just been damaged. I dont think it has 2 noses, i think what youre seeing is one nose, but split along the middle.

Front legs on a horse, scapula-forward, humerus backwards, radius forward, then you just have your metacarpals. The shoulder section of the fossil is sort of hidden, which, if you dont see it, throws off the direction of each bone.

Those leg bones are in the same direction as modern horses.

The shoulder of the horse is actually up by the ribs, not right behind the head. The bone right above the brain (that runs in a horizontal direction) of the horse is the humerus, not the scapula. And you can see the ulna sticking up, up and to the left of the eye socket.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, ill just add that, one of the things that sticks out is those unfused toes. Its kind of like a textbook proto horse.

 

[doubtingmerle]

@pshun2404
So, do you think mastodons are related by lineage to modern day elephants?

If so, you sound as though you're aware that mutations can lead to morphological changes in living beings

Good luck getting an answer on that one.

As best I can tell, pshun's views drift back and forth between Gap Theory (ancient fossils lived before Gen 1:2, and all got wiped out and were replaced by a final creation 6000 years ago), Progressive Creationism (millions of creation events matching conventional geologic timetable), Flood Geology (young earth with most fossils coming from the flood), and Omphalos Creationism (world created with dino fossils buried in place on day one.) As best I can tell, he floats back and forth between creationist web sites, feeding us with the creationism du jour that he find. Consistency does not seem to be a trait in what I read of his writings.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The double nasal bone instead of the single found in all true equines? The paws? Carnivore while all true equines are herbivorore? The front legs jointing in the opposite direction of all equines as far back as we can go? The great geophysical separation?

...and the ribs sticking out in all different directions?

I seem to be looking at a skeleton that was badly damaged. I would leave the reconstruction to experts, who could compare it to many similar fossils to piece this one back together.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Correct, it does not mean I am right, but it also means they may be wrong (consider it and do not just buy the narrative because they say it's true)..."share more similarities" depends on what you are comparing. Many unrelated creatures share similarities. Maybe it is the vastly different size? The double nasal bone instead of the single found in all true equines? The paws? Carnivore while all true equines are herbivorore? The front legs jointing in the opposite direction of all equines as far back as we can go? The great geophysical separation?

Did this creature find the fish or go get it? I ask this because equines do not hunt. And their digestive system is totally different from carnivores...or maybe EO was an omnivore...still dissimilar...

What are your thoughts on the differences?

I think that you are paying far too much attention to the differences and a very much self-imagined scenario to try and prove that you are right.
I am more willing to accept the actual scientific consensus than a nobody on the internet with possibly zero scientific qualifications and who doesn't have the stones to try and actually show that the scientific community is wrong.

All you are doing is showing that you are a living, breathing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[pshun2404]

Take that up with Xianghua, who says Eohippus is as close to a modern horse as a person without a pimple is to one with a pimple. It is this fishing for answers that seems so strange. Eohippus is obviously quite different from a modern horse, but it is part of a long chain of fossils that lead to modern horse, as has been discussed repeatedly on this thread. Creationists are desperate to deny that. So one claims the evolution from Eohippus to horse is so minor, it is like growing a pimple. The other creationist says the two are completely different with no possible relationship. Perhaps the answer is in the middle.

Where do you draw the line between horse family and not-horse-family? Is Dinohippus a horse ancestor or cousin? How about Pliohippus?

First that had nothing to do with the post you quoted but I would get your point if it were true that EO IS part of a long line of progressive fossils but I do not believe it is part of the line just because some authorities placed in that lineage. And Xiang is entitled to his/her opinion just as you are...

EO as pre-horse is just that...an opinion, and nothing more, and while we should teach it as what is "BELIEVED" in evolutionism we should not teach it as what IS....unfortunately the slanted lobbyists and current pedagogues who develop State Required curriculum will never allow this truth to be taught but will legislatively assure it is presented as the established fact.

 

[pshun2404]

Take that up with Xianghua, who says Eohippus is as close to a modern horse as a person without a pimple is to one with a pimple. It is this fishing for answers that seems so strange. Eohippus is obviously quite different from a modern horse, but it is part of a long chain of fossils that lead to modern horse, as has been discussed repeatedly on this thread. Creationists are desperate to deny that. So one claims the evolution from Eohippus to horse is so minor, it is like growing a pimple. The other creationist says the two are completely different with no possible relationship. Perhaps the answer is in the middle.

Where do you draw the line between horse family and not-horse-family? Is Dinohippus a horse ancestor or cousin? How about Pliohippus?

Dinohippus is a much more likely candidate...the front knee joint bends in the correct fashion, there is a single nasal bone, and it was a herbivorore. The fact that it was endemic to North America is a question for me but I am not above being incorrect on this point. The same with Pliohippus, especially because of the legs and feet, but also for the same reasons mentioned above (it was a range grazer like the horse)...

Now understand IMO we can keep our independent opinions on these issues, but to add a possibly unrelated fossil (EO) just to make it appear to have a common ancestor is similar to when theorists (and theorizing is fine) tried to explain away the sudden appearance of fully formed bats by claiming small tree climbing shrew like mammals developed wings from 1000s of generations of jumping a falling...AH-ha-ha-ha...Aahhh-ha –ha...In fact I heard Neil Degrasse Tyson use the same Sci Fi story applied to why birds are actually dinosaurs on his PBS TV show (sad for Neil that such a brilliant man would stoop to such propaganda to convince kids, or who knows maybe he really believes Sci Fi is true?)..

 

[pshun2404]

The leg bones appear to be going in the correct direction on that eohippus. As for the nasal bones there, it looks like its just been damaged. I dont think it has 2 noses, i think what youre seeing is one nose, but split along the middle.

Front legs on a horse, scapula-forward, humerus backwards, radius forward, then you just have your metacarpals. The shoulder section of the fossil is sort of hidden, which, if you dont see it, throws off the direction of each bone.

Those leg bones are in the same direction as modern horses.

The shoulder of the horse is actually up by the ribs, not right behind the head. The bone right above the brain (that runs in a horizontal direction) of the horse is the humerus, not the scapula. And you can see the ulna sticking up, up and to the left of the eye socket.

You may in fact be right about the nasal bone but I do not think so, in fact in the fossil the split is too uniform, and the shapes of the two sides much too exact, but I realize that these types of fossils (like Tik) are badly crushed but that is part of the point. True objectivity does not make an assumption and then reconstruct to fit the pre-conceived model. And this is what happened here. And I do not think your determination about the legs is convincing (its a good way of explaining away what we actually can see but not definite).

And sorry but the image imprinting (artistic creations) used in schools (a typical propaganda technique) over the past century no longer has the same impact on me that they use to or that they may still for you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You may in fact be right about the nasal bone but I do not think so, in fact in the fossil the split is too uniform, and the shapes of the two sides much too exact, but I realize that these types of fossils (like Tik) are badly crushed but that is part of the point. True objectivity does not make an assumption and then reconstruct to fit the pre-conceived model. And this is what happened here. And I do not think your determination about the legs is convincing (its a good way of explaining away what we actually can see but not definite).

And sorry but the image imprinting (artistic creations) used in schools (a typical propaganda technique) over the past century no longer has the same impact on me that they use to or that they may still for you.

And yet the only who is continually making assumptions here IS YOU.

 

[pshun2404]

@pshun2404
So, do you think mastodons are related by lineage to modern day elephants?

If so, you sound as though you're aware that mutations can lead to morphological changes in living beings

Not only am I aware of it but I know it is true. These varieties show definite topical morphological changes. Like Jimmy D's example of the Eurasian Balckcaps which speciated into a new variety of Blackcap over about 100 years...they definitely went through some morphological changes but are still blackcaps and more importantly still a sub-species of birds.

Nothing in believing this demonstrable, observable, fact indicates the possibility that they were once reptiles...

 

[pshun2404]

Good luck getting an answer on that one.

As best I can tell, pshun's views drift back and forth between Gap Theory (ancient fossils lived before Gen 1:2, and all got wiped out and were replaced by a final creation 6000 years ago), Progressive Creationism (millions of creation events matching conventional geologic timetable), Flood Geology (young earth with most fossils coming from the flood), and Omphalos Creationism (world created with dino fossils buried in place on day one.) As best I can tell, he floats back and forth between creationist web sites, feeding us with the creationism du jour that he find. Consistency does not seem to be a trait in what I read of his writings.

You are so incorrect I will not even address this rant, and by the way I did answer Xiang...

 

[pshun2404]

I think that you are paying far too much attention to the differences and a very much self-imagined scenario to try and prove that you are right.
I am more willing to accept the actual scientific consensus than a nobody on the internet with possibly zero scientific qualifications and who doesn't have the stones to try and actually show that the scientific community is wrong.

All you are doing is showing that you are a living, breathing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

And this is a typical pseudo-ad hominem default common to many who adhere to evolutionism...if you can't beat'm then insult them or their intelligence, and through this discredit them in your own mind (it allows you to ignore the reasoning or logic of the content)

And here I thought we were having an intelligent conversation (whether or not we agree or disagree is irrelevant)...focusing too much on the differences? Glad you noticed they are there...

I do not care about winning anything. I only care about the truth and when I am shown to be incorrect I adjust (something many adherents of fundy evolutionism and fundy creationism cannot or will not do). I have even admitted I was incorrect on this forum. Would YOU ever do that?

Would you? Please answer honestly....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And this is a typical pseudo-ad hominem default common to many who adhere to evolutionism...if you can't beat'm then insult them or their intelligence, and through this discredit them in your own mind (it allows you to ignore the reasoning or logic of the content)

And here I thought we were having an intelligent conversation (whether or not we agree or disagree is irrelevant)...focusing too much on the differences? Glad you noticed they are there...

No, I was stating a fact. Why should I accept anything you say about evolution being wrong, when there are literally hundreds of thousands of articles created by hundreds of thousands of scientists that show that the theory of evolution is right and is a correct reflection of how modern lifeforms appeared, when you have shown zero ability to actually show that evolution is wrong other than repeated comments of "I'm right because I say I'm right"?

And of course differences exist. A horse is different to a zebra, but a zebra is still as much an equine as a horse is, same as a donkey. But what you are doing is not simply noting the differences, but taking the differences and running a complete marathon with them in an attempt to try and show that evolution is wrong.

None of your posts have any logic or reasoning in them.

 

[pshun2404]

And yet the only who is continually making assumptions here IS YOU.

And what assumption here are you referring to? Please be specific...