Are there transitional fossils?

[Jimmy D]

How the horse evolutionary process is depicted is with the smallest at the bottom and it gets bigger the higher up the "tree" it goes. The theory of evolution has a logic to it, but we mustn't confuse logic with correction. As with the evolutionary tree of the horse as depicted by the evolutionists. It's logical but is it correct?

If I gave you a pile of dog skulls of every conceivable dog in the world, and you have never seen a dog before and I say to design for me an evolutionary tree, what would you do? You would basically arrange them from smallest to largest. So the Chihuahua will be at the bottom and the Great Dane at the top.
If we want to get a little more specific, we would develop the tree with all the flat, stocky looking dogs on one branch (the Bulldog, the Pug, etc) with the Boxer types on other-side. In the middle we would have the more in-between, sturdy types - on the right we would have something like the more lean, slim long machine types (Greyhounds, Afghans, etc).

Basically you have arranged a beautiful tree. But is it correct? No. It would be absolutely wrong because they all didn't come out of the Chihuahua in the first place. In fact they came out of the Wolf breeds and these varieties of dog breeds were all from the Wolfs gene pool.

The same rule applies to the horse evolutionary tree; they were all there at the same time. Even today, we have many different sized horses. This is variation within a horse breeds not evidence for the theory of evolution.

Are you forgetting an important factor Abraxos? The dog fossils wouldn't be found in sequential layers separated by tens of millions of years, whereas the horses are.

 

[Abraxos]

Are you forgetting an important factor Abraxos? The dog fossils wouldn't be found in sequential layers separated by tens of millions of years, whereas the horses are.

There is no geological column as depicted in the pictures. Sure, we have a seeming uniformity, but it's conventionally marine animals are in lower strata and dinosaurs and birds (even right next to each other) etc in higher strata.

 

[USincognito]

How the horse evolutionary process is depicted is with the smallest at the bottom and it gets bigger the higher up the "tree" it goes. The theory of evolution has a logic to it, but we mustn't confuse logic with correction. As with the evolutionary tree of the horse as depicted by the evolutionists. It's logical but is it correct?

If I gave you a pile of dog skulls of every conceivable dog in the world, and you have never seen a dog before and I say to design for me an evolutionary tree, what would you do? You would basically arrange them from smallest to largest. So the Chihuahua will be at the bottom and the Great Dane at the top.
If we want to get a little more specific, we would develop the tree with all the flat, stocky looking dogs on one branch (the Bulldog, the Pug, etc) with the Boxer types on other-side. In the middle we would have the more in-between, sturdy types - on the right we would have something like the more lean, slim long machine types (Greyhounds, Afghans, etc).

Basically you have arranged a beautiful tree. But is it correct? No. It would be absolutely wrong because they all didn't come out of the Chihuahua in the first place. In fact they came out of the Wolf breeds and these varieties of dog breeds were all from the Wolfs gene pool.

The same rule applies to the horse evolutionary tree; they were all there at the same time. Even today, we have many different sized horses. This is variation within a horse breeds not evidence for the theory of evolution.

The problem with your lineup is you're making a very superficial comparison. If chihuahuas had five toes, German shepherds had three toes and Saint Bernards had one, you might have an analogy.

 

[Abraxos]

The problem with your lineup is you're making a very superficial comparison. If chihuahuas had five toes, German shepherds had three toes and Saint Bernards had one, you might have an analogy.

I don't see how that would be relevant. Why would the number of toes be relevant? Shouldn't the Eohippus according to evolutionary processes have the lesser toes and see a pattern of more toes the more evolved it becomes? Remember, the theory of evolution assumes an increase in complexity over time and having more toes has more moving parts and bone structure. Kind of problematic for the theory of evolution if you ask me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Gray Wolves have a waterproof coat. :/

That said, the Gray Wolf I suspect is not the true original but a close second or third or fourth generational breed.

But even if the Gray Wolf had not have a waterproof coat, there is a point that needs to be addressed on how genetic variation works and how this is applied to natural selection in the wild. If a "waterproof" coat that is not obviously apparent in a Gray Wolf, that isn't to say that the information was not in the Gray Wolf, but a combination of things occurred from a genetic standpoint. The breeds we see today have some aspects of the Gray Wolf, some more emphasized and made obvious than others. These specific features (or feature) could be favorable in certain situations, but not favorable in other situations.

For example, a dog smaller in stature from the Gray Wolf but retains it's big coat will indeed end up being drier when swimming due to a loss of size. However, it will be less active in the hot days due to being overheated more quickly - even in danger of extinction. So there are always favourable and unfavourable aspects to these breeds that descended from the original. Even if the Gray Wolf did not have a "waterproof" coat, that isn't to say that genetically that information wasn't there, only that to get a "waterproof" coat you require to 'lessen' some aspects from the Gray Wolf genome to achieve more emphasis on a particular aspect. But there is always a favourable/unfavourable aspect.

No, the underfur of the gray wolf is waterproof, but the actual fur isn't. Also, and I should said this before, but Newfoundland dogs have another thing that wolves don't have: webbed feet. Wolves don't have webbed feet while Newfoundland dogs have been bred to have webbed feet. So is that a lose or gain in genetic information?

And I don't really think you have a handle on what I meant by waterproof fur. Waterproof fur won't dry out an animal, it just means that the fur won't get clogged up by water.

 

[USincognito]

I don't see how that would be relevant. Why would the number of toes be relevant? Shouldn't the Eohippus according to evolutionary processes have the lesser toes and see a pattern of more toes the more evolved it becomes? Remember, the theory of evolution assumes an increase in complexity over time and having more toes has more moving parts and bone structure. Kind of problematic for the theory of evolution if you ask me.

Oh my, you have the "ladder" misconception in full swing I see.

It's entirely relevant because horses didn't just get bigger (as your doggie lineup would suggest), but had significant physiological changes to various body parts. The change in foot anatomy is so stark I am truly baffled when people think that various dog breeds - which are further problematic as analogies because they underwent artificial selection - are analogous because no breed exhibits such a stark change in anatomy.

You also are a tad confused as to the nature of evolution.
1. The trend towards complexity is one path evolution took, but it's not the only one. There are more worm and arthropod species than there are living representatives of some mammal apex predator species.
2. The modern equine foot is more evolved than a basal equine toe because it has undergone significant change in morphology, not because of the number of toes.

 

[Jimmy D]

Remember, the theory of evolution assumes an increase in complexity over time

It doesn't.

 

[USincognito]

There is no geological column as depicted in the pictures.

Actually the entire geological column exists in 29 different places around the world.
The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota

 

[Jimmy D]

There is no geological column as depicted in the pictures. Sure, we have a seeming uniformity, but it's conventionally marine animals are in lower strata and dinosaurs and birds (even right next to each other) etc in higher strata.

As do the horses.

Eohippus 50 million years ago - Mesohippus 35 million years ago - Merychippus 26 million years ago - Equus 3 million years ago.

 

[Abraxos]

No, the underfur of the gray wolf is waterproof, but the actual fur isn't. Also, and I should said this before, but Newfoundland dogs have another thing that wolves don't have: webbed feet. Wolves don't have webbed feet while Newfoundland dogs have been bred to have webbed feet. So is that a lose or gain in genetic information?

And I don't really think you have a handle on what I meant by waterproof fur. Waterproof fur won't dry out an animal, it just means that the fur won't get clogged up by water.

I kind of went into detail on emphasis in features by 'lessening' other features. By decreasing the size of stature compared to the Gray Wolf while retaining a proportionate size of the skin between it's paws, there would be a noticeable distinction that it appears to have webbed feet not inherently obvious in the Gray Wolf. The same with a waterproof coat.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I kind of went into detail on emphasis in features by 'lessening' other features. By decreasing the size of stature compared to the Gray Wolf while retaining a proportionate size of the skin between it's paws, there would be a noticeable distinction that it appears to have webbed feet not inherently obvious in the Gray Wolf. The same with a waterproof coat.

Have you ever seen a Newfoundland dog, because that's the breed we're talking about. They are roughly equal in size to a Gray Wolf, so there is no decrease in size of stature. And your whole argument doesn't make sense.
You are basically describing how man-made selection, nonnatural selection, of the various dog breeds from Gray Wolves works. The traits that are desired are bred in while the traits that aren't desired are bred out.

 

[Abraxos]

Oh my, you have the "ladder" misconception in full swing I see.

It's entirely relevant because horses didn't just get bigger (as your doggie lineup would suggest), but had significant physiological changes to various body parts. The change in foot anatomy is so stark I am truly baffled when people think that various dog breeds - which are further problematic as analogies because they underwent artificial selection - are analogous because no breed exhibits such a stark change in anatomy.

You also are a tad confused as to the nature of evolution.
1. The trend towards complexity is one path evolution took, but it's not the only one. There are more worm and arthropod species than there are living representatives of some mammal apex predator species.
2. The modern equine foot is more evolved than a basal equine toe because it has undergone significant change in morphology, not because of the number of toes.

I still don't see how that is overly relevant. The main distinction here is to do with size yet you suggest that having three toes compared to one toe has significance or shows any evolutionary superiority over the Eohippus' three toes. Upon thinking about it, there are close resemblances, but I don't think the Eohippus even should be regarded as a horse specifically because it has three toes.

Have you ever seen a Newfoundland dog, because that's the breed we're talking about. They are roughly equal in size to a Gray Wolf, so there is no decrease in size of stature. And your whole argument doesn't make sense.
You are basically describing how man-made selection, nonnatural selection, of the various dog breeds from Gray Wolves works. The traits that are desired are bred in while the traits that aren't desired are bred out.

I kind of pointed out that I suspect that the Gray Wolf is not the true original but maybe a close second third or fourth generational breed. I say this because there are examples of extinct wolf breeds that are much larger than today's wolf breeds. The further back in time we go the bigger the animals tend to be.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I kind of pointed out that I suspect that the Gray Wolf is not the true original but maybe a close second third or fourth generational breed. I say this because there are examples of extinct wolf breeds that are much larger than today's wolf breeds. The further back in time we go the bigger the animals tend to be.

Where did you point this out? Because to me, it seems like you're shifting the goal posts here.

 

[Abraxos]

Where did you point this out? Because to me, it seems like you're shifting the goal posts here.

Gray Wolves have a waterproof coat. :/

That said, the Gray Wolf I suspect is not the true original but a close second or third or fourth generational breed.

But even if the Gray Wolf had not have a waterproof coat, there is a point that needs to be addressed on how genetic variation works and how this is applied to natural selection in the wild. If a "waterproof" coat that is not obviously apparent in a Gray Wolf, that isn't to say that the information was not in the Gray Wolf, but a combination of things occurred from a genetic standpoint. The breeds we see today have some aspects of the Gray Wolf, some more emphasized and made obvious than others. These specific features (or feature) could be favorable in certain situations, but not favorable in other situations.

For example, a dog smaller in stature from the Gray Wolf but retains it's big coat will indeed end up being drier when swimming due to a loss of size. However, it will be less active in the hot days due to being overheated more quickly - even in danger of extinction. So there are always favourable and unfavourable aspects to these breeds that descended from the original. Even if the Gray Wolf did not have a "waterproof" coat, that isn't to say that genetically that information wasn't there, only that to get a "waterproof" coat you require to 'lessen' some aspects from the Gray Wolf genome to achieve more emphasis on a particular aspect. But there is always a favourable/unfavourable aspect.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Gray Wolves have a waterproof coat. :/

That said, the Gray Wolf I suspect is not the true original but a close second or third or fourth generational breed.

But even if the Gray Wolf had not have a waterproof coat, there is a point that needs to be addressed on how genetic variation works and how this is applied to natural selection in the wild. If a "waterproof" coat that is not obviously apparent in a Gray Wolf, that isn't to say that the information was not in the Gray Wolf, but a combination of things occurred from a genetic standpoint. The breeds we see today have some aspects of the Gray Wolf, some more emphasized and made obvious than others. These specific features (or feature) could be favorable in certain situations, but not favorable in other situations.

For example, a dog smaller in stature from the Gray Wolf but retains it's big coat will indeed end up being drier when swimming due to a loss of size. However, it will be less active in the hot days due to being overheated more quickly - even in danger of extinction. So there are always favourable and unfavourable aspects to these breeds that descended from the original. Even if the Gray Wolf did not have a "waterproof" coat, that isn't to say that genetically that information wasn't there, only that to get a "waterproof" coat you require to 'lessen' some aspects from the Gray Wolf genome to achieve more emphasis on a particular aspect. But there is always a favourable/unfavourable aspect.

But no-one is claiming that the Grey Wolf is the true predecessor of the dog breeds.
Also, your claim is actually unfortunately wrong, even though it does make some sense. Canis mosbachensis is seen by many paleontologists to be the predecessor to the Grey Wolf but it was comparable in size to the Grey Wolf, in fact probably even smaller.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Upon thinking about it, there are close resemblances, but I don't think the Eohippus even should be regarded as a horse specifically because it has three toes.

The key words there are, "Upon thinking about it".

Yes, yes, yes! You have heard all these explanations from creationists, that these are different size horses lined up to look like evolution, but "upon thinking about it", no, the Eohippus is not a modern horse. Exactly! The Eohippus is not a zebra (or a modern horse). The Mesohippus is not a zebra. The Merchippus is not a zebra. They are not the same species, not even the same genus. They are very different animals. They differ as much as a bobcat differs from a lion.

"Upon thinking about it", no, an Eohippus is not a zebra.

Now let's look at what you said before that eureka moment ("upon thinking about it").

How the horse evolutionary process is depicted is with the smallest at the bottom and it gets bigger the higher up the "tree" it goes. The theory of evolution has a logic to it, but we mustn't confuse logic with correction. As with the evolutionary tree of the horse as depicted by the evolutionists. It's logical but is it correct?

Ah, so you can line dogs up in a line, they are all the same species. And at one time you thought you could do the same with the Eohippus and zebra, just line them up and call the Eohippus a small zebra. But "upon thinking about it", you changed your mind, didn't you?

Basically you have arranged a beautiful tree. But is it correct? No. It would be absolutely wrong because they all didn't come out of the Chihuahua in the first place. In fact they came out of the Wolf breeds and these varieties of dog breeds were all from the Wolfs gene pool.

The same rule applies to the horse evolutionary tree; they were all there at the same time. Even today, we have many different sized horses. This is variation within a horse breeds not evidence for the theory of evolution.

And yet every Eohippus dates before 35 million years ago. And every Merychippus dates after 17 million years ago. And every zebra dates in the last 5 million years. So how can that be, if they all lived at the same time?

Please read horse - Evolution of the horse | mammal and Horse Evolution.

Then, "upon thinking about it" further, please explain why, when we line the fossils up according to the actual measured dates of the fossils, they show a real progression.

 

[xianghua]

I don't see how that would be relevant. Why would the number of toes be relevant? Shouldn't the Eohippus according to evolutionary processes have the lesser toes and see a pattern of more toes the more evolved it becomes? Remember, the theory of evolution assumes an increase in complexity over time and having more toes has more moving parts and bone structure. Kind of problematic for the theory of evolution if you ask me.

we can even arrange several eyes according to their complexity without a common eye. this is because eye suppose to evolved about 50 times convergently (so we basically have 50 different eye complexity that we can arrange) . so making an order isnt an evidence for evolution even according to evolution.

 

[Colter]

Evolution followed the growth of brains. Its all about the experiential scaffolding for the development of the brain! Physically speaking evolution has run it's coarse, it's achieved the inherent purposive potential of the creator of the original life patterns.

 

[doubtingmerle]

we can even arrange several eyes according to their complexity without a common eye. this is because eye suppose to evolved about 50 times convergently (so we basically have 50 different eye complexity that we can arrange) . so making an order isnt an evidence for evolution even according to evolution.

Right, making an arbitrary order is not evidence for evolution.

But finding fossils that, when arranged according to date, show a clear progression with time, that is evidence. Thus when I line up the horse series fossils by date and see branching changes in the design, that is evidence for evolution. And when we line up the mammal-like reptile jawbones by date and see branching changes in the design, that is evidence for evolution.

Let me illustrate. If I see a baby, and several months later visit the same house and see a slightly larger baby, and on subsequent trips to that house see a toddler, a preschooler, a first grader, a teenager, and an adult, I can conclude that this person changed with time into an adult. You could propose an alternate view, that every time I visited a stork came by and took the previous person, and substituted a new one. But all we know about the world says that my view that this child had changed with time is the better explanation. And so I go with the logical conclusion, that this child changed, that he "evolved" into an adult.

Likewise, if I look at horse fossils every million years or so, and each time see something progressively different, I can conclude that horses changed with time. I can discredit the view that storks kept bringing new kinds of horses, or that horses kept popping up out of nowhere with slightly different DNA.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Evolution followed the growth of brains.

...and belief in evolution also followed the growth of brains?