Evolution's Brick Wall

[inquiring mind]

They prode by questions until it is you who need to defend as next post.

CF is full of unhappy debaters, trying to catch others at fault in what they have said.

But one thing that jittered them is your OP. It was then them who had to defend to proof wrong, which to date they have tried but failed.

Yes, you can tell from their responses... we've struck a nerve.

 

[Job 33:6]

The fossil record for ungulates does confirm biological studies. And if anyone disagrees, all they would have to do is find any of the above derived animals (cows, deer, whales, hippos, pigs peccaries and camels) before their ancestral chain of fossils. For example, all you have to do is find a whale fossil before early cetaceans, or find early cetaceans before early artiodactyls or find a cow fossil before proto bovines, or find a camel before proto even toed ungulates, or...find any of the above in strata of the cambrian, silurian, ordovician, permian, devonian, carboniferous, jurassic, triassic, cretaceous, or anywhere in the precambrian. Or find fossils with derived traits from other lineages, such as a hippo with a blow hole, or a whales with feet or a camel with triangular serrated cetacean like teeth or a conical head. Or to simplify things, find any of the above fossils anywhere in the other 99% of strata around the world.

Shouldnt be too hard to do, if in fact the fossil succession does not support the above ungulate lineage.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't think you even know what you're talking about.

Let me help you out here. You said, and I quote

"I guess because the latter have been indisputably linked, and the former have not."

The latter referring to an indisputable link between horses and eohippus, and the former being a link between mankind and chimpanzees.

I simply asked you, what it is about the eohippus to horse lineage, that you felt was superior to the lineage deriving relatedness between humans and chimps.

You couldnt answer. You simply said "Actually, I was just taking you guys at your word that it was."

Ok, so if you're just taking "you guys at your word", then here is the word, humans and chimps are indisputably linked, just as eohippus and horses are. The fossil support both lineages, as to biological studies, as well as anatomical and morphological phylogenies, biogeographic distributions, ERV studies, protein studies, and more.

I have to wonder, did any of "you guys" suggest that humans and chimps were not indisputably linked but simultaneously suggest that horses and eohippus were?

 

[inquiring mind]

then here is the word, humans and chimps are indisputably linked

No

I have to wonder, did any of "you guys" suggest that humans and chimps were not indisputably linked but simultaneously suggest that horses and eohippus were?

You'll have to go back to post #759 for the horse intro, but you have made hash out of a two or three point topic to the point that no one reading these comments will be able to get anything from it but a headache.

 

[inquiring mind]

Ok, so if you're just taking "you guys at your word", then here is the word

I won't be taking your word any longer.

 

[Heissonear]

Hold on, so you were asked a question. You didnt respond. Lets try again,

What is it about horses and eohippus (the former) that you feel is linked in ways that humans and chimpanzees (the latter) are not?

You are not really open to know a persons view on your post content above which could change your position on evolution.

It is a mere CF poster trying to corner someone about past statements.

In a post you state you simply want to verify.

No, you are a bias debater trying to fault find to undermine a posters qualification for stating the validity of their OP.

 

[Job 33:6]

I won't be taking your word any longer.

So are you going to answer my original question? Why would you view the eohippus to modern horse transition as microevolution, but not accept the same in regards to the fossil succession linking humans and chimps?

You said earlier that the former was indisputably linked. Are you retracting this statement?

 

[Job 33:6]

You are not really open to know a persons view on your post content above which could change your position on evolution.

It is a mere CF poster trying to corner someone about past statements.

In a post you state you simply want to verify.

No, you are a bias debater trying to fault find to undermine a posters qualification for stating the validity of their OP.

He has the ability to freely deny his previous statement in order to "un corner" himself. I am here to verify, hence my questions.

 

[inquiring mind]

So are you going to answer my original question? Why would you view the eohippus to modern horse transition as microevolution, but not accept the same in regards to the fossil succession linking humans and chimps?

You said earlier that the former was indisputably linked. Are you retracting this statement?

As I said, these questions have been asked and answered from about post#759. You're just rehashing. Go back and read the thread; you'll save us all a big headache.

 

[inquiring mind]

He has the ability to freely deny his previous statement in order to "un corner" himself. I am here to verify, hence my questions.

I think you are very confused. You need to take some time and re-read the thread.

 

[Job 33:6]

As I said, these questions have been asked and answered from about post#759. You're just rehashing. Go back and read the thread; you'll save us all a big headache.

I see very few posts by you between posts #759 and now.

" "Only if scientific connect-the-dot charts are correct; and 'no' I'm not sure of that." Translated: "If they are correct I have no problem with it.""

If this is the case ^, then you should also have no problem with the relatedness between chimps and man, as chimps and man also have "connect the dot" charts as well as genetic evidence and all of the above.

 

[Job 33:6]

Morphologically, eohippus is more different than modern day horses, than mankind is to the chimpanzee.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think you are very confused. You need to take some time and re-read the thread.

I've re-read and am waiting for your responses.

 

[inquiring mind]

I see very few posts by you between posts #759 and now.

I've re-read and am waiting for your responses.

No, I didn't make many comments, but others did. Maybe you need to read before post #759... all of this has been discussed. I thought you were there.

 

[Heissonear]

The fossil record for ungulates does confirm biological studies. And if anyone disagrees, all they would have to do is find any of the above derived animals (cows, deer, whales, hippos, pigs peccaries and camels) before their ancestral chain of fossils. ...............

Evolution has hit a wall of evidence.

To your post above there are no fossils before or inbetween the lifeforms you list - how hippos and whale are linked by detailed fossil evidence.

Somepeople (like godless naturalistic men) have brainwashed others into receiving conjecture-based conclusions and classification systems as facts.

When a person or a class are presented gaps in the fossil record via macro-assemblages, this is the best paleontologist can do. There proof of evolution is on missing fossils evident in their display of only macro-assemblages.

The morphological details presented of unearthed fossils inbetween two distintly different fossls is what shows evolution has occurred.

Conjecture is required to link macro-assemblages. The inbetween fossils are missing. The main fossils to prove evolution occurred are missing.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sfs: As for the horses, humans and chimpanzees are more similar than modern horses and Eohippus. Why do you consider the latter pair to represent microevolution and not the former?

Inquiring minds: That's a good question. I guess because the latter have been indisputably linked, and the former have not.

One has to wonder, what exactly it is you meant to say with the above response. You do not appear to be rejecting your own words. Indeed you said that the latter have been indisputably linked.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inquiring Minds:
"The micro-evolution of a horse (a horse is a horse, of course)"

""Only if scientific connect-the-dot charts are correct; and 'no' I'm not sure of that." Translated: "If they are correct I have no problem with it.""

"You can arrange them in different stalls if you want, but it’s still a barn full of horses."

"Jimmy D: Eohippus to the modern horse.

Inquiring Minds: The micro-evolution of a horse (a horse is a horse, of course); not evidence of macro-evolution, one thing evolving into another, like an animal into a human."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so if micro evolution links a horse to a horse, and eohippus and equus (modern horses) are both horses in the horse barn, then that means you believe that microevolution could be responsible for the differences between eohippus and equus.

Eohippus was much smaller, the size of a dog. It had 3 and 4 toes. Horses have hooves and are much larger.

This tells me that you believe that microevolution can be the difference between having toes and not having toes.

It also tells me that it can be the difference between standing a couple feet tall and standing 7-8 feet tall. It tells me that micro-evolution can be the difference between fused and unfused bones. It can mean a difference in the shape of bones.

Humans and chimpanzees both share 5 fingers and toes. One doesnt have a hand of all fused bones into one single hoof foot. Humans and chimps are also relatively similar in size. Our teeth are more similar than eohippus is to equus as well.

So if you think that eohippus could go in the horse barn, then chimps could hypothetically go in the human barn as well and could be the product of micro evolutionary divergence from a common ancestor.

 

[Heissonear]

I've re-read and am waiting for your responses.

Manipulation.

You act like what you have requested is pertinent to your position to change from being a bias evolutionists.

No, what you have requested is to trap and undermine the validity of the OP.

Exposure of tactics many demonstrate.

 

[Heissonear]

The fossil record for ungulates does confirm biological studies. And if anyone disagrees, all they would have to do is find any of the above derived animals (cows, deer, whales, hippos, pigs peccaries and camels) before their ancestral chain of fossils. ...............

Evolution has hit a wall of evidence.

To your post above there are no fossils before or inbetween the lifeforms you list - how hippos and whale are linked by detailed fossil evidence.

Somepeople (like godless naturalistic men) have brainwashed others into receiving conjecture-based conclusions and classification systems as facts.

When a person or a class are presented gaps in the fossil record via macro-assemblages, this is the best paleontologist can do. There proof of evolution is on missing fossils evident in their display of only macro-assemblages.

The morphological details presented of unearthed fossils inbetween two distintly different fossls is what shows evolution has occurred.

Conjecture is required to link macro-assemblages. The inbetween fossils are missing. The main fossils to prove evolution occurred are missing.

 

[inquiring mind]

So if you think that eohippus could go in the horse barn, then chimps could hypothetically go in the human barn as well and could be the product of micro evolutionary divergence from a common ancestor.

No

 

[Job 33:6]

No

Why not? Chimps are morphologically and genetically more similar to people, than eohippus is to modern horses. So if eohippus can go in the horse barn, why cant chimps go in the human barn?

If microevolution could hypothetically be responsible for the differences between eohippus to equus, why could microevolution not also be responsible for differences between chimp and man?