Evolution's Brick Wall

[Job 33:6]

Or^ do you want to retract your prior comments?

Inquiring Minds:

"Jimmy D: Eohippus to the modern horse.

Inquiring Minds in response to jimmy D: 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."


"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."

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 in response to sfs: That's a good question. I guess because the latter have been indisputably linked, and the former have not.

 

[Job 33:6]

I should also add that the chimp and human lineages have far more fossils identifying their lineage than can be found in the horse succession. From part chimp part human fossils such as sahelanthropus, to australopithecus to early hominids like erectus to modern day man.

 

[inquiring mind]

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?

All the science verbiage, and most importantly the lack of evidence, aside... do you not think man is too unique for that?

 

[inquiring mind]

why could microevolution not also be responsible for differences between chimp and man?

Because that's not like a small horse to large horse (micro evolution), but from one kind to another kind (macro), which there is no prove of, and as the OP states it is evolution's brick wall.

 

[Job 33:6]

All the science verbiage, and most importantly the lack of evidence, aside... do you not think man is too unique for that?

The fact that you have asked that second question, tells me that your conflict is a philosophical one, it isnt one of science.

You have suggested that you wouldnt have an issue with eohippus being put in the horse barn, despite its vast differences with equus. But the moment we turn the discussion to mankind, all of a sudden its incomprehensible.

People are unique, of course. But we are still chordates. We are still mammals. We are still hominids. Our bones are made the same as chimps, we both have 5 fingers and 5 toes, we both have similar dentition and enjoy similar foods like ice cream and apples. Some chimps speak sign language and we can communicate with one another.

The truth is that theyre our family. Just as hispanics and blacks and whites are family. The difference is 7 million years of time and very slow change. And the further back in time we go, the more different our family has become from us.

And all evidence indicates this, despite your claim that there is a lack of evidence. Its interesting that you are aware and admit that you arent an expert, yet you seem at ease in stating what the evidence does or does not support, as if you would know.

mutations happen, mutations change DNA, DNA is a blueprint for our morphology. As DNA changes through time, so do our physical bodies. It takes millions of years for large changes, but very few years for small changes. The fossils confirm it, the DNA confirms it, phylogenies associated with proteins and ERVs confirm it, biogeographical distributions confirm it.

And if you disagree, again i just have to simply say that you are free to present us with a cambrian bunny rabbit. And until then, the evidence does in fact support it, whether you wish to accept this or not.

 

[Job 33:6]

Because that's not like a small horse to large horse (micro evolution), but from one kind to another kind (macro), which there is no prove of, and as the OP states it is evolution's brick wall.

That alleged small horse had 4 toes. Its bones were unfused and of different shapes and sizes. Morphologically, eohippus is more different from equus than humans are to chimps.

From a literal stance, one of mathematical truth in measurement of physical reality, eohippus and equus are more distant, morphologically, than humans and chimps.

So if humans and chimps are of a different "kind" then so must eohippus and equus, which goes against your considerations that the two horses could be linked by microevolution.

 

[Heissonear]

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?

Built on a foundation of conjecture.

Where are the fossil evidence that evolution has occurred.

As the OP presents, evolution has hit a brick wall of lack of evidence - missing evidence - and many try to push aside the conjecture scattered about.

You have presented conjecture about several items in your past posts. And tried to reason (but only presented additional conjecture) in relation to chimps, horse ancestor, etc.

Were you to present inbetween fossils showing morphological changes from one lifeform to a distinctly different lifeform, then your trying to reason would be over and the proof of evolution would be in your hand.

But you are still empty handed.

 

[Job 33:6]

Like I said before, humans and chimps arent separated by toes and fused bones into the shapes of hooves, nor are we separated so vastly in dentition or in size or shape of our bones.

 

[inquiring mind]

The fact that you have asked that second question, tells me that your conflict is a philosophical one, it isnt one of science.

And your response to this question tells me that you actually do believe you're a direct descendent of a monkey.

 

[VirOptimus]

And your response to this question tells me that you actually do believe you're a direct descendent of a monkey.

Humans are apes by definition.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I was raised and educated as a geologist.

You keep saying that. I'm not buying it.

I have firsthand experience in what you say I lack. That us silly of you, but rightful as a debater trying to win.

None of this changes the fact that you have been shown the fossils you are frantically asking for every other post. You just ignore these fossils and continue with your dishonest mantra.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Through geology and Naturalism I was once close to your position.

Please. You have shown on multiple occasions that you aren't even able to get my position right.

But what I listed above was applied. He reigns above us all, and has a way to find Him that one must walk and talk. His way to find Him. I was a godless (without God in this world) geologist and naturalist that He worked in to become open to His way to Him.

Preaching.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually, I was just taking you guys at your word that it was. You're not saying that a chimpanzee and human link is based on the same amount of verifiable evidence, are you?

More evidence, actually. More solid too.

 

[Jimmy D]

I didn't really mean to jump in ahead of anyone, but I guess I did. I can't speak intelligently in terms of fossil progression, but in a simply analogy I see the horse example sort of like a ninety pound weakling who changes his life style, what he eats, and increases his muscle mass, etc. and becomes a world champion body-builder... but he's still a man. Micro-evolution is the word I suppose.

I suggest that you actually look at the anatomical differences before you draw half-baked conclusions based on your "kind" dogma.

 

[Jimmy D]

What about the OP. Where is the error?

1.

Some scientists say (don’t ask me to quote anything, it’s there, look for yourself ) that our family tree is more like a huge bush, with so many branches that lead to dead ends (not enough transition fossils found to seal the deal -- a brick wall)

"Evolutionary dead ends" in that context suggest that a certain lineage has died out (although I may be mistaken as his language is slightly ambiguous), what has that got to do with "transition" fossils?

that it may be impossible to ever fill the gap and find a verifiable route from ape to the modern man.

What has the route from "ape to the modern man" got to do with what is posted above? We have plenty of transitional fossils. What scientist suggests that this route is an "evolutionary dead end".

Certain parts of this paragraph might be accurate but as a whole it makes no sense.

I have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out.

This is purely an opinion based on incredulity. Judging by his admission that he knows little about paleontology, knows less about genetic evidence and he has strong emotional reasons to reject naturalistic explanations, why should anyone take this opinion seriously?

How long will it take for academia's and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?

This part is fallacious because it's suggesting a dichotomy where if is one position is shown to be false, the other will be true by default.

i.e Utter rubbish.

Provide some positive evidence for creation and it will be considered.

The mysterious "Brick wall" in the title isn't even mentioned.

 

[Jimmy D]

No


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.

Actually I gleaned from the exchange that you don't really know what you're talking about (regarding the evidence for evolution) and are blindly making comments that contradict the scientific consensus without justification.

 

[tas8831]

Or^ do you want to retract your prior comments?

Inquiring Minds:

"Jimmy D: Eohippus to the modern horse.

Inquiring Minds in response to jimmy D: 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."


"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."

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 in response to sfs: That's a good question. I guess because the latter have been indisputably linked, and the former have not.

I find it funny when creationists give themselves these pseudo-humble monikers - 'inquiring minds'.... 'justatruthseeker'...

 

[inquiring mind]

More Novocain for these guys... please.

 

[tas8831]

All the science verbiage, and most importantly the lack of evidence, aside... do you not think man is too unique for that?

1. So, OK - you don't understand the science verbiage - then why did you ask a scientific question?
2. Lack of evidence? Ah - you must be one of those disingenuous creationists that considers things not to exist if you cannot understand it
3. And top it off with a healthy dose of anthropocentrism.

Splendid!

 

[tas8831]

More Novocain for these guys... please.

And how about a little humble pie for the Dunning-Krugerite creationists... please...