Looking for all the missing links

[SkyWriting]

BTW, whatever happened to the Alfred E. Neuman guy? He was a hoot to read!

Last I spoke to him he was considering a change of priorities.

 

[Astridhere]

No it was not, horse evolution was found to be more complicated than previously thought. Rather than a simple stright lineage leading directly to the modern horse Equus, it is a brancing pattern leading in multiple directions over time. Think of a tree or bush rather than a ladder.

This website focuses on the lineage leading to Equus:
Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

However, there are other lineages as well, where browsing horses continued to evolve and co-exist with ones evolving toward grazing like the modern horse. This website discusses all of these in some detail: Horse Evolution Here is a companion piece from the same author http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Horse%20Evolution%20-%20Kathleen%20Hunt%20-%20secure.pdf

Here's another from the American Museum of Natural History: The Horse | American Museum of Natural History

The "Creation Ministry" and "Creation sciecne" sources you have been using are LYING to you. Most creationists here don't care that they are being lied to about the science and the physical evidence, since none of it matters to them. It is all just "talking points" and a means to try and win "the debate." Perhaps as an ordained minister, you do care if you are lied to, since lying is a sin. Don't take my word for it, investigate yourself. Look at science websites and sources, not just creationist ones. Look critically at what you are being told. This is a good website to begin: Understanding Evolution

The point you are missing Split Rock is that evolutionists cannot present one lot of 'evidences' for the evolution of horses and shove that in creationists faces and ridicule them as if they were stupid for not accepting it in the first place; and then shove another line up of 'evidences' for the evolution of horses that any creationist would be stupid to not accept and assert that creationists are the ones with the problem here.

The same goes for 150 years of knucklewalking ancestry and pretty much anything you evos have to present as evolutionary support.

You, Split Rock and other evos, are the ones with a huge question mark relating to the credibility of horse evolution as well as any other taxon you care to name.

The excuses evos come up with that are meant to excuse previous erraneous thinking and falsifications in no way diminishes the fact that as far as I am concerned your evolutionary researchers generally have no idea what they talking about.

This is what evolutionists 'undeniable evidences' for evolution amounts to...Flavour of the month passed off as convincing evidence for evolution until it is again falsified.

 

[Split Rock]

Last I spoke to him he was considering a change of priorities.

Does that mean he isn't coming back?

 

[SkyWriting]

Does that mean he isn't coming back?

I'm no prophet.

 

[Astridhere]

Are you saying that Ken Ham is not an idiot?

I know Ken Ham is 'not' an idiot, he is taking creationists to the cleaners every day, some might argue that creationists are easy so you don't need to be smart to do that, I think he ranks with the other 'not' idiots like Hovind, Comfort and rest of the creationist con men, all of them racking the money in, the best in American entrepreneurs.

They should all write books entitled 'How to make millions by lying to the gullible' or 'Hit them hard, low and often'.

That reminds me of a boxer who said he didn't like fighting George Foreman because every time George hit him he broke something.

He hit me so many times I thought I was surrounded.

The skull in question, KNM-ER 1470, is arguably the most controversial fossil in the history of anthropology. When it was first discovered in northern Kenya in 1972, it was initially dated to nearly 3 million years old. Yet the skull — which scientists painstakingly pieced together from hundreds of bone fragments — had a large brain and a flat face, features reminiscent of modern humans but completely unlike any hominid known to exist at the time.

So troublesome was the skull that famed paleo-anthropologist Richard Leakey, the leader of the team that discovered it, once told reporters: "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man. It simply fits no models of human beginnings."

Leakey later revised the age of KNM-ER 1470 to 1.9 million years, but even then, some scientists have argued that the skull’s features are much more humanlike than its contemporary, Homo habilis.
Human ancestor gets digital facelift - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com



Above is the comparison of 1470 and Turkana Boy.

For over twenty years, the young, male Homo Erectus specimen KNM-WT 15000 has been the focus of studies on growth and development, locomotion, size, sexual dimorphism, skeletal morphology, and encephalization, often serving as the standard for his species. Prior research on KNM-WT 15000 operates under the assumption that H. erectus experienced a modern human life history, including an adolescent growth spurt. However, recent fossil discoveries, improvements in research methods, and new insights into modern human ontogeny suggest that this may not have been the case.
Just how strapping was the Nariokotome Boy? (Daniel Wescott) - Academia.edu


Below is Lluc, a flat faced ape dated to 12 million years ago.


New Hominid 12 Million Years Old Found In Spain, With 'Modern' Facial Features


So, here we have one of your leading evolutionary researchers and the discoverer of many fossils including rudolfensis and Turkana Boy, Leakey, and a small snip of his woopsies re Rudolfensis and Turk. Do you think this is the final word? I can assure you it will not be.

Evolutionary researchers are just as much liars as you accuse creationist scientists of being.

Observation, a skill evo researchers have replaced with convoluted algorithms, suggests that all the fossil evos present as evidence for human evolution are nothing more that apes with flatter faces. Reduced facial features and bipedalism are no longer solely human traits. The magic terms of homoplasy and convergent evolution are the buzz words required to afix sticky tape to a falsified theory that refuses to die gracefully.

Further more to that evo researchers are blind. Turkana Boy, Rudolfensis, Sediba and any other fossil are no more human than Lluc was 12 million years ago. All these changing paradigms are evidence that indeed evolutionary researchers are as confused today as they were 150 years ago and still no closer to answering the how, when, where or why of evolution.

 

[Metal Minister]

No it was not, horse evolution was found to be more complicated than previously thought. Rather than a simple stright lineage leading directly to the modern horse Equus, it is a brancing pattern leading in multiple directions over time. Think of a tree or rather than a ladder.

This website focuses on the lineage leading
However, there are other lineages as well, where browsing horses continued to evolve and co-exist with ones evolving toward grazing like the modern horse. This website discusses all of these in some detail: Here is a companion piece from the same author
Here's another from the American Museum of Natural History:

The "Creation Ministry" and "Creation sciecne" sources you have been using are LYING to you. Most creationists here don't care that they are being lied to about the science and the physical evidence, since none of it matters to them. It is all just "talking points" and a means to try and win "the debate." Perhaps as an ordained minister, you do care if you are lied to, since lying is a sin. Don't take my word for it, investigate yourself. Look at science websites and sources, not just creationist ones. Look critically at what you are being told. This is a good website to begin:

I've been to several websites very similar to these, and I'm going to attempt to circumvent protocol, and post a link you may find enlightening if you use an open mind.www(dot)trueorigin(dot)org/isakrbtl(dot)asp its a fairly long piece, but very informative. Please by all means investigate it for yourself. It in fact discusses Ms. Hunt's piece.

 

[Astridhere]

I can't tell you where your misinformation (and misunderstanding) came from but you appear to be among the many who think that a coelacanth is a single species. It is an ENTIRE ORDER of creatures. (To simplify that statement for those unfamiliar with introductory biology terminology, think of a taxonomic ORDER as a group of related FAMIILIES, which in turn, each group a set of related genera, each genus of which consists of various species. That's an over-simplification but it helps illustrate how large and varied an ORDER can be.)

The "missing link" in the Wikipedia article takes one to a footnote which links to a website of unclear origins. In any case "missing link" is not a scientific term per se, though it is often hyped by journalists. And the discovery of a living coelacanth in the 1930's was in itself irrelevant to the coelacanth's evolutionary significance. (And only those ignorant of evolution think it was some kind of "strike" against evolution. Sound like anyone we know?)

The coelacanth has often been called a "living fossil" but that simply means that the first species of that taxonomic order to be discovered was a fossil find. Not until nearly a century ago was a living species of that order found in the Indian Ocean. Those who are ignorant of the fact that a coelacanth is an entire order and not just a species often pretend that coelacanths haven't changed in millions of years of evolution. They failed again.

There are only two known species of coelacanths: one that lives near the Comoros Islands off the east coast of Africa, and one found in the waters off Sulawesi, Indonesia. Many scientists believe that the unique characteristics of the coelacanth represent an early step in the evolution of fish to terrestrial four-legged animals like amphibians.
Coelacanths, Coelacanth Pictures, Coelacanth Facts - National Geographic


....And they still are not walking anywhere!!!!!!!!

You are correct in that evos dump a stack of different kinds into one lump like creodonta to fudge the public as if they have any idea of who is who in the ancient zoo. Coelecanth is not one of them!!!!

Coelecanth was just another example of the 'convincing evidence' that has previouisly been thrown at creationists that turned out to be rubbish!

 

[Astridhere]

No it was not, horse evolution was found to be more complicated than previously thought. Rather than a simple stright lineage leading directly to the modern horse Equus, it is a brancing pattern leading in multiple directions over time. Think of a tree or rather than a ladder.

This website focuses on the lineage leading
However, there are other lineages as well, where browsing horses continued to evolve and co-exist with ones evolving toward grazing like the modern horse. This website discusses all of these in some detail: Here is a companion piece from the same author
Here's another from the American Museum of Natural History:

The "Creation Ministry" and "Creation sciecne" sources you have been using are LYING to you. Most creationists here don't care that they are being lied to about the science and the physical evidence, since none of it matters to them. It is all just "talking points" and a means to try and win "the debate." Perhaps as an ordained minister, you do care if you are lied to, since lying is a sin. Don't take my word for it, investigate yourself. Look at science websites and sources, not just creationist ones. Look critically at what you are being told. This is a good website to begin:

I've been to several websites very similar to these, and I'm going to attempt to circumvent protocol, and post a link you may find enlightening if you use an open mind.www(dot)trueorigin(dot)org/isakrbtl(dot)asp its a fairly long piece, but very informative. Please by all means investigate it for yourself. It in fact discusses Ms. Hunt's piece.

Offering any scenario as a fact only to change the 'facts' is sufficient evidence to suggest that evolutionary researchers, in actual fact, have no clue.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The point you are missing Split Rock is that evolutionists cannot present one lot of 'evidences' for the evolution of horses and shove that in creationists faces and ridicule them as if they were stupid for not accepting it in the first place; and then shove another line up of 'evidences' for the evolution of horses that any creationist would be stupid to not accept and assert that creationists are the ones with the problem here.

But what creationists are not accepting is the fact of evolution itself, not the finer details. What happens when the fine details get refined is that we have better and better theories of evolution, and this is going to continue.

If we had kept on changing the basic theory of whether or not living things evolved from more primitive ancestors, to some completely different model, then you might have a point. But, the very basics of evolutionary theory haven't changed for many decades. So, if you haven't caught up by now, you've had plenty of time to.

Until you accept evolution as a basic concept, the small details such as how sure we are about the exact pattern of horse evolution is irrelevant.

This is what evolutionists 'undeniable evidences' for evolution amounts to...Flavour of the month passed off as convincing evidence for evolution until it is again falsified.

The evidence for horse evolution has only improved. We haven't lost any previously known important horse fossils that I've heard of. What has changed is the current best theory to explain the evidence.

Can you actually name any evidence for the evolution of horses that has disappeared or been changed? Evidence that is, not theories.

That's the problem for creationists, as shown by the AnswersInGenesis site being out of date in its criticisms of the fossil evidence for the evolution of whales. As time goes by, more evidence is found, and it becomes more and more difficult to argue against it.

Offering any scenario as a fact only to change the 'facts' is sufficient evidence to suggest that evolutionary researchers, in actual fact, have no clue.

Who has presented a particular sequence of horse evolution as an indisputable fact, rather than a theory?

 

[NailsII]

Evolutionary researchers are just as much liars as you accuse creationist scientists of being.

And that one quote sums up ust why no-one can have a discusson with you.
The next time I am accused of being an angry, strident atheist I will simply chuckle to myself (turn the other cheek if you like) and think about your quote.

After all, how can you convince someone of anything if that person does not value evidence?
What else can you offer them?

Simple, I can offer you nothing.
You are simply not worth conversing with.

Many Christians on here I can discuss with, I can learn from - I am not always right and will accept my errors when they are pointed out to me.

I only hope that you never do jury service, the poor guy would never stand a chance unless the bible says he was innocent.

 

[Metal Minister]

I believe the entire point is that evolution as a whole is unproved in its most basic concepts. Most evolutionists refuse to discuss the origin of life (never mind the origin of everything else) and instead assume the origin of life. From this basic mistake alone, the rest of evolution crumbles.

 

[MostlyLurking]

The point you are missing Split Rock is that evolutionists cannot present one lot of 'evidences' for the evolution of horses and shove that in creationists faces and ridicule them as if they were stupid for not accepting it in the first place; and then shove another line up of 'evidences' for the evolution of horses that any creationist would be stupid to not accept and assert that creationists are the ones with the problem here.

The fact that "evolutionists" choose not to insult you in that way says nothing about the fact of equine evolution.

If you are unaware of the evidence for the evolution of horses, I would recommend ‘Icons of Evolution’ published by Greenwood Press. Each chapter is written by a world-class expert on that particular "evolutionary path." One chapter is on the horse series you speak of here and is written by the eminent equine paleontologist from Brown University, Dr. Christine Janis. There is a very detailed analysis of the evidence specific to horse evolution.

Can you list the major evidence for horse evolution? If not, that tells me that you have never evaluated it and therefore have no knowledge necessary for addressing the issue. (No surprise there.)

 

[NailsII]

I believe the entire point is that evolution as a whole is unproved in its most basic concepts. Most evolutionists refuse to discuss the origin of life (never mind the origin of everything else) and instead assume the origin of life. From this basic mistake alone, the rest of evolution crumbles.

* sigh *
It is called evolution because it examines how life evolves - not how it starts.
This is like saying that the theory of gravity fails because it doesn't give us the origin of the universe and so tell us where gravity came from.

One word: asanine.

 

[MostlyLurking]

There are only two known species of coelacanths: one that lives near the Comoros Islands off the east coast of Africa, and one found in the waters off Sulawesi, Indonesia.

No. You are confusing EXTANT species with all "known species."

There are around 80+ species of coelacanths identified so far.

Please inform yourself of the basics before posting.

 

[Metal Minister]

* sigh *
It is called evolution because it examines how life evolves - not how it starts.
This is like saying that the theory of gravity fails because it doesn't give us the origin of the universe and so tell us where gravity came from.

One word: asanine.

Hardly. If everything "evolved" what did it evolve from? Everything has to have a beginning. As I stated before this is an area that evolutionists fear to tread. This is where it becomes obvious that evolution relies more on assumption and faith than the evolutionist wishes to acknowledge. What did we all evolve from? Evolutionists say a "macro-molecule" but have to assume it happened because there is no evidence of this. I would then ask what did the macro molecule evolve from? To which an evolutionist says the primordial soup, though again they are assuming facts not in evidence. Then I'll ask what did the "soup" evolve from? To which the evolutionist would say, from the ancient oceans formed by millions of years of rain on the molten earth, again assuming something rather than proving anything. This of course also ignores the existence of radio polonium halos. halos(dot)com. You see you cannot just assume life happened. It's not science then. Then it moves into a religion, and one ove noticed takes a lot more faith and fervor to defend than creation.

 

[createdtoworship]

They are extinct. If you think you can breed extinct animals go for it.


Fossil skeletons of transitional genera supported by the expected straigraphy is obviously not enough for you.. Even After You ASKED for it.

then you have evolution failure. Showing two animals is not what I asked for. I asked for evolution between two animals.

 

[createdtoworship]

1. No it wasn't carnivorous. It was a browsing herbivore.
2. We don't have horses today with molars adapted for browsing instead of grazing, and four toes instead of one.
3. We are talking about the evolution of animals through multiple genera (AS YOU ASKED FOR), not different breeds of the same species. So NO it is not a "hoax."

Are you going to admit these are transitionals, just as you asked for, or are you going to continue shifting the goals and equivocating?

nope, not multiple genera because it's not a horse like animal.

low-crowned teeth proves it was carnivorous. You even said yourself that it could not process grass.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I believe the entire point is that evolution as a whole is unproved in its most basic concepts. Most evolutionists refuse to discuss the origin of life (never mind the origin of everything else) and instead assume the origin of life. From this basic mistake alone, the rest of evolution crumbles.

Yet, it's referred to as theory. Sorry cdesignproponentists, game over.







You know, like the germ theory of disease, theory of gravity, theory of relativity, theory of evolution.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Hardly. If everything "evolved" what did it evolve from? Everything has to have a beginning. As I stated before this is an area that evolutionists fear to tread. This is where it becomes obvious that evolution relies more on assumption and faith than the evolutionist wishes to acknowledge. What did we all evolve from? Evolutionists say a "macro-molecule" but have to assume it happened because there is no evidence of this. I would then ask what did the macro molecule evolve from? To which an evolutionist says the primordial soup, though again they are assuming facts not in evidence. Then I'll ask what did the "soup" evolve from? To which the evolutionist would say, from the ancient oceans formed by millions of years of rain on the molten earth, again assuming something rather than proving anything. This of course also ignores the existence of radio polonium halos. halos(dot)com. You see you cannot just assume life happened. It's not science then. Then it moves into a religion, and one ove noticed takes a lot more faith and fervor to defend than creation.

Yes, most things have a beginning, and there are very dedicated and smart people working on abiogenesis on every continent. We don't know yet, but we will (hopefully in my lifetime ). There's nothing wrong with saying we don't know yet- and cdesignproponentsists don't either. When we do figure it out, it will have not been through prayers or holy scriptures.

Religions have been around for six thousand years, modern science for roughly four hundred years, give us a chance, we're just getting going.

 

[Split Rock]

then you have evolution failure. Showing two animals is not what I asked for. I asked for evolution between two animals.

So, I show you more than two animals and that is a failure???

nope, not multiple genera because it's not a horse like animal.

What???? You said before they were all Horse-like.... now there are not? Makeup your mind!

low-crowned teeth proves it was carnivorous. You even said yourself that it could not process grass.

Grass is very hard to digest because it contains silica. So I guess when a giraffe eats leaves it makes it "carnivorous???"

You are a crack-up. Can I have some of what you are smoking?