Looking for all the missing links

[Split Rock]

easy, a horse transition if there was one would like 50% like a horse, and 50% like the animal it was transitioning from.

You simply forgot to provide that animal

Show me where you draw the line betyween "Its a horse" and "Its not a horse" Here:
Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years
1.Hyracotherium
2.Orohippus
3.Mesohippus
4.Miohippus
5.Parahippus
6.Merychippus
7.Pliohippus
8.Dinohippus
9 Equus

Remember that "dog-sized" does not mean "dog." If you are looking for an animal that is half horse and half dog, you can forget it.

Hyracotherium itself was transitional to rhinos and tapirs, as well as horses. Hyracotherium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MostlyLurking]

"coelacanths were considered the "missing link" between the fish and the tetrapods until the first Latimeria specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River (now Tyolomnqa) in 1938."

-wikipedia

source for this misinformation?

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.

 

[MostlyLurking]

common sense is not taught, it's caught.

Is that how you got the nickname: butter-fingers?

(Perhaps a catcher's mitt would be helpful.)

easy, a horse transition if there was one would like 50% like a horse, and 50% like the animal it was transitioning from.

Since when did zoologists start measuring animals in percentages? How does one determine a "50% horse"?

And seeing how EVERY organism which is not the last extant specimen of some evolutionary path is transitional, how does one determine which specimen's are "nodes" on that path and which specimens are mere "transitions" along the way? You seem to have the idea (as in graph theory) that a horse is some exact entity/vertex such that its great grandchild is a tiny transition away as a minor subnode along an edge headed for the next major vertex, which is a non-horse. Once again, your arguments aren't going to make any sense until you learn the basics of the theory of evolution.

You simply forgot to provide that animal

You simply forgot to learn what you are talking about.

 

[TerraIncognita]

common sense is not taught, it's caught.

Common sense is not so common, and is most often used by people who would more rather give an answer that sounds good over thinking critically about what's probably correct.

 

[createdtoworship]

Show me where you draw the line betyween "Its a horse" and "Its not a horse" Here:
Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years
1.Hyracotherium
2.Orohippus
3.Mesohippus
4.Miohippus
5.Parahippus
6.Merychippus
7.Pliohippus
8.Dinohippus
9 Equus

Remember that "dog-sized" does not mean "dog." If you are looking for an animal that is half horse and half dog, you can forget it.

Hyracotherium itself was transitional to rhinos and tapirs, as well as horses. Hyracotherium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ah now that you provide names we can properly identify them as horses of various size. (horse like animals) (no dog there)(just a small pony size horse)

 

[MostlyLurking]

ah now that you provide names we can properly identify them as horses of various size. (horse like animals) (no dog there)(just a small pony size horse)

Translation please?

Anybody?

 

[createdtoworship]

Translation please?

Anybody?

we have a solar eclipse outside right now so I was in a hurry.

 

[good brother]

Just do a Google search for Is the Coelacanth an index fossil and you'll see no legitimate sources claiming it is or ever was an index fossil.

Your argument isn't as great as you think. You insist anyone believing the coelacanth was at one time an index fossil should do a "google search" to demonstrate it's not considered as such. The only problem is that the first live coelacanth was caught in 1938. The internet didn't come about until the mid 1990's. If one thinks that somebody would purposely input information about the coelacanth being an index fossil into a global computer database almost sixty years after it had been found living would be lunacy. Also, anyone who claimed that it once was considered an index fossil you dismiss as not being "legitimate".

The proper thing to do would be to find a book (one of those things with paper pages and real ink which users can't edit it at any given moment) dated to prior to 1938 that dealt with index fossils. That would be the proper way to uncover such an idea.

I must put my son to bed and get to bed myself. Good night and God bless.

In Christ, GB

 

[USincognito]

Ken Ham is an idiot.

straw man if I ever seen one.

As if we didn't have more than enough evidence that it's long past time to stop taking you seriously, the fact that you don't know the difference between an ad hominem* and a straw man seals the deal.

I've just been blown away by the stuff Creationists have been posting recently. Seriously, it's things that any self-respecting science advocate - religious or irreligious - would simply be embarassed to post. I mean we all make typos, phrase things inelegantly or forget subjects we've discussed years earlier, but it seems to be Creationist MO to never admit they were wrong after posting debunked arguments, act as if "questions" they ask have never been answered - even if they were answered by multiple people in the previous 24-48 hours and make "arguments" that read like mental patients who are off their meds.

What does that say about Creationism/ists and what does that say about societies in which their worldview has high percentages of acceptance?



*Split Rock's comment wasn't an ad hominem since Ken Ham really is an idiot.

 

[Split Rock]

ah now that you provide names we can properly identify them as horses of various size. (horse like animals) (no dog there)(just a small pony size horse)

The link had all the names... it was probably too much to expect you to read them yourself. So, they are all "horses of various sizes." Are you claiming that the evolution of a pony size animal with 4 toes, browsing teeth that cannot process grass, and an in inability to gallop, into a modern horse over several genera and many species, does not cover the definition of "transitional?" Even though they all represent different genera, which is specifically what you asked for?

 

[createdtoworship]

The link had all the names... it was probably too much to expect you to read them yourself. So, they are all "horses of various sizes." Are you claiming that the evolution of a pony size animal with 4 toes, browsing teeth that cannot process grass, and an in inability to gallop, into a modern horse over several genera and many species, does not cover the definition of "transitional?" Even though they all represent different genera, which is specifically what you asked for?

they put the names of the first animal in the second box and was overlooked. But if it's carnivorous then it's definitely not a horse. Obviously. But we do have various sizes of horses from the Clydesdales to the ponies COEXISTING! So evolution from smaller to greater has been a hoax. Sorry.

 

[createdtoworship]

*Split Rock's comment wasn't an ad hominem since Ken Ham really is an idiot.

wow, just wow

 

[Split Rock]

they put the names of the first animal in the second box and was overlooked. But if it's carnivorous then it's definitely not a horse. Obviously. But we do have various sizes of horses from the Clydesdales to the ponies COEXISTING! So evolution from smaller to greater has been a hoax. Sorry.

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?

 

[Metal Minister]

I'd say your letter reflects a near-zero knowledge of evolution, paleontology and biology. The grammar's mostly pretty good, though.

I've noticed this quote from alot of evolutionists...generally when they don't actually have any info to defend their "science"...the same "science" that now says the dinosaurs farted themselves into extinction...

 

[Metal Minister]

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?

The "horse evolution" was proven wrong over 50 years ago. If i could post links yet I would. This is a quote that shows how we can't even prove the origin of life in the lab, let alone with evidence from natural sources: Here is an "origin-of-life" researcher, biochemist David Deamer, who thought what he had made in the lab might work in the real world. In 2005 he poured a concoction of organic chemicals into a pool of hot water. He was just trying to make the walls of a cell, like the plastic case of a phone without the electronics inside. Did it work? Another "origin-of-life" researcher wrote about it: "The answer was a resounding no. The clays and metal ions present in the Siberian pool blocked the chemical interactions." "Deamer's demonstration that we cannot translate lab results to natural settings is valuable." "This provocative insight explains why the origin-of-life field has been short on progress over the past half-century". --Shapiro, Robert. 4 August 2011. Life's beginnings. Nature, Vol. 476, pp. 30-31.

 

[Split Rock]

The "horse evolution" was proven wrong over 50 years ago. If i could post links yet I would.

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/jksa.../Horse Evolution - Kathleen Hunt - secure.pdf

Here's another from the American Museum of Natural History: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/horse/?section=evolution&page=evolution

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

 

[TerraIncognita]

I've noticed this quote from alot of evolutionists...generally when they don't actually have any info to defend their "science"...the same "science" that now says the dinosaurs farted themselves into extinction...

Can you name one thing we know that didn't come from the scientific method?

 

[TerraIncognita]

BTW, whatever happened to the Alfred E. Neuman guy?

He was a hoot to read!

 

[SkyWriting]

Can you name one thing we know that didn't come from the scientific method?

- The scientific method requires review by peers.
1. Darwin did not publish in peer reviewed journals or seek approval from anybody before publishing.

2. "Democritus first suggested the existence of the atom but it took almost two millennia before the atom was placed on a solid foothold as a fundamental chemical object by John Dalton (1766-1844). Although two centuries old, Dalton's atomic theory remains valid in modern chemical thought."
Dalton's atomic theory

3,4. Aristotle, Ptolemy, and the Greek mathematician Euclid were all commented on by Alhazen born circa 965.

"The first of these experimental scientific methods was developed in Iraq by the Arab physicist and scientist, Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), who used experimentation and mathematics to obtain the results in his Book of Optics (1021)."History of scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Split Rock]

okay then have them breed and if they breed successfully with a hybrid then you can say that you have a hybrid between two genus.

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

But simply showing a list of several different animals is not enough. obviously.

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