Macro: Where is the Evidence ?

[GoSeminoles!]

Did Darwin actually think that the lack of intermediates was a silver bullet for his theory? Not at all. How about you start dealing with the full quote instead of the twisted, out of context quote that only a darkened hearted person would post.

Ed V. is only being true to his nature. Liars lie. Ed V. is a liar, so that is what he does.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ed V. is only being true to his nature. Liars lie. Ed V. is a liar, so that is what he does.

It's a little different than that. Ed V's faith does not allow him to agree to certain facts which leaves him with only one choice, telling half truths.

And his claims that Richard Milton is an atheist? So what. Milton believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old, amongst other cooky ideas. He's more "tin foil hat" than atheist.

 

[Ed Vidence]

I am responding to Loudmouth's post here:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17136151&postcount=101

Specifically, his claim that horses are evidence of macroevolution.

Where are the transitional fossils connecting Eohippus with Mesohippus ?

Or is it assumed ?

Where are the transitional fossils connecting ANY of the horse species in the image ?

Or is it assumed ?

Or should I say Darwinian faith operating in the gaps ?

The image shows the existence of different quadrupeds who have similarities - not evidence of relationship between them.

If the image is accurate showing straightline evolution, then why have horses grown shorter than before and why doesn't the image reflect this fact ?

What scientifically connects the species other than speculation ?

Ed Vidence

 

[MartinM]

The usual line. Show a creationist a transitional series, and they want the transitions between those transitionals.

 

[mikeynov]

The usual line. Show a creationist a transitional series, and they want the transitions between those transitionals.

It's a tried and true creationist tactic.

In all seriousness, it isn't very hard to understand.

Evolution would predict transitions between taxonomic groups in which one is held to be a descendent of another. The confirmation is finding specimens which represent the very definition of "transitional" - a mosaic of characteristics between the parent and daughter lineage. There's no "assumption" involved in that - it's simply consistent with the predictions of evolutionary theory in regards to a particular organism's ancestry, and hence, evidence for that claim.

The real problem, I think, is that creationists, on average, know nothing about science or what "evidence" is. "Evidence" to a creationist is usually "incontrovertible 'proof' that something is right at the exclusion of all other possible explanations."

 

[MartinM]

The real problem, I think, is that creationists, on average, know nothing about science or what "evidence" is. "Evidence" to a creationist is usually "incontrovertible 'proof' that something is right at the exclusion of all other possible explanations."

Yup. Inference is just something that happens to other people, it seems.

 

[random_guy]

\
Darwin doesnt speak anymore.
Ed

No, but he makes a lot of noise spinning in his grave.

 

[rjw]

I am responding to Loudmouth's post here:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17136151&postcount=101

Specifically, his claim that horses are evidence of macroevolution.

Where are the transitional fossils connecting Eohippus with Mesohippus ?

Or is it assumed ?

Where are the transitional fossils connecting ANY of the horse species in the image ?

Or is it assumed ?

Or should I say Darwinian faith operating in the gaps ?

The image shows the existence of different quadrupeds who have similarities - not evidence of relationship between them.

If the image is accurate showing straightline evolution, then why have horses grown shorter than before and why doesn't the image reflect this fact ?

What scientifically connects the species other than speculation ?

Ed Vidence

Gidday Evidence,

Where are the transitional fossils connecting Eohippus with Mesohippus ?

There is only one discovered and purported transitional - Orohippus. I say “purported” because it cannot be said that Orohippus necessarily connects Eohippus with Mesohippus. All that can be said is that it shares features with both.

Perhaps there are other fragments of bone which cannot be categorized as yet, but which may connect the fossils.

That there are further transitionals is a prediction of ToE. As such it tells us what to look for and where to look. What to look for are bones that share characteristics of both preceding and later animals. Where to look is in geological strata that fit the right period.

Whether the transitionals can be found depends on several things:-

1) Their preservation. Examine the diagram Loudmouth presented and note the unconformities. You do understand the significance of these, don’t you? Furthermore, how many buffaloes ever lived in the U.S? What do you think your chances are of just picking up a shovel, going into the country side, digging then finding a buffalo skeleton? Not likely I would say, yet an accumulated number of billions of them inhabited the US only “yesterday” – and their skeletons would have been unravaged by geological processes.

2) People looking in the right place. Once we only had modern horses. Then, around the late 1830s we had Eohippus. Now we have the range displayed in Loudmouth’s post. IOW, it takes time to do this.

Or is it assumed ?

Those transitionals are predictions of the theory. The existing transitionals are evidence for the viability of the theory as it now stands.

Where are the transitional fossils connecting ANY of the horse species in the image ?

Or is it assumed ?

See above.

Or should I say Darwinian faith operating in the gaps ?

No. The “Darwinian faith” explains the pattern and predicts that further transitionals will be found, providing geology has been kind. Geology tells us where to look and at what period. It tells us why we may or may not be successful.

Do you call all scientific theories “faiths” – or only those you dislike? If you called all theories “faith” then you would be consistent. However, (I suspect that) you pick and choose just what you do decide as “faith” hence at least you are not consistent.

The image shows the existence of different quadrupeds who have similarities - not evidence of relationship between them.

On what grounds do you make this claim?

If the image is accurate showing straightline evolution, then why have horses grown shorter than before and why doesn't the image reflect this fact ?

Who said that the image was meant to be an accurate portrayal of the nature of evolution (e.g. straight line vs branching, gradual vs punctuated)?

What scientifically connects the species other than speculation ?

Observation and theory. These fossils fit into the universal phylogenetic tree which itself has been constructed from many and independent sets of data. A universal phylogenetic tree is one outcome of common descent with modification.



Regards, Roland

 

[Loudmouth]

Where are the transitional fossils connecting Eohippus with Mesohippus ?

Or is it assumed ?

Where is Eohippus on the diagram? I'm not seeing it.

Where are the transitional fossils connecting ANY of the horse species in the image ?

Or is it assumed ?

So you concede that:
1. Orohippus is a transitional between Hyracotherium and Mesohippus
2. Mesohippus is transtional between Orohippus and Miohippus
3. Miohippus is transtional between Mesohippus and Parahippus
. . . . need I go on?

I list transtionals that you claim don't exist. Your response? There has to be more transitionals. Not exactly the response I would expect from someone claiming that there are no transitionals to begin with.

Or should I say Darwinian faith operating in the gaps ?

You mean such as the gaps filled by Miohippus, etc.? The gaps are being filled by fossils, not faith.

The image shows the existence of different quadrupeds who have similarities - not evidence of relationship between them.

Then why did you ask for fossils as evidence of macroevolution?

If the image is accurate showing straightline evolution, then why have horses grown shorter than before and why doesn't the image reflect this fact ?

Evolution is not straightline because environmental changes are not straightline. Not really that hard to figure out.

What scientifically connects the species other than speculation ?

Ed Vidence

Shared morphology and their position in the fossil record, both of which fit perfectly into the predictions made by the theory of evolution.