My Theory

[Mistermystery]

Oh, we appreciate all the work that evolutionists put into gathering all of those fossils and other data from the natural world. We just do not pay all that much attention to their opinions about what they find.

You might not pay attention, but then again, we allready had established that you only read 10% of every message, so it doesn't really matter much.

Their hard work will not be in vain, someday it will all be used in a way that will bring honor and glory to God. There is just this little matter of the apostasy that we need to get though and deal with first.

zzzzzzz Borrrringggggg.

Try not to get caught blah blah blah

I was refering to your thread about horses you made several months ago and not your expression skills. We have, in that thread, been over the fact that this "line v.s. branch" theory was abandoned almost a centuary ago, and this is simply an adaption because we found more data.

THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS. You look at the data, you look what your creator (or whatever you believe in) did, and you draw conclusions out of that. Science tries to explain the how, not the why or who.

 

[Hydra009]

Oh, we appreciate all the work that evolutionists put into gathering all of those fossils and other data from the natural world. We just do not pay all that much attention to their opinions about what they find.

Their hard work will not be in vain, someday it will all be used in a way that will bring honor and glory to God. There is just this little matter of the apostasy that we need to get though and deal with first.[/font]

No, John. Scientists have gathered those fossils and other data from the natural world in order to figure out the truth of our planet's history. Their findings are not compatible with creationism.

Their hard work will not be in vain, someday it will all be used in a way that will bring honor and glory to God.

According to TE, it already does.

 

[michabo]

Evolutionists do not seem to care that their theory on the evolution of horses was falsified. They just came up with a new theory.
Evolution is no longer like a tree, it is now like a bush.

AFAIK, it was always a bush.

But you bring up a good point, that the two most iconic representations of evolution are actually among the least representative. Human and horse evolution are both shown as a line or a chain which is simply not how evolution works in general. And ironically, it isn't even how evolution works in these particular cases as both humans and horses have branches (though many of our branches went extinct).

 

[Mistermystery]

AFAIK, it was always a bush.

?? Explain. I always thought it used to be a line or something like that? And how could it be without extra fossils finds?

 

[JohnR7]

You might not pay attention, but then again, we allready had established that you only read 10% of every message, so it doesn't really matter much.

zzzzzzz Borrrringggggg.

Close but no cigar. I read about 10% of the messages. If they are conceise, I often read all of the message. But when the message goes on and on, I figure the person has not thought his topic all the way though, to condence it.

 

[michabo]

?? Explain. I always thought it used to be a line or something like that? And how could it be without extra fossils finds?

John says that evolution had to change from a line to a bush/tree, when it has always been a bush. Some species may be linear for a spell, but these are exceptions. To discover offshots does not, as John implied, mean that evolution had to be drastically reworked.

 

[Mistermystery]

John says that evolution had to change from a line to a bush/tree, when it has always been a bush. Some species may be linear for a spell, but these are exceptions. To discover offshots does not, as John implied, mean that evolution had to be drastically reworked.

OH well, geuss I was wrong then. Thanks for explaining.

 

[Jet Black]

Close but no cigar. I read about 10% of the messages. If they are conceise, I often read all of the message. But when the message goes on and on, I figure the person has not thought his topic all the way though, to condence it.

maybe you need to read more. some things are complex.

(now the question is how do you read 0.2 of the letter e?)

 

[Split Rock]

I would not consider a bush with one surviving twig something that is working, I would consider that to be contrary to nature. I should go out back with my clippers and trim a bush to look like the "bush" of evolution, so you can see just how unnatural your theory really is.

There is nothing "unnatural" about extinction. The VAST MAJORITY of species that existed on this planet are now extinct. The fossil record makes this abundantly clear. You yourself have claimed that there was a mass extinction following the last ice age, that somehow lead to the world of today starting with Adam. Why is it that you keep contradicting yourself?

 

[lucaspa]

Lets assume for a second that no prehistoric life ever lived.

But we can't assume that. How do you explain fossils?

Second the animal life that we have now on earth lived some 6-4 million years ago, then just died out a few thousand years ago. But they never evolved, just stayed as they are. Next modern man shows up and we get to the present day. It is my belief that the theory of evolution would be as it is now

Uh, NO! if the species never evolved, then how do you possibly think evolution would be as it is now?

 

[lucaspa]

Close but no cigar. I read about 10% of the messages. If they are conceise, I often read all of the message. But when the message goes on and on, I figure the person has not thought his topic all the way though, to condence it.

Which explains why you don't seem to know much about evolution. Tell me, John, the Bible runs on for 66 books. Did you read all of it?

 

[lucaspa]

Which is why the theory does not work. If you arrange the fossils according to their age, they do not follow the predicted pattern.

JohnR7, we've been over this many, many times. And yet you keep repeating the same old refuted position. Now I understand your post about "peddling your lies like candy". It was projection again.

THe "predicted pattern" was a misunderstanding of evolution as a ladder. Darwin didn't explain it that way. Instead, evolution is a bush. See the diagram in Origin at http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th/origin6th_04.html

Now, what the fossils do is provide an unmistakeable linkage between creatures that did not look at all like a modern horse to the modern horse. That it is not a simple "progression" where each successive species is larger and has fewer toes fits the predicted pattern as Darwin saw it and evolution states. The horse series does falsify those who thought that evolution would be a steady "progression" toward a predetermined goal.

 

[lucaspa]

My point was simply this, If we dig up 4 types of horses million of years old that live today. We would see 4 different types of leg bones and we would say "see how they change" one would be smaller to the larger one. My point was this, Is it possible for perhistoric life to have lived as they where with out change. I say yes, we have many different types of horses today. So we had different types of the same animal back then without change. From the small pony to the hugh clydesdale horse

Ah, I see. The horses of the past were just variations within a species.

But it doesn't work because we are not dealing just with size. Also, the small pony and clydesdale may no longer be the same species today. It's our naming that hasn't caught up with biological reality.

But anyway, you are saying that the pony and clydesdale differe in proportion. That is, if you take the ratio of the humerus and femur of a clydesdale, they will be equal to those of a pony. But horses in the past differ by much more than proportion. Eohippus, for instance, had 5 equal length toes! Today's horses have only 1 toe, whether pony or clydesdale. Mesohippus had 3 equal length toes and two small toes. Again, unlike modern horses. The teeth differed just as dramatically.

 

[lucaspa]

http://www.southplainscollege.edu/behavior_sciences/images/farside_2.jpg

And what is your point here? Farside is talking about figuring out technology.

 

[lucaspa]

How do you explain Darwin's Finches, where the beaks seem to have changed.

John, what's your explaination for how this population evolved? How does it differ from Darwin's theory?

 

[lucaspa]

Modern day horses fossils where found with the same ones you just noted

Not that I have ever seen! Where is the data to back this statement?

 

[lucaspa]

2My Old & New World Equus \ | / \ | /4My Hippidion Equus Stylohipparion | | Neohipparion Hipparion Cormohipparion | | Astrohippus | | | | | Pliohippus ---------------------------12My Dinohippus Calippus \ | / | | Pseudhipparion \ | / | | | | ------------------------------------------- Sinohippus15My \ | / | \ | / Megahippus |17My Merychippus | | | Anchitherium Hypohippus | | |23My Parahippus Anchitherium Archeohippus | | | (Kalobatippus?)-----------------------------------------25My \ | / \ | / |35My | Miohippus Mesohippus | |40My Mesohippus | | |45My Paleotherium | | Epihippus | | Propalaeotherium | Haplohippus | | |50My Pachynolophus | Orohippus | | | | | | ------------------------------ \ | / \ | /55My Hyracotherium

Drat, the chart didn't keep its form! you can see it here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html#part2

Now, according to this summary chart, Equus was not around when Mesohippus was. And certainly not present when Hyracatherium was alive.In fact, except for the genus Hipidion, it looks like Equus was not found in strata with any of the orther genera listed here.

 

[Infinity]

And what is your point here? Farside is talking about figuring out technology.

http://www.evolution-facts.org/3evlch23.htm

 

[pureone]

http://www.evolution-facts.org/3evlch23.htm

Wow, talk about some ancient sources. Hey!-one actually from 1988. Good to see that Creationism tries to keep up to date with the latest publications.

 

[USincognito]

So we had different types of the same animal back then without change. From the small pony to the hugh clydesdale horse

You do realize that size isn't the only thing that differentiates between modern Equus and the previous species right?