Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cut to the chase: where have fossils demonstrated that one species changed into another?
Bet your reputation on that?
Oh...wait....you have no reputation.
The evolution of the horse.
Bet your reputation on that?
Oh...wait....you have no reputation.
The evolution of the horse.
The evolution of the horse is well documented. What isn't well documented is an alternative explanation as to where the modern horse came from.
If you have scientific evidence that the modern horse suddenly appeared on earth, fully formed and in its present state, as a species,
and that it has no ancestors, in fact, originally, doesn't even have parents,
then you should post it.
The evolution of the horse.
The evolution of the horse is well documented. What isn't well documented is an alternative explanation as to where the modern horse came from.
If you have scientific evidence that the modern horse suddenly appeared on earth, fully formed and in its present state, as a species,
and that it has no ancestors, in fact, originally, doesn't even have parents,
then you should post it.
"The evolution of the horse is well documented."
No it isn't.
This is one more fabrication that the ignorant accept.
Raise your hoof.
Let's see how difficult it is to destroy any idea that you have knowledge or cachet about this subject:
a. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29
b. The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.
Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science
c. There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:114, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122123, 203, 1951
d. First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
And here is Stephen Gould laughing at you:
'The model of the ladder is much more than
merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution progressive and triumphant-- for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote in
his essay "Life's Little Joke" which appears in Bully for Brontosaurus.
Do you understand yet????
It's a guess....a belief.
And you accept it on faith: the religion of Darwinism.
Hank Hanegraaff's book Fatal Flaws is an abbreviation of his earlier book The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution (Nashville: Word, 1998). For the most part, the book reiterates standard creationist arguments. Previous work by Hanegraaff's Christian Research Institute shows that he and his staff have little tolerance for hucksters and thieves in preachers' clothing (notice their exposés on Benny Hinn), which makes the mistakes and poor research in this book somewhat surprising. There is only room to discuss a few of the many errors in this book.
In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 229), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.
In contrast to the impression that Hanegraaff is trying to give, Raup is discussing how not whether evolutionary change has occurred. Raup clearly accepts evolution, but he is not convinced that the paleontological record supports Darwinian gradualism.
Hanegraaff proceeds to attack Archaeopteryx as a "false link between reptiles (such as dinosaurs) and birds" (p 178). He dismisses the reptilian features of Archaeopteryx with a reference to Duane Gish, who has neither formal training nor any record of serious field experience in paleontology. Unfortunately Hanegraaff's glib attitude toward the reptilian characteristics in the skull, vertebrae, ribs, tail and limbs of Archaeopteryx will not make them go away. Archaeopteryx also possesses some bird-like features, but these reptilian and bird-like features are found in the same fossil animal. If this does not make Archaeopteryx a transitional form linking reptiles and birds, then one is left to wonder what Hanegraaff considers a transitional creature.
The evolution of the horse.
The evolution of the horse is well documented. What isn't well documented is an alternative explanation as to where the modern horse came from.
If you have scientific evidence that the modern horse suddenly appeared on earth, fully formed and in its present state, as a species,
and that it has no ancestors, in fact, originally, doesn't even have parents,
then you should post it.
"The evolution of the horse is well documented."
No it isn't.
This is one more fabrication that the ignorant accept.
Raise your hoof.
Let's see how difficult it is to destroy any idea that you have knowledge or cachet about this subject:
a. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29
b. The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.
Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science
c. There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:114, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122123, 203, 1951
d. First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
And here is Stephen Gould laughing at you:
'The model of the ladder is much more than
merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution progressive and triumphant-- for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote in
his essay "Life's Little Joke" which appears in Bully for Brontosaurus.
Do you understand yet????
It's a guess....a belief.
And you accept it on faith: the religion of Darwinism.
The horse provides one of the best examples of evolutionary history (phylogeny) based on an almost complete fossil record found in North American sedimentary deposits from the early Eocene to the present.
The evidence of fossils, along with the study of horse embryos, indicates that the horse series is a genuine record of biological change over time. Evolutionary scientists point to this as evidence of Darwinian evolution. However, non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.
The evolution of the horse.
The evolution of the horse is well documented. What isn't well documented is an alternative explanation as to where the modern horse came from.
If you have scientific evidence that the modern horse suddenly appeared on earth, fully formed and in its present state, as a species,
and that it has no ancestors, in fact, originally, doesn't even have parents,
then you should post it.
"The evolution of the horse is well documented."
No it isn't.
This is one more fabrication that the ignorant accept.
Raise your hoof.
Let's see how difficult it is to destroy any idea that you have knowledge or cachet about this subject:
a. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29
b. The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.
Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science
c. There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:114, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122123, 203, 1951
d. First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
And here is Stephen Gould laughing at you:
'The model of the ladder is much more than
merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution progressive and triumphant-- for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote in
his essay "Life's Little Joke" which appears in Bully for Brontosaurus.
Do you understand yet????
It's a guess....a belief.
And you accept it on faith: the religion of Darwinism.
There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses.
Richard Dawkins gave an excellent lecture at the Kansas University's Hall Center for the Humanities on October 1 2006, discussing "The God Delusion". The full video can be watched at this link/ Since Dawkins is such an excellent communicator, I intend to provide some highlights of his talk on PandasThumb. Dawkins explains how creationists seem to be fond on gaps and take any opportunity to point to scientists admitting to such gaps. However, as Dawkins explained elsewhere as well, creationists seem to be fond of quote mining as well, even if it requires removing much of the argument.
I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history." Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader's appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore "gaps" in the fossil record.
The evolution of the horse.
The evolution of the horse is well documented. What isn't well documented is an alternative explanation as to where the modern horse came from.
If you have scientific evidence that the modern horse suddenly appeared on earth, fully formed and in its present state, as a species,
and that it has no ancestors, in fact, originally, doesn't even have parents,
then you should post it.
"The evolution of the horse is well documented."
No it isn't.
This is one more fabrication that the ignorant accept.
Raise your hoof.
Let's see how difficult it is to destroy any idea that you have knowledge or cachet about this subject:
a. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29
b. The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.
Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science
c. There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:114, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122123, 203, 1951
d. First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
And here is Stephen Gould laughing at you:
'The model of the ladder is much more than merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution progressive and triumphant-- for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote in
his essay "Life's Little Joke" which appears in Bully for Brontosaurus.
Do you understand yet????
It's a guess....a belief.
And you accept it on faith: the religion of Darwinism.
The evolution of the horse.
The evolution of the horse is well documented. What isn't well documented is an alternative explanation as to where the modern horse came from.
If you have scientific evidence that the modern horse suddenly appeared on earth, fully formed and in its present state, as a species,
and that it has no ancestors, in fact, originally, doesn't even have parents,
then you should post it.
"The evolution of the horse is well documented."
No it isn't.
This is one more fabrication that the ignorant accept.
Raise your hoof.
Let's see how difficult it is to destroy any idea that you have knowledge or cachet about this subject:
a. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29
b. The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.
Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science
c. There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:114, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122123, 203, 1951
d. First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
And here is Stephen Gould laughing at you:
'The model of the ladder is much more than
merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution progressive and triumphant-- for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote in
his essay "Life's Little Joke" which appears in Bully for Brontosaurus.
Do you understand yet????
It's a guess....a belief.
And you accept it on faith: the religion of Darwinism.
The evolution of the horse is well documented. What isn't well documented is an alternative explanation as to where the modern horse came from.
If you have scientific evidence that the modern horse suddenly appeared on earth, fully formed and in its present state, as a species,
and that it has no ancestors, in fact, originally, doesn't even have parents,
then you should post it.
"The evolution of the horse is well documented."
No it isn't.
This is one more fabrication that the ignorant accept.
Raise your hoof.
Let's see how difficult it is to destroy any idea that you have knowledge or cachet about this subject:
a. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29
b. The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.
Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science
c. There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:114, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122123, 203, 1951
d. First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
And here is Stephen Gould laughing at you:
'The model of the ladder is much more than
merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution progressive and triumphant-- for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote in
his essay "Life's Little Joke" which appears in Bully for Brontosaurus.
Do you understand yet????
It's a guess....a belief.
And you accept it on faith: the religion of Darwinism.
Well now, lets see how easy it is to debunk your boilerplate creationist lies, parsed, edited and phony quotes.
You have used this phony quote in at least 4 separate threads now, even after you have been presented with the data showing your lies and falsehoods.
Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE
Review: Fatal Flaws
Reports of the National Center for Science Education
Hank Hanegraaff's book Fatal Flaws is an abbreviation of his earlier book The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution (Nashville: Word, 1998). For the most part, the book reiterates standard creationist arguments. Previous work by Hanegraaff's Christian Research Institute shows that he and his staff have little tolerance for hucksters and thieves in preachers' clothing (notice their exposés on Benny Hinn), which makes the mistakes and poor research in this book somewhat surprising. There is only room to discuss a few of the many errors in this book.
In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 229), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.
In contrast to the impression that Hanegraaff is trying to give, Raup is discussing how not whether evolutionary change has occurred. Raup clearly accepts evolution, but he is not convinced that the paleontological record supports Darwinian gradualism.
Hanegraaff proceeds to attack Archaeopteryx as a "false link between reptiles (such as dinosaurs) and birds" (p 178). He dismisses the reptilian features of Archaeopteryx with a reference to Duane Gish, who has neither formal training nor any record of serious field experience in paleontology. Unfortunately Hanegraaff's glib attitude toward the reptilian characteristics in the skull, vertebrae, ribs, tail and limbs of Archaeopteryx will not make them go away. Archaeopteryx also possesses some bird-like features, but these reptilian and bird-like features are found in the same fossil animal. If this does not make Archaeopteryx a transitional form linking reptiles and birds, then one is left to wonder what Hanegraaff considers a transitional creature.
Pretty cool, eh? There's no faith requirement in science. It lives and breathes on facts.
On the other hand, creationists have no choice but to resort to lies and fraud, as you continually do, in order to press their agenda of falsehood.
The evolution of the horse is well documented. What isn't well documented is an alternative explanation as to where the modern horse came from.
If you have scientific evidence that the modern horse suddenly appeared on earth, fully formed and in its present state, as a species,
and that it has no ancestors, in fact, originally, doesn't even have parents,
then you should post it.
"The evolution of the horse is well documented."
No it isn't.
This is one more fabrication that the ignorant accept.
Raise your hoof.
Let's see how difficult it is to destroy any idea that you have knowledge or cachet about this subject:
a. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29
b. The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.
Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science
c. There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:114, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122123, 203, 1951
d. First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
And here is Stephen Gould laughing at you:
'The model of the ladder is much more than
merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution progressive and triumphant-- for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote in
his essay "Life's Little Joke" which appears in Bully for Brontosaurus.
Do you understand yet????
It's a guess....a belief.
And you accept it on faith: the religion of Darwinism.
Let me quote directly from your tedious distractions:
We now know of many other branches of horse evolution.
Your own post concedes that the horse did in fact evolve. lol, go argue with yourself.
"The evolution of the horse is well documented."
No it isn't.
This is one more fabrication that the ignorant accept.
Raise your hoof.
Let's see how difficult it is to destroy any idea that you have knowledge or cachet about this subject:
a. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29
b. The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.
Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science
c. There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:114, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122123, 203, 1951
d. First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
And here is Stephen Gould laughing at you:
'The model of the ladder is much more than
merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution progressive and triumphant-- for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote in
his essay "Life's Little Joke" which appears in Bully for Brontosaurus.
Do you understand yet????
It's a guess....a belief.
And you accept it on faith: the religion of Darwinism.
Let me quote directly from your tedious distractions:
We now know of many other branches of horse evolution.
Your own post concedes that the horse did in fact evolve. lol, go argue with yourself.
I've learned not to expect honesty in any form from you.
And....once again......you prove same.
You: "The evolution of the horse is well documented."
Me: No it isn't.
First....clearly, it is not well documented.
Three is no fossil trail such that boneheads like you claim as the path of evolution.
What there are are numerous DIFFERENT specimens that one or another 'scientists' claim to be horses.
Over and over the literature speaks thusly: "The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete."
"....many other branches..."
So, you lying sack of offal....there is no documentation such as Darwin predicted.
Is it possible that 'evolution' is less a scientific concept than a political one?
Modern advances in genetic engineering make it hard, near impossible, to accept the notion that cells mutate and evolve into different and better organisms, thus knocking the props out from under the theory of evolution
Generically altered cells have a built in failsafe system that keep them from changing and revert them back to their original use.
"The green cells are those which have been reprogrammed and are on the way to becoming iPS cells. The red cells are those where reprogramming has been initiated but which are now reverting to their pre-reprogramming state. Blue cells are those where the reversion process is further advanced. "
Research Activities | 2013 | News | Newsroom | CiRA | Center for iPS Cell Research and Application, Kyoto University
Why mess with perfection?
Modern advances in genetic engineering make it hard, near impossible, to accept the notion that cells mutate and evolve into different and better organisms, thus knocking the props out from under the theory of evolution
Generically altered cells have a built in failsafe system that keep them from changing and revert them back to their original use.
"The green cells are those which have been reprogrammed and are on the way to becoming iPS cells. The red cells are those where reprogramming has been initiated but which are now reverting to their pre-reprogramming state. Blue cells are those where the reversion process is further advanced. "
Research Activities | 2013 | News | Newsroom | CiRA | Center for iPS Cell Research and Application, Kyoto University
Why mess with perfection?
Modern advances in genetic engineering make it hard, near impossible, to accept the notion that cells mutate and evolve into different and better organisms, thus knocking the props out from under the theory of evolution
Generically altered cells have a built in failsafe system that keep them from changing and revert them back to their original use.
"The green cells are those which have been reprogrammed and are on the way to becoming iPS cells. The red cells are those where reprogramming has been initiated but which are now reverting to their pre-reprogramming state. Blue cells are those where the reversion process is further advanced. "
Research Activities | 2013 | News | Newsroom | CiRA | Center for iPS Cell Research and Application, Kyoto University
Why mess with perfection?
I'm all for challenging scientific theories and ideas, always and always and always.
But when the alleged 'challenge' comes in the form of intelligent design, I know the person isn't serious about challenging the science at all and for them, it's all about religion and politics.
Modern advances in genetic engineering make it hard, near impossible, to accept the notion that cells mutate and evolve into different and better organisms, thus knocking the props out from under the theory of evolution
Generically altered cells have a built in failsafe system that keep them from changing and revert them back to their original use.
"The green cells are those which have been reprogrammed and are on the way to becoming iPS cells. The red cells are those where reprogramming has been initiated but which are now reverting to their pre-reprogramming state. Blue cells are those where the reversion process is further advanced. "
Research Activities | 2013 | News | Newsroom | CiRA | Center for iPS Cell Research and Application, Kyoto University
Why mess with perfection?
Downs
Modern advances in genetic engineering make it hard, near impossible, to accept the notion that cells mutate and evolve into different and better organisms, thus knocking the props out from under the theory of evolution
Generically altered cells have a built in failsafe system that keep them from changing and revert them back to their original use.
"The green cells are those which have been reprogrammed and are on the way to becoming iPS cells. The red cells are those where reprogramming has been initiated but which are now reverting to their pre-reprogramming state. Blue cells are those where the reversion process is further advanced. "
Research Activities | 2013 | News | Newsroom | CiRA | Center for iPS Cell Research and Application, Kyoto University
Why mess with perfection?
I'm all for challenging scientific theories and ideas, always and always and always.
But when the alleged 'challenge' comes in the form of intelligent design, I know the person isn't serious about challenging the science at all and for them, it's all about religion and politics.
As a theory, evolution is right around ManMade Global Warming and far, far short of the theory of Gravity or Relativity.
I think the as yet unidentified FailSafe mechanism built into cells is a major item that can't just be ignored because it rattles your faith in Darwin
Is it possible that 'evolution' is less a scientific concept than a political one?
It's only a 'political' concept to radical bible-thumpers and their water carriers.
The rest of the civilized world sees it as an amply supported scientific theory.
Is it possible that 'evolution' is less a scientific concept than a political one?
It's only a 'political' concept to radical bible-thumpers and their water carriers.
The rest of the civilized world sees it as an amply supported scientific theory.
Not so.
Pick up a book.
