Mark & Juanita writes:

The poster who argued that predictions
within the fossil record using the horse as an example serve to point that
out. The horse is still a horse and not a cow nor something between a
horse and a cow or between a piece of primordial slime and a horse. What
is lacking is the "between-things" that one would expect to see.

I'm still trying to comprehend this statement. In the single history
of "horse-like" things - there are hundreds of examples of
"between-things."

Do you NOT believe they exist?

Or do you have a concept of "between-things" as "things that there is
no fossil record for."

Or do you have a concept of a "between-thing" that shows a
relationship between two species where you define the species where
you expect to find a relationship between?

When you mention "horse and cow" - why do you mention these particular
species? Why not "horse and worm" or "cow and bird?"

Using http://tolweb.org/ we find ::
Horses are part of the odd-toed ungulates (Perissodactyla). Cows are
even-toed ungulates. (Artiodactyla)

Cows have more in common with whales than they do with horses, and
much more in common with creatures of category Ruminantia (deer,
goats, sheep, antelopes, etc.) i.e. animals that chew their cud.
There are more primitive cud-crewing animals that can be considered
common ancestors to cows and sheep.

To get a common horse/cow ancestor, you need to find primitive
placental mammals (Eutheria) because that's what horses and cows have
in common. And such creatures exist in the fossil record.

I get the impression you are looking for some sort of half and half
creature that is half horse and half cow, and if you can't find that
exact combination exactly as you expect, you discard the entire
concept.



--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.