I'm done follwing this post. The amazing thing to me is that when one
points our logical inconsistencies in things that are accepted on faith
such as macro-evolutionary theory and big-bang non-causal cosmology, the
logical inconsistency for some reason doesn't register.
On 3 Oct 2005 18:44:56 GMT, Bruce Barnett
wrote:
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."
... but you said it yourself, they are all HORSE-LIKE things. What came
before the first horse-like thing? Where are the examples of those things
that moved from not-quite horse-like to horse-like? Those are the
"between-things" to which I refer.
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?"
I see hyperbole doesn't register with you. Fine, pick horse and worm,
pick cow and bird. The point is that there is strong evidence of the
change within various species, but a horse is still a horse, a cow is still
a cow, etc.. Where are the "links", those fossils that definitively point
to something that is moving from one species to another?
Several logical questions arise from these theories:
1) How did heterosexual organisms manage to evolve, particularly in the
change from one species to another?
2) How survivable was a "between-thing"? For example, one of those
between-things that was *almost* a bird -- it couldn't run fast and it
couldn't fly -- so how could enough of them survive long enough to evolve
into something good enough to survive?
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.
As I say, hyperbole didn't work. You indicate placental mammals have
been found in the fossil record -- where are the steps between those
mammals and the ones of your primitive horses or cows? How do you show
that those placental mammals were not simply species that for whatever
reason became extinct while other co-existing species became dominant?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+