Mark & Juanita writes:

... 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.

They exist. The Hyracotherium (eohippus).

It's a perfect example of "horse-like" things evolving into horses
over 55 million years.


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.

It was your example of "horse and cow" and I was pointing out
that these two creatures are NOT similar biologically.

For all I know, you expect to find a creature that cannot fly or
glide, but suddenly sprout wings and flap away.


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?

As I said - Hyracotherium (eohippis) IS a difference species than a horse.

Do you deny their fossil existance?


Several logical questions arise from these theories:

If we are going to be logical, can I assume you accept the logic of
the evolution of the horse?

If you are going to disprove evolution, you have to disprove EVERY
concept. Finding "flakes of paint" where we don't have God-like
knowledge does NOT invalidate the basic model. After all - it
accuratle predicts the types of fossiles we find. It works.


1) How did heterosexual organisms manage to evolve, particularly in the
change from one species to another?


I'm know little about these principles. I'm not a biologist or paleontology.

If you are SERIOUSLY interested in learning, you would ask them.
Perhaps it's better to ask questions of people who don;t know the
answer, when you don't want to hear the right answer.

But my inexpert guess is that as soon as random genetic variation
created an organism that was heterosexual, that organism gained a HUGE
advantage over the other organisms. Asexual reproduction never
introduces new genetic combinations, because the child's genes is a
subset of the patent's gene. Have two parents, and have every
male/female union provide a new combination of genetics, gives that
creature a HUGE advantage over every other creature. Genetically it
has a HUGE potential for diversity, and therefore is more likely to
survive.

It's a logical answer.

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?


Ah. you *DO* expect a creature to suddently sprout wings and fly away.

Dividing creates into "flying" and "not flying" is a very simplistic
view of the wonders of life on earth. There are thousands of variations.

Again - I'm not an expert, but there are an amazing variety of creates
that can GLIDE but not fly. Flying squirrels, sugar gliders, flying
fish, even snakes. I bet an expert can name a 100 different species
that can glide through the air.

Well, a creature that can glide farther, and longer, may use this to
survive as a species. If it can swoop down on prey, it can survive
better. If it can control direction, it can attack/flee better.
If it can lift itself up, even better.

All it takes is looking around this wonderful world to notice the
diversity of life.

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?

Go to http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/scripts/dbs/mammals_pub.asp and
discover them yourself. But somehow I suspect you don't really want to
find an answer.

Of course as I said - you can't just say you want to find a "half
horse/half cow" creature. Might as well look for a centaur, or a griffin.

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?

I simply don't understand your question.

ALL of those primitive mammals became extinct.

And if more than one existed (which is indeed likely) how does that
invalidate the concept of evolution, and the ability of the model to
predict new discoveries?

We don't have God-like knowledge. But God provides the evidence for us
to examine. To deny the facts that are before our face is to deny
God's plan for us to discover and explore our world.

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