Mark & Juanita wrote:
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.

You continue to confabulate comsmology with evolutionary biology
and continue to claim to not understand what has been explained you
in plain English.

You're not fooling anyone. You are going away becuase you have
nothing to offer. You have haven't even tried to show that
any part of any cosmology or any evolutionary theory is contrary
to logic or causality. You simply declared it so.

That may work fine for the 700 Club but it doesn't work when there
are people to answer you back.

--

FF



... but you said it yourself, they are all HORSE-LIKE things.

By which, as you know, he meant different species.

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.


He answered your question and you left the answer in your reply.
So will I.


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?

Don't you realize that you're not fooling anyone by pretending to not
understand?



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

Doh! They are found typing articles into UseNet too.


-- where are the steps between those
mammals and the ones of your primitive horses or cows?

Like he said, they're in the fossil record.

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?


Maybe, as an article of faith you do not believe that fossils
can be dated. Some of us (Anna Nicole Smith for instance) don't
share your faith.

--

FF