 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / February 2004Eohippus
It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia states: "Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development." Illustrations of this begin with a very small animal and end with the large horse of today. But does the fossil evidence really support this? The Encyclopædia Britannica comments: "The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line." In other words, nowhere does the fossil evidence show a gradual development from the small animal to the large horse. Evolutionist Hitching says of this foremost evolutionary model: "Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at alla shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush." Placing little Eohippus as the ancestor of the horse strains the imagination, especially in view of what The New Evolutionary Timetable says: "It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal." But do the facts support this assumption? "The fossil species of [Eohippus] show little evidence of evolutionary modification," answers the book. It thus concedes, regarding the fossil record: "It fails to document the full history of the horse family." So, some scientists now say that little Eohippus never was a type of horse or an ancestor of one. And each type of fossil put into the horse line showed remarkable stability, with no transitional forms between it and others that were thought to be evolutionary ancestors. Nor should it be surprising that there are fossils of horses of different sizes and shapes. Even today, horses vary from very small ponies to large plow horses. All are varieties within the horse family. > It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of > evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > evidence show a gradual development from the small animal to the large > horse. Evolutionist Hitching says Is Hitching a scientist? I thought not. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html <snip everything according to Hitching> >> It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of >> evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ><snip everything according to Hitching> It's telling that Jabriol cites his sources as 'evolutionists', a near-meaningless term if ever there was one, rather than 'biologists', 'ecologists', 'palaeontologists' etc. By this labelling, 'Mining Pioneer' is an evolutionist, but he's also undeniably a crackpot and a seemingly dim and uninformed one at that. As for the 'never in a straight line' comment, this does nothing to suggest a lack of evolution, merely a more complex evolutionary tree as we see for a lot of groups rather than a straight progression from one form to another. Recent early hominid discoveries, for instance, suggest a more complex family tree than was once supposed, but no biologist studying them has suggested that evolution wasn't taking place. Another thing that's telling is Jabriol's consistently selective 'evidence', ignoring data from such sources as genetics, biology of living animals and observations of selective processes at work in the wild in favour of a fossil record widely acknowledged to be incomplete - although as others have pointed out many of Jabriol's examples even here don't withstand close scrutiny. It's hard to credit his denial that he's a 'fundy creationist' based on his clear determination to ignore both evidence and scientific practice (calling hypotheses and tested theories 'assumptions', treating examples of structural differences in isolation from other lines of enquiry, among them the great structural similarities between related animals and the fewer these similarities become the more distantly related two species seem to be - a pattern highly suggestive of evolutionary change). One thing in particular he seemingly fails to realise is that paleontology is not the be-all and end-all of scientific enquiry in this field; any lack of transitional fossils, were it to exist, would pose a puzzle for evolutionary biologists but the evidence from other fields is overwhelmingly in favour of evolution through natural selection - so the challenge is to determine why these fossils are rare within an evolutionary framework, not to replace evolution with something else. That would just trade a minor puzzle into a major problem explaining the structural, behavioural, biochemical and genetic similarities between species and the way they're reflected in geographical or ecological separation. Philip Bowles > >> It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of > >> evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Philip Bowles Good response, Phil. I wholeheartedly agree with you. > > It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of > > evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > <snip everything according to Hitching> t.o faqs are not peered review... so lets ignore hitichings, what about the other quotes? or are you homming on hitchings to invalidate the entire post... that would be misleading. but then again, is that not the way evolution is taught in the public school system... ???? misleading kids... >> Is Hitching a scientist? I thought not. > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html ===================== Jabriol's religious affiliation with the Jehovah's Witnesses teaches him to discredit evolution any way he can. The Watchtower itself publishes anyone's "babbling" who is anti-evolution, claiming the person to be some kind of an expert. The JWs are not allowed to follow up and check out anything the WTS publishes for truthfulness or correctness. None of them does any serious (using non-WTS publications) research, including Jabriol. None of the writers for the Watchtower are experts, scientists, biologists or anything making them qualified in any way to write about evolution. They all believe in a magical creation by their god. -- Carol.... "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -= Isaac Asimov =- =========================================== >> It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of >> evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Is Hitching a scientist? I thought not. > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html I see evolutionists have ways to explain away everything.  Signature€ >>> It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of >>> evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >I see evolutionists have ways to explain away everything. And god's robots DON'T ?!?! You made me spray a mouthful of tea over the screen with that super ironic statement! > >> It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of > >> evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I see evolutionists have ways to explain away everything. To quote creationist Kent Hovind, "The 'Eohippus' is nothing more than the South American hyrax." (The hyrax is found in Africa.) > >> It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of > >> evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I see evolutionists have ways to explain away everything. Its always fairly easy to refute creationist claims. A little research always shows they are contradicted by the facts. > It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of > evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > evidence show a gradual development from the small animal to the large > horse. Evolutionist Hitching Oh no you don't. Hitching is *not* any form of scientist. He is a muckraking former journalist turned nutcase. We caught you in another lie Jabberhole. They're piling up, you know. How do you expect to square this with your wrathful God? Frank says of this foremost evolutionary model: > "Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that > accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > ponies to large plow horses. All are varieties within the horse > family. > > It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of > > evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > We caught you in another lie Jabberhole. They're piling up, you know. How do > you expect to square this with your wrathful God? where is the Lie Frank???? I called Hitching a evolutionist. I did not call him a scientist. He is also an Author, he wrote a book on the subject... and people are quoting from his book.. he is just one refreance that I use. I do not see you comment about the other sources and quote I put out.. you are being misleading and dishonest. note to Mr Bowles: I am not a creationist, nor fundy... If that was the case, they would be participating in these threads, I don't think creationist are well verse in science. my poor grammar skills are due to english not being my first language... > > > It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of > > > evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > where is the Lie Frank???? I called Hitching a evolutionist. Evolutionist is a contraction for "evolutionary biologist" dipwad. I did not > call him a scientist. He is also an Author, he wrote a book on the > subject... and people are quoting from his book.. Including liars like you. he is just one > refreance that I use. To spread your lies. > I do not see you comment about the other sources and quote I put out.. > you are being misleading and dishonest. Why would I? He is not a credible source. > note to Mr Bowles: I am not a creationist, nor fundy... Then you are simply a lunatic with a lot of time on your hands. If that was > the case, they would be participating in these threads, I don't think > creationist are well verse in science. Really? > my poor grammar skills are due to english not being my first > language.. We understand. There is also the problem of a deficiency of cerebral cortex. Frank > > "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesuvius@speakeasy.net> wrote in message > news:<LamdnWw--81KQeyiRVn-uw@speakeasy.net>... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Evolutionist is a contraction for "evolutionary biologist" dipwad. I am sure that many here would disagree with you. http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/ev/evolutionist162199.html Evolutionist (n.) One skilled in evolutions. (n.) one who holds the doctrine of evolution, either in biology or in metaphysics http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/evolutionist \Ev`o*lu"tion*ist\, n. 1. One skilled in evolutions. 2. one who holds the doctrine of evolution, either in biology or in metaphysics. --Darwin. http://www.books.md/E/dic/evolutionist.php 1. One skilled in evolutions. 2. One who holds the doctrine of evolution, either in biology or in metaphysics. Source: Websters Dictionary Well it seems that various dictionaries disagree with you as well. you just made yourself look like a fool in front of millions. > I did not > > call him a scientist. He is also an Author, he wrote a book on the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > To spread your lies. what lies are you talking about? it clear that you can not even define what is an evolutionist. Snip with the rest................. you dont know what being discussed here. > > > "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesuvius@speakeasy.net> wrote in message > > news:<LamdnWw--81KQeyiRVn-uw@speakeasy.net>... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > > evidence show a gradual development from the small animal to the large > > > > > horse. Evolutionist Hitching <snip>> > > > I did not > > > call him a scientist. He is also an Author, he wrote a book on the > > > subject... and people are quoting from his book. Hitchings has no scientific qualifications. In addition, his opinions are unsupported by the evidence. Please refer to experts in the field for more information. National Academy of Sciences http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/ > "Frank Reichenbacher" <frank@bio-con.com> wrote in message news:<HqucnZF3qNEBz--iXTWc- <snip> Evolutionist is a contraction for "evolutionary biologist" dipwad. *And* Hitchings has no scientific qualifications. His opinion is of no merit. Frank <snip> >note to Mr Bowles: I am not a creationist, nor fundy... If that was >the case, they would be participating in these threads, I don't think >creationist are well verse in science. This is true, but how is a 'non-evolutionist' who refuses to accept or understand the implications of the science he *does* know any different? >my poor grammar skills are due to english not being my first >language... I never commented on your grammatical skills one way or the other. Philip Bowles > >note to Mr Bowles: I am not a creationist, nor fundy... If that was > >the case, they would be participating in these threads, I don't think > >creationist are well verse in science. > > This is true, but how is a 'non-evolutionist' who refuses to accept or > understand the implications of the science he *does* know any different? that is a good question. I know evolution per modern terminology works. would that make me an evolutionist? with the varied defintion of what a evolutionist is suppose to be? > note to Mr Bowles: I am not a creationist, nor fundy... ============================= ** What BS! You're a fundamentalist Jehovah's Witness and do indeed believe in a magical creation by your special god called Jehovah. All JWs must believe in a creation. You have no choice. SignatureMiKrobez...... (Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell) ====================================================><> "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesuvius@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:LamdnWw--81KQeyiRVn- > Oh no you don't. Hitching is *not* any form of scientist. He is a muckraking > former journalist turned nutcase. > > We caught you in another lie Jabberhole. They're piling up, you know. How do > you expect to square this with your wrathful God? ========================== According to the JWs lying in the name of their god is OK. They don't feel that swine (non Jehovah's Witnesses) deserve the truth. They have strange beliefs. When caught Jabriol in another one of his "lies" he simply claims his posts are FORGERIES done by people who hate JWs. He takes no responsibility, in the name of his god, for his past posts, lies etc. SignatureMiKrobez...... (Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell) ====================================================><> > It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of > evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia > states: "Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary > development." Illustrations of this begin with a very small animal and > end with the large horse of today. But does the fossil evidence really > support this? ** This STINKS of the Watchtower magazines. > The Encyclopædia Britannica comments: "The evolution of the horse was > never in a straight line." In other words, nowhere does the fossil > evidence show a gradual development from the small animal to the large > horse. ** Have you looked yourself? This info is what the Jehovah's Witnesses magazines and books publish. Evolutionist Hitching says of this foremost evolutionary model: > "Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that > accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith > than rational choice. ** And a magical fantastical "creation" is relational? How about a SEEDING? Is that rational? Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and > said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through > fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all-a shy, > fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush." ** YAwn........ :-O > Placing little Eohippus as the ancestor of the horse strains the > imagination, especially in view of what The New Evolutionary Timetable [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > concedes, regarding the fossil record: "It fails to document the full > history of the horse family." ** THIS is straight from the Jehovah's Witness books so I'll SNIP it off here...... SNIP! SignatureLenny LaRew.... "Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after death." Polybius -- Roman Historian ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ }<(((o> > It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of > evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia > states: "Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary > development." Illustrations of this begin with a very small animal and > end with the large horse of today. But does the fossil evidence really > support this? Yes. > The Encyclopædia Britannica comments: "The evolution of the horse was > never in a straight line." In other words, nowhere does the fossil > evidence show a gradual development from the small animal to the large > horse. Learn a little about cladograms before making a fool of yourself - again. -- Chris > > It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of > > evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Learn a little about cladograms before making a fool of yourself - again. But making a fool of himself is the only thing Jabbers is good at. > -- > Chris > > It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of > > evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Learn a little about cladograms before making a fool of yourself - again. using a cladogram is not evidence of horse evolution, nor evidence of transitionals.. take it up with Britannica. > > > It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of > > > evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > take it up with Britannica. The Encyclopædia Britannica comments: "The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line." So from your own source, horse evolution is a fact and it didn't occur in a simple straight line. Fine. Evolution is rarely in a straight line as it is essentially an undirected change. Oh yes Jabriol, you can't even get the name of the organism right. Why then should anyone believe a word you say? > It has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of > evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia > states: "Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary > development." Illustrations of this begin with a very small animal and > end with the large horse of today. But does the fossil evidence really > support this? Actually, the equine progression isn't used primarily to illustrate increase in size, but the developement of the hoof. It's a common tactic of people who attack evolution, to mislead people as to the point of a quoted example. The fossil evidence clearly shows the developement of the hoof, from Hyracotherium's toed feet(3 rear and 4 front) to the modern hoof by gradual changes. > The Encyclopædia Britannica comments: "The evolution of the horse was > never in a straight line." In other words, nowhere does the fossil > evidence show a gradual development from the small animal to the large > horse. The line from the Britannica does not mean what you say it does, it only says that the road was winding, not that it is broken. Even if it did, this doesn't invalidate the example, because it clearly shows that evolution can develop the hoof from toed feet by gradual change. Frankly, I'd be less happy with a straight line developement than a more convoluted one, because that would imply foresight and that is a big no no in evolutionary circles. > Evolutionist Hitching ... daman that darts about in the African bush." Francis Hitchings is a charlatan and a fool. He believes in pyramid power, so don't waste my time! > Placing little Eohippus as the ancestor of the horse strains the > imagination, especially in view of what The New Evolutionary Timetable [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > concedes, regarding the fossil record: "It fails to document the full > history of the horse family." So? Nobody expects the fossil record to fully document any history of any family, because fossil formation is very rare. Nonetheless, a progression can clearly be seen and what's more it's concurrent with the emergence of the grasses. Furthermore, The New Evolutionary Timetable is hardly uncontroversial, given that it advocates punctuated equalibrium. I also question the understanding of anyone who would use the word persistently in an evolutionary context, because as I pointed out earlier, that would imply foresight. > So, some scientists now say that little Eohippus never was a type of > horse or an ancestor of one. The line Hyracotherium through to Equs shows gradual developement not only in terms of size, but of the developement of the teeth and the hoof. Perhaps you could give us the names of these 'some scientists' you mention, because to me the evidence not not only abundant, but beautifully clear. > And each type of fossil put into the > horse line showed remarkable stability, with no transitional forms > between it and others that were thought to be evolutionary ancestors. This is foolish, because each of the fossil examples you mention _is_ a transitional form; that is why it was quoted in the first place. > Nor should it be surprising that there are fossils of horses of > different sizes and shapes. Even today, horses vary from very small > ponies to large plow horses. All are varieties within the horse > family. You're being either foolish or dishonest, because all of today's small horses are domesticated and were bred for uses like mining. In the wild, the size of adult horses varies a lot less and is consistent with the evolutionary picture. You only have to look at dogs in comparison with wolves to see how variation under domestication is exagerated. Show me a wild adult horse the size of a german shepherd and your point would stand. Not only is the devepement of the horse well documented, but it is part of a larger, well documented picture (The Perissodactyls - 'odd toed' ungulates), which also account for tapirs and rhinoceroses. Your objections to evolution are unconvincing and frankly, tired. You and others like you could at least do us the courtesy of revising your objections in the light of the evidence we give you in response. (-: Ian :-) > Oh yes Jabriol, you can't even get the name of the organism right. Why > then should anyone believe a word you say? people would not belive you neither, I did not get anything wrong: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/horse/Eohippuscoloring.shtml Eohippus (Hyracotherium) Eohippus (meaning "dawn horse") was the earliest-known horse - it was the size of a tiny dog. Another name for this genus is Hyracotherium (meaning "mole beast"). Anatomy: Eohippus (Hyracotherium) was only 2 feet (60 cm) long and 8 to 9 inches (20 cm) high at the shoulder. --------------------------------------SNIP-------------------------- > > Oh yes Jabriol, you can't even get the name of the organism right. Why > > then should anyone believe a word you say? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Anatomy: Eohippus (Hyracotherium) was only 2 feet (60 cm) long and 8 > to 9 inches (20 cm) high at the shoulder. Well of course, I bow to your childrens' website. After all, all I did was refer to two seperate books on fossils: The Cambridge Guide to Prehistoric Life (ISBN:0-521-31299-X) and The Encyclapedia of Prehistoric Life (ISBN:0-07-060920-9) Also, if you consult Stephen Jay Gould's essay Life's Little Joke in the book Bully for Brontosaurus, the whole situation is explained - assuming the opinion of one of the world's foremost paleontologists can be allowed to stand above a kiddies' website. Now, a question: What about the rest of my post, or is that the best you can do? (-: Ian :-) > > > Oh yes Jabriol, you can't even get the name of the organism right. Why > > > then should anyone believe a word you say? > > > > people would not belive you neither, I did not get anything wrong: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/horse/Eohippuscoloring.sht ml > > Eohippus (Hyracotherium) > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Prehistoric Life (ISBN:0-521-31299-X) and The Encyclapedia of > Prehistoric Life (ISBN:0-07-060920-9) So, what is taught to children is incorrect.. got it. > > Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message > news:<d222de3e.0309260930.1c7b2d86@posting.google.com>... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > So, what is taught to children is incorrect.. got it. Not in essence, no. Horses did evolve from creatures including Hyracotherium, as is shown by the evidence I've already pointed out to you. Now, as I invited you before: What about the rest of my post? (-: Ian :-) >So, what is taught to children is incorrect.. got it. What is taught to children is always, of necessity, incomplete. Signature"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims (random sig, produced by SigChanger) rukbat at optonline dot net <snip> *sigh* Gotta love the way they just watch like *hawks* for any revision (a natural and indeed essential process in any true scientific discipline) of evolutionary theory and jump on it like pigs on a bucket of slops as *proof positive* that the theory is false... If they applied the same criteria to the rest of science, we would have no science left. (I don't know whether Eohippus has been shown to not be the ancestor of the modern horse or not, but it doesn't matter) SignatureMekkala, Atheist #2148 "When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself!" --Peter O'Toole. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.