Disproving Creation #62: Horses Evolved, Deal With it
Budikka666
The horse evolved. The evidence is unassailable, as creationists have
proven by their comprehensive inability to assail it scientifically!
Evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. If
creationists wish to refute this, then chanting "No it isn't" and
"Godidit" (as they undoubtedly will in response to this) doesn't cut
it.
Creationists need to quit griping and do the science to support their
claims. Not one single creationist has *ever* done this! Why is
that? First of all they have no science program to support their
claims, which is why they're in the embarrassing position of having to
point to creationist web sites and books instead of pointing to
published science papers.
If you ask them where the science papers are, they LIE that there are
some. We know that's a lie because they can never point to a
professional published science paper in a reputable science journal
which offers positive evidence in favor of a creation or which offers
any evidence at all with which to refute evolution.
The fact that they're reduced to LYING disproves creation in and of
itself. If they actually had any science supporting their cause,
they'd be publishing it.
Budikka
RogerN
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:33ce64f3-0de3-4aba...@w19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I heard from someone that seen the horse evolution in a museum, he counted
the vertebrae of each species shown, some had more, others had less. How do
they determine which ones are in the line? The coelacanth fish was thought
to have become extinct 65 million years ago until one was found in 1938 off
Africa's coast. It was in the evolutionary line from fish to land animals
and all of a sudden fishermen catch one and it's taken out of line. Seems
like they didn't have any real evidence that is should have been considered
a missing link in the first place. This has me curious how they know what
belongs in the horse line and what doesn't. Do vertebrae counts normally
vary up and down in the evolution of a species.
If frogs were extinct today and they found fossils of tadpoles 10 million
years old, found fossils of tadpoles with legs 8 million years old, and
found fossils of frogs with tadpole tails 6 million years old, then found
fossils of frogs without tails 5 million years old, would they think frog
evolution took 5 million years or could they tell the entire process was
part of every frogs life cycle?
RogerN
thomas p.
news:1_-dnSIUkMHB2i3R...@earthlink.com...
Roger demonstrates that he has no idea what evolution is.
Budikka666
On Oct 9, 5:43 am, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
By the order in the geologic strata - an ordering determined not by
evolutionists but by creationists - and by radiometric dating:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html
> The coelacanth fish was thought
> to have become extinct 65 million years ago until one was found in 1938 off
> Africa's coast. It was in the evolutionary line from fish to land animals
Even if that were the case, there is no reason why one species
necessarily becomes extinct for no other reason than that it gave rise
to a daughter species. This is yet another childishly ignorant
creationist lie (if it were not, they would actually present
scientific evidence supporting their claims instead of endless whining
about all the evidence for evolution.
> and all of a sudden fishermen catch one and it's taken out of line. Seems
> like they didn't have any real evidence that is should have been considered
> a missing link in the first place.
It never was.
> This has me curious how they know what
> belongs in the horse line and what doesn't. Do vertebrae counts normally
> vary up and down in the evolution of a species.
Is that seriously how you think evolutionary relationships are
determined, by counting vertebrae? If so, then you have a seriously
deficient understanding of the Theory of Evolution (as indeed do all
the creationists). You need educate yourself on the topic and quit
listening to anonymous "someones", because you're looking kinda silly
right now with these juvenile and ignorant creationist "challenges".
[Idiotic frog ramblings flushed where they belong]
So just what scientific qualifications, exactly, does this anonymous
"someone" actually have that equips them to be a knowledgeable critic
of horse evolution? That they simply don't like the truth?!
When you can support your claims with scientific evidence rather than
gossip, then you might be worthy of a respectful response. When you
can demonstrate that you have something better than a childish and
creationist-distorted grasp of what the Theory of Evolution is all
about, then you might be worthy of a respectful response, but ill-
informed anecdote isn't scientific evidence and the fact that you
appear not to know this means you're poorly educated on the topic,
period.
You might try educating yourself by reading about body plans: bodies
are segmented, even in humans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmentation_%28biology%29
It is, therefore, no big deal to add another segment containing
another vertebra. Snakes have taken this to extremes.
You might also try to grasp that the geologic column was established
by creationists, not by evolutionists, so if you're trying to argue
that fossils which are found in successively descending strata are not
older than those above them (assuming no local geologic distortion,
then you'll need to present the science, not childish gripes.
That clarify things for ya?
Budikka
RogerN
Personally I never understood that one species would have to become extinct
to evolve into another species. It would seem reasonable part of the
population could evolve to grow leggs and another part remain or evolve in
other directions.
>> and all of a sudden fishermen catch one and it's taken out of line.
>> Seems
>> like they didn't have any real evidence that is should have been
>> considered
>> a missing link in the first place.
>
> It never was.
>
>> This has me curious how they know what
>> belongs in the horse line and what doesn't. Do vertebrae counts normally
>> vary up and down in the evolution of a species.
>
> Is that seriously how you think evolutionary relationships are
> determined, by counting vertebrae? If so, then you have a seriously
> deficient understanding of the Theory of Evolution (as indeed do all
> the creationists). You need educate yourself on the topic and quit
> listening to anonymous "someones", because you're looking kinda silly
> right now with these juvenile and ignorant creationist "challenges".
>
> [Idiotic frog ramblings flushed where they belong]
>
> So just what scientific qualifications, exactly, does this anonymous
> "someone" actually have that equips them to be a knowledgeable critic
> of horse evolution? That they simply don't like the truth?!
No scientific qualifications that I know of, they just noticed that the
horse had so many vertebrae and the animals that the horse evolved from,
some had the same number, some had more, some had less. It just makes me
curious to know how they determine that this evolved into that which evolved
into something else.
> When you can support your claims with scientific evidence rather than
> gossip, then you might be worthy of a respectful response. When you
> can demonstrate that you have something better than a childish and
> creationist-distorted grasp of what the Theory of Evolution is all
> about, then you might be worthy of a respectful response, but ill-
> informed anecdote isn't scientific evidence and the fact that you
> appear not to know this means you're poorly educated on the topic,
> period.
I've put my efforts into learning about things that interest me and will be
the most beneficial, obviously evolution isn't among those things.
> You might try educating yourself by reading about body plans: bodies
> are segmented, even in humans:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmentation_%28biology%29
> It is, therefore, no big deal to add another segment containing
> another vertebra. Snakes have taken this to extremes.
>
> You might also try to grasp that the geologic column was established
> by creationists, not by evolutionists, so if you're trying to argue
> that fossils which are found in successively descending strata are not
> older than those above them (assuming no local geologic distortion,
> then you'll need to present the science, not childish gripes.
>
> That clarify things for ya?
>
> Budikka
Sort of, I understand segments can added and evidently taken away, but I
still don't understand what determines what evolved into what without
perhaps studying the DNA.
Thanks!
RogerN
thomas p.
>
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:66e8d06c-c14e-43da...@g18g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>> Disproving Creation #62: Horses Evolved, Deal With it
>> When you can support your claims with scientific evidence rather than
>> gossip, then you might be worthy of a respectful response. When you
>> can demonstrate that you have something better than a childish and
>> creationist-distorted grasp of what the Theory of Evolution is all
>> about, then you might be worthy of a respectful response, but ill-
>> informed anecdote isn't scientific evidence and the fact that you
>> appear not to know this means you're poorly educated on the topic,
>> period.
>
> I've put my efforts into learning about things that interest me and will
> be the most beneficial, obviously evolution isn't among those things.
Roger admits he does not know what he is talking about. Good for you Roger.
>snip
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
It would be nice if he explained why he formed an opinion about
something that he does not understand.
AllSeeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
The answers to these questions is simple
Evolution is a lie.
Budikka666
When you can even one claim you've made, you say you won't be a LYING
pile of pig shit, will you?
How funny that no matter how many times you're told that you can never
ever ever learn it!
Budikka
Virgil
<937133bd-d7c8-4bff...@u13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
Yes! Creationism is a lie.
Note that there are massive amounts of objective physical evidence
supporting Evolution and not one single bit of objective physical
evidence opposing it.
So what is IllSeeing-Id's basis for objecting to it?
IllSeeing-Id cannot object to Evolution based on objective physical
evidence, because there isn't any objective physical evidence against
evolution.
So he objects purely because of faith without any objective evidence to
support him.
Next, IllSeeing-Id will be trying to get us all to join the Flat Earth
Society.
Caranx latus
>
> Evolution is a lie.
Nothing but assertions? Again? In a thread about the evolution of
horses, you demonstrate exactly how much of a one-trick pony you are.
Syd M.
No.
Evolution is a FACT and will not vanish just because Assman whines
about it.
DEAL WITH IT, Assman.
PDW
thomas p.
news:5ch1b6hb1dja92j5t...@4ax.com...
God told him to.
RogerN
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:5ch1b6hb1dja92j5t...@4ax.com...
What opinion did I form?
I enjoy learning. Some people enjoy crossword puzzles or number puzzles, or
other challenging things, I enjoy learning. Most of my interest has been
technical, electronics, machinery, automation, computer controls, etc.
I have designed, built, and programmed controls for automated equipment for
Ford, GM, Chrysler, Mack Trucks, Emerson Electric, Cuttler Hammer, and many
other companies. I currently have a project to change a control system from
Allen Bradley PLC5 to Siemens S7 MicroBox PC 427 ProfiBus system. My
college education was a good foundation but my real learning began after I
got out of college.
RogerN
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
You appear to think that anti-science creationism is somehow worth
studying uncritically. If you had bothered to learn as you tell us you
want to, you would have realized that anti-evolution dogma is
indefensible.
You acted as if evolution were not a trustworthy discovery and the
theory of evolution is not valid even though it has been accepted for a
century and a half.
>I enjoy learning. Some people enjoy crossword puzzles or number puzzles, or
>other challenging things, I enjoy learning. Most of my interest has been
>technical, electronics, machinery, automation, computer controls, etc.
>
>I have designed, built, and programmed controls for automated equipment for
>Ford, GM, Chrysler, Mack Trucks, Emerson Electric, Cuttler Hammer, and many
>other companies. I currently have a project to change a control system from
>Allen Bradley PLC5 to Siemens S7 MicroBox PC 427 ProfiBus system. My
>college education was a good foundation but my real learning began after I
>got out of college.
Humility is important in learning new things. Your religion has misled
you here.
AllSeeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
A one trick theory deserves a one trick response.
Caranx latus
A one-trick pony is only capable of a one-trick response.
Evolution is a theory in the field of biology. If it is wrong, then
there should be some evidence (real, not imaginary or manufactured)
against it, or better yet, in favour of some other explanation of the
facts. If you want evolution to be shown to be the lie that you
believe it to be, marshal a genuine argument against it, showing how
the reasoning is wrong for *scientific* reasons, not religious ones.
You're a one-trick pony because you're too lazy to be anything else.
Budikka666
> A one trick theory deserves a one trick response.
Ah, but you have two tricks: LYING and then RUNNING when your;e claled
on yoru LIES. Let me prove it: how about telling us all where that
gravity went, All Flee & Hide? Y'know, that gravity which you
declared doesn't exist in space. Where *did* it go?
Budikka
Andy W
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
>
> to evolve into another species. It would seem reasonable part of the
> population could evolve to grow leggs and another part remain or evolve in
> other directions.
That is essentially what happens much of the time. Two populations of
the same species become isolated in some way, over time they follow
different evolutionary pathways, eventually you get two separate but
closely related species.
This concept is very important in understanding the nature of the
evidence that shows evolution happens. If you took every living
species and compared them, you would quickly see that they can be
grouped together by certain features, so you have plants and animals,
then vertebrates and invertebrates, then arthropods, then insects,
then butterflies, for example. And you can do this with pretty much
every living thing (although it gets more complicated for bacteria!).
Eventually you end up with a huge, branched structure known as the
Tree of Life, and you can tell how similar any two species are simply
by seeing how far apart they are. The only way to explain this is that
the various species shared a common ancestor at some point in the
past, and changed over time. In other words, they evolved.
Having sequences of fossils that show what the ancestor species looked
like is great but not often possible; fossilisation is a rare event.
There's no way to know for sure if a given fossil animal was an actual
ancestor species, or a close relative of an ancestor. However, you
don't need even one single fossil to be able to show that evolution
happened, just to give you clues about how.
If you really are interested in learning about this, try the
talk.origins website, particularly the evidences section:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Andy