• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

For scientists who accept evolution

Melendwyr said:
(Incidentally, do any creationists ever attempt to give a practical, working definition of 'kind', even if they can't offer a theoretical one? Surely they have some criteria for identifying a horse.)
Click to expand...
Why do you need criteria when it's so obvious? It's called common sense, Melendwyr. Hammy doesn't need some "scientist" telling him what a horse is. I mean, just look at it. It's so horse-y and, uh, horsefulish.
 
Melendwyr said:
Oh yes.
Click to expand...
Guess again... ;)

delphi_ote said:
Like "a dog is a dog" right? You got taken to the cleaner on this point already.
Click to expand...
I admit I missed that. Or perhaps you think canids are not canids?

Re: Cheetahs.
The non-retractable (canid-like) claws are interesting, as is the fact that at-a-glance the skeleton might be taken for a large greyhound rather than a cat.

Also, iirc, these are only tamable 'big cat' that cannot revert to the wild and regain fear of humans. And I vaguely recall reading that Cheetahs can catch canid diseases.

Has a good dna work-up & comparison to canids/felids ever been done on the cheetah?


chippy monkey said:
Why do you need criteria when it's so obvious? .... I mean, just look at it. It's so horse-y and, uh, horsefulish.
Click to expand...
Do you find looking at the fossils of 20 cm horses arrayed in sequence of age up to equus you find a problem identifying them all as 'horses'?
 
Last edited:
Bob Loblaw said:
As for point 3, again, the people doing the science are keenly aware of the weaknesses, such as they are, of TOE, and regularly point them out. Many of the "weaknesses" proposed by you and hammegk are simply wrong.
Click to expand...

You mean like pronouncing feathers from observable "proto-feather" material without doing independent verification via experiement? How "aware" are the people doing the science with regards to hammy's link? Perhaps there is another "weakness" I've proposed you'd like to discuss? Maybe you can throw something out besides "strawman" here?

Further, I totally agree with you that many good scientists routinely point out weaknesses in the theory and debate each other all the time. But to enter the discussion, it is required that you adamantly subscribe to the theory. Behe was wrong to even use the words "intelligent design" in his paper. He'd been much better off just pointing out the problems in designating taxa and letting people draw their own conclusions. I fail to see where I've not been consistent about my concerns, or fully disclosed my own method of skepticism with regards to both observable and testable "science" (or lack of).

Flick
 
hammegk said:
Do you find looking at the fossils of 20 cm horses arrayed in sequence of age up to equus you find a problem identifying them all as 'horses'?
Click to expand...
I must say, I was wondering why you were hung up on horses, hammegk. You brought them up in another thread, and I did not know why then either.

So I googled "evolution of horses" to see if I could get some handle on it. One nice, user-friendly source is here.http://www.pbs.org/wildhorses/wh_origin/wh_origin.html#timeline Interestingly, they say
But horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction." Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation (anagenesis) of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species split off from ancestors (cladogenesis) and then coexisted with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly. Overall, the horse family demonstrates the diversity of evolutionary mechanisms. The most modern equids (descendants of Parahippus) are called equines. Strictly speaking, only the very modern genus Equus contains "horses."
Click to expand...
(bolding mine) So, "strictly speaking", a horse is not a horse...or at least, it is not as obvious to them as it is to you.

For those who prefer charts, herehttp://www.pbs.org/wildhorses/wh_origin/wh_origin2.html is one suggestion of a family tree (more like a bush) that fits the current evidence.

So anyway, my guess is that hammegk is choosing this example because the initial "direct line of descent" model that was in his (and my) old schoolbooks has been supplanted by a bushier model. If science were as dogmatic as religion, such a replacement would be heresy. In science, of course, it is called "progress". To paraphrase the old saw, "man proposes, and the evidence disposes." We have no problem following the evidence, but thus far the evidence is still best explained by natural selectiction.
 
hammegk said:
Do you find looking at the fossils of 20 cm horses arrayed in sequence of age up to equus you find a problem identifying them all as 'horses'?
Click to expand...
Not without some clearer criteria than "horse-y-ness". Is this a horse?:

hyracoskel.jpg
 
[Appeal_to_ridicule] hammy's convinced me! We need to drop all this junk about convenient labels for broad, overlapping regions of the gene pools. We need to go hunt down a horse eidolon for our definition. What better than the horse of absolute horse-ness to define all its imperfect reflections! [/Appeal_to_ridicule]
 
chipmunk stew said:
Not without some clearer criteria than "horse-y-ness". Is this a horse?:

hyracoskel.jpg
Click to expand...
From one skeleton, unknown.

Again, "Do you find looking at the fossils of 20 cm horses arrayed in sequence of age (which was also increasing size, iirc) up to equus you find a problem identifying them all as 'horses'?"

Merc's comment -- only Equus are considered 'horses' is noted -- but I'd call it begging the question in the sense, Oh look, a dog -- No, That's a wolf.
 
hammegk said:
From one skeleton, unknown.

Again, "Do you find looking at the fossils of 20 cm horses arrayed in sequence of age (which was also increasing size, iirc) up to equus you find a problem identifying them all as 'horses'?"
Click to expand...
Of course not. But do you suppose the fossils were discovered all neatly lined up? No, clearly not. Criteria were developed for "horse-y-ness", and as the fossils were found, they were compared against these criteria and fit the bill. Then they were neatly lined up so that you and I could look at them and say, oh, yes, clearly they are horses.
 
Blimey, is he still doing this?
hammegk said:
From one skeleton, unknown.

Again, "Do you find looking at the fossils of 20 cm horses arrayed in sequence of age (which was also increasing size, iirc) up to equus you find a problem identifying them all as 'horses'?"
Click to expand...
Or, to put it another way: "Given that we know the theory of evolution to be true, don't you agree that the skeleton you posted is a form on the way to modern horses?"

Yes, hammy, we do. We are led to that concludion by contemplation of all the intermediate forms in the fossil record. How 'bout you? On what basis do you identify an animal that size, that shape, and without hooves as a "horse"? Do tell.
 
hammegk said:
Merc's comment -- only Equus are considered 'horses' is noted -- but I'd call it begging the question in the sense, Oh look, a dog -- No, That's a wolf.
Click to expand...
When a child is learning the language, looks at a cow and says "BIG doggie!", we understand that "doggie" is the child's concept of pretty much anything with 4 legs and fur. Later, we are more careful to correct even differences between doggies and kitties, or doggies and wolves. If the kid is unfortunate enough to be born into a family of "dog fanciers", then "doggie" will never be good enough; the kid will discriminate among breeds, and eventually among better and worse examples of breeds, the way you or I discriminate "cats is cats" from "dogs is dogs". To this kid, dogs ain't dogs. (and it is not just animals. To me, a car is a car. To my son, the makes of cars are important. To my mechanic, the makes, models, years, and options are important. And so it goes.)

Science is the same way. We have words that discriminate more or less, categories that contain more or less, depending on the level of discrimination that is necessary. In one sense, it is all arbitrary. In another, it is what the language community agrees is useful. Which varies from use to use, as should be expected. "Species" is one of these categories. It was tremendously important when biology was dominated by the Linnaeans (sp?), but is not really important at all given the Darwinian view (ironic, then, that Darwin used "origin of species" as a title--but understandable, since he was trying to explain the world as it was understood). Making a big deal out of one level of categories is a fool's errand. You seem to be trying to simultaneously say that variability at one level is just variability (agreeing with Darwin), but that variability at another level is a fundamental sticking point (in opposition to Darwin). "Species" is a word, hammy. People invented it, people used it, it was not handed down on stone tablets anywhere.
 
hammegk said:
Merc's comment -- only Equus are considered 'horses' is noted -- but I'd call it begging the question in the sense, Oh look, a dog -- No, That's a wolf.
Click to expand...

This family, made up of the horses, asses and zebras, contains one genus with nine species. Domestic equids range worldwide; in the wild equids occur mainly in East Africa and the Near East to Mongolia. They inhabit a variety of habitats from lush grasslands and savanna to sandy and stony deserts.

Equids are generally thick-skulled animals with stocky bodies. They are heavily haired, but the length of hair is variable. Most species have a mane on the neck and a lock of hair on the forepart of the head known as a forelock. Some are swift runners: these have long thin limbs with only one functional digit ( mesaxonic). Equids walk on the tips of their toes ( unguligrade). In the equid foreleg, radius and ulna are united, and the ulna is greatly reduced so that all weight is born on the radius. In the hind leg, the enlarged tibia supports the weight and the fibula is reduced and fused to the tibia. Wild equids are large animals, ranging in body size from around 200 to 500 kg. Their domestic descendants are more variable, varying from less than 140 kg to over 1000 kg.

Equids have 40-42 teeth with a dental formula 3/3, 1/1, 3-4/3, 3/3. The canines are vestigial or absent in females. Their cheek teeth have a complex structure; they are hypsodont with four main columns and various infoldings with much cement. Age of an equid is often estimated by the degree to which surface pattern of cheek teeth is worn, but the abrasive character of food plays too large a role in tooth wear to make this entirely accurate.

Equid skulls are long with the nasal bones long, narrow and freely projecting anteriorly to points. The orbit is far back in the skull, behind the teeth, and the postorbital processes are broad. Tympanic bullae are small.
Click to expand...
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Equidae.html

How's that? While we're at it...

The fossil record of horses is especially rich. It has provided classic examples that supposedly document gradual change in teeth and limbs. The first horse, Hyracotherium (= Eohippus), is known from the early Eocene and appears to have been derived from a condylarth. It was a small animal with relatively simple quadrate teeth, a modestly enlarged third metacarpal, and digitigrade stance. Through the Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene horses increased in size, their lateral digits shrank and lost contact with the ground, their brains enlarged, and their molariform teeth became much more complex. The first true grazer, Merychippus, lived in Miocene times. Its cheek teeth were hypsodont and had strongly developed lophs on their occlusal surfaces. Three of its toes contacted the ground. The first one-toed horse, Pliohippus, lived in the late Miocene. The genus Equus first appeared during the Pliocene. Horses were once widespread, inhabiting temporal grasslands, savannahs, and steppe habitats through North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. North America has been the center of equid evolution. Equids disappeared completely from that continent around 8000 years ago, not to return until Europeans brought them in their ships a few hundred years ago.
Click to expand...
 
Mercutio said:
People invented it, people used it, it was not handed down on stone tablets anywhere.
Click to expand...

Right. That's just silly. Clearly a man in a garden handed the names out 6k years ago.

Excellent post, Mercutio!
 
Last edited:
Mercutio said:
When a child is learning the language, looks at a cow and says "BIG doggie!", we understand that "doggie" is the child's concept of pretty much anything with 4 legs and fur.
Click to expand...

When I was three I was startled by the cows docile nature when contrasted to my doggie experiences. Henceforth, I began calling them "bovine."

Sorry, I just figured this thread could use some humor.... :)

Flick
 
Have we been evolved/habituated/following for increased use of our ICUs (may be hormones) than the older times?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom