Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [creat] Laughable Horse Series

Expand Messages
  • Morrowitz@aol.com
    They look at them, try to reassemble them if they are broken up, look at other fossils of the same species and closely related ones and then draw conclusions
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      They look at them, try to reassemble them if they are
      broken up, look at other fossils of the same species and closely
      related ones and then draw conclusions from what is evident of
      their anatomy.
      >
      > Claiming that this is mere random guessing is bearing false
      > witness against every working paleontologist.>>

      Look how laughable this is. "Species" refers to creatures that are
      interfertile. It is pure guesswork, at outset, to dogmatically assess "species" status
      to fossil bones which are impossible to assess if interfertile.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... is ... are ... Quite clearly our laughing gas addict here needs to understand that species has a somewhat different definition in paleontology from the
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On 1 Jul 2005 at 4:38, Morrowitz@... wrote:

        > They look at them, try to reassemble them if they are
        > broken up, look at other fossils of the same species and closely
        > related ones and then draw conclusions from what is evident of
        > their anatomy. > > Claiming that this is mere random guessing
        is
        > bearing false > witness against every working paleontologist.>>
        >
        > Look how laughable this is. "Species" refers to creatures that
        are
        > interfertile. It is pure guesswork, at outset, to dogmatically
        > assess "species" status to fossil bones which are impossible to
        > assess if interfertile.

        Quite clearly our laughing gas addict here needs to understand
        that 'species' has a somewhat different definition in
        paleontology from the way it's defined in biology. And for
        precisely the reason that he indicates. However, it is still
        quite reasonable to assign fossils with a large number of
        identical anatomical features to the same species. Few
        anatomists would mistake the skeleton of a pig for that of a
        human (though it's entirely possible to make the mistake if all
        you have is a very worn tooth).

        So yes, that IS what paleontologists do. They assemble fossils
        and, somewhat arbitrarily, but on the basis of their anatomical
        differences, classify them into 'species.'

        The curious thing, though, is that the hierarchy derived from
        examining such 'species' and their placement in the fossil record
        (and this can be done with near-mathematical objectivity) matches
        nearly exactly the hierarchy we get from the genetics of living
        species.

        Darwin would have found this fact INTENSELY interesting.
        Morrowitz finds it an excuse for further laughing-gas inhalation.

        --
        God is an evolutionist.

        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 1800667
        VA7CZ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.