Re: fossils - horses
- --- In creationism@y..., "Todd S. Greene" <tgreene@u...> wrote:
> Hi, Ed.What I clearly mean by this is having a progressive set of fossils
> Let me take a step back. I'm splitting out topics here.
> First, horse evolution...
> I asked some questions:
> >> Why do you consider horse
> >> evolution "rubbish"? Do you deny that the fossils of horse
> >> ancestors exist? Do you deny that 60 million years ago there was
> >> a small animal that had a fox-like skull and canine teeth, a
> >> creature that is definitely distinct today? Do you deny that the
> >> modern horse does not exist in the fossil record of 60 million
> >> years ago? What I'm trying to understand is why you referred to
> >> this as rubbish.
> You responded:
> > Simply because there is no link proven at all.
> I have to reiterate Paul's question: What do you mean by proving a
from different time periods. One where there are small differences
but where they are obvious.
As an example, if we find a giraffe skull next to an elephants, we
could say "Ah, both live on the plains, both are herbivores, etc etc".
Many would do their best to say one is the ancestor of the other and
before long someone would print it as being a fact.
So many fossils go back to a specific era and then wallop, there's
nothing before that. How, without guessing can we possibly prove one
species evolved into another. If we had fossils of a 2 legged horse
and a 4 legged horse, and the fossils were the same age, how can
anyone possibly say which one evolved into the other?. You can't. My
point is, someone will and in time it somehow becomes common fact.
> I continue:
> >> You did not
> >> provide any explanation for this at all. Have you ever even
> >> carried out any detailed study of anything about the
> >> paleontological record of horses?
> > Yes I have. If others had they would too see it is rubbish.
> Uh, wait a minute. Have you studied MacFadden's detailed book on
> subject? Have you studied George Gaylord Simpson's earlier classicstatements
> book *Horses* on the paleontology of horses and horse ancestors?
> Look here for an example of the manner in which YECs take
> totally out of context for the purpose of making it seem as ifat:
> scientists say the exact opposite of what they actually do say:
> Here are a couple of other online articles you should take a look
> Horse Evolution
> Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record
> (For Steve Howard: Keith B. Miller, the author of this last
> is an evangelical Christian who is a professional geologist. EvenHorses:
> though I know that you deny that he exists, here's the URL for his
> web page: http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/ )
> I continued:
> >> If you are genuinely interested in learning more, I would
> >> recommend that you start with Bruce J. MacFadden's *Fossil
> >> Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae*.material
> >> The paperback edition is around $35, but he give an exhaustive
> >> treatment of this subject. Of course, if you aren't genuinely
> >> interested in digging into the true details about such matters as
> >> this, then you should absolutely stay away from books and
> >> like this, but also, as a Christian, you must then refrain fromwith
> >> spreading false propaganda as you did with the statements you
> >> made.
> > So I'm to understand you believe the horse evolution theory?
> Absolutely, because that is what the fossil record is consistent
> what we would expect to see of horse evolution.of-
> Ed, I very sincerely tell you that if your "study" of the
> paleontology of horses and horse ancestors consists of reading out-
> context quotes in YEC books such as the one by Sunderland (which,by
> the way, I have in my personal library), then you really don't knowstating
> anything about the subject. I also want you to know that I expected
> better of you. I'm not scoffing. I'm not mocking. I'm merely
> the truth.
- On 3 May 2003 at 21:41, ed_horwood wrote:
> I am told that fossils require sediment to form them and mostFossils do form today, but they form, as they always have, where
> fossils are from what looked like a 'wet' time.
> I am not into fossils and was wondering if someone could give me the
> answer as to how so many of the fossils found have even survived.
> If something dies today, there isnt anything left to fossilise in a
> few months, so doesnt fossilization have to happen quickly, if so
> how did so many happen quickly
conditions are good for them. Lake bottom sediments and ocean
bottom sediments are two very good places. Another very good place
is an extremely dry, sandy desert. In the first two kinds of places,
the remains will, over time, exchange materials with the environment
to become an embedded part of the sedimentary rock itself that forms.
Some really fine examples of this kind of preservation are the
Burgess shales in British Columbia and the Ediacara fossils from
Of course fossil beds have been forming for more than half a billion
years. That's a lot of time for many fossils to form, even though
the ones we have are really just dots on a huge biological landscape.
For example, passenger pigeons used to blacken the sky just 150 years
ago. But we made an industry out of them and ate them all. No
fossil of a passenger pigeon has yet been found in any stage of
formation. There probably ARE some out there, but not many!
> Many thanksDave Oldridge