The horse......A family tree full of lies?

Question

The horse is a well-documented case study in evolution. The fossil record shows clear steps in the progression from four-toes small browsing animal- one of a line that gave rise to tapirs, rhinoceroses, and other mammals in addition to horses-to the modern horse......"

"Evolutionary History of the Modern Horse" Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000

I was taught this, saw the chart that had all the horses on it, going from the smallest to the largest. Looked pretty impressive. My biology teacher believed every word of it.

"As the biologist Heriert-Nelson said, 'The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in textbooks'. and the famous palantologist Niles Eldredge called the textbook picture 'lamentable' and 'a classical case of paleontological museology'.

Jonathan Sarfati pH.d. Physical Chemistry, Creation Ex Nihlo, 1999

Wow, I got three pH. D's in one posting. I wonder what the Atheist will say about this?

My point, as many of you have asked is, to show the foolishness of evolution. Also, continually, the Atheist here say that all scientist agree with evolution. I'm just showing that all scientist don't agree, and I'm using only pH. d's, and not uncredited scientists.

Answer 1

yes i agree.be cafeful the atheist are getting a little hot right now ha ha!!! p.s keep going

Answer 2

Which Atheist are you talking about?

Of course a fossil record can only show progression stepwise. The size of those steps will be a function of the number of fossils discovered and their distribution in various strata. To get a perfectly smooth progression within any lineage you would have to have an infinite number of fossils.

So far, "only" about a quarter of a million fossil species have ever been discovered. Enough to show the broad pattern but not to fill every possible gap. Between any two points on a line, it is always possible to place a third.

The difference between the encyclopaedia author and Heriert-Nelson's comment is like arguing about whether a glass is half full or half empty. By this analogy, Creationists deny the existence of water.

-----------------------------------------

Niles Eldredge is a famous paleontologist and major figure in evolutionary theory, along with his colleague Stephen Jay Gould. I don't think you could claim him on the Creationist camp! He's actually a very vocal critic of "Intelligent Design".

No idea who Heriert-Nelson is or was. Google search draws a blank.

Answer 3

To bad you don't cite the full quotes. This is just more of the typical quote mining from the Creationist crew. Niles Eldridge and Steven J Gould were the proponents of the Punctuated Equilibrium theory of evolution and they are certainly not supporters of creationism. The use of out of context and incomplete quotes from them by Ham and Morris is embarrasingly common. Morris was actually forced to print a retraction of most of his most egreghious abuses. However that does not prevent creationists from simply digging them out and posting them all over again.
I really would like you and answers in Genesis to post where you get some of these quotes from because many of them appear nowhere except Answers in genesis or in Creation Magazine. Many of them do not even appear in the papers of the men who supposedly made them.
I quite frankly would not trust a single thing said by John Sarfati. He has been caught lying before.

Answer 4

Forget all the garbage on both sides of the religious/evolution arguments, and just ask if there is any common sense in the idea of an invisible, non-speaking God who apparently was never made, while "needing a maker" is the common argument for those that think man had to be made in order to be. I'm waiting to see a religionist come out with a book showing the evolution of God, in ten easy steps.

Answer 5

We'd say you are very carefully selecting quotes to try to make a point, although I don't know what that point is.
Is it that god made everything?
That is pure foolishness and magic-think.
Is it that evolution doesn't have all the answers??
Scientist readily admit this, yet they continue to seek answers, because that's what scientists do.
So, what is your point?

Discrediting science doesn't validate your religion.
You obviously don't realize that.
In other words, you're wasting your time.

So you think evolution is foolish??? Where are your degrees? How did you determine that scientists are the fools. I base my statement on the fact that there is no proof of creationism whatsoever! Biology, microbiology, biochemistry, embryology, genetics, comparative physiology, and numerous other scientific disciplines support the Theory of Evolution.
You... are just a dumbass.

Answer 6

Well you don't offer any context for those statements. So it's hard to say what's really being said. It may be as simple as the picture depicts evolution as linear which it is not. And judging by the "continuous" statement I would think this is the case. Feel free to add more info on the subject I for one would love to hear it.

Answer 7

Over the course of your life, who has been the real family to you? Your real parents who gave you up? Or your adopted family who took you in and has supported you all these years? Although, your real parents may have given you up for a good reason.... but maybe not. Don't be angry with your adoption parents.

Answer 8

I say good job! I actually know a Paleontologist who's main field of study is the horse and fossilized horse teeth if you can imagine such a thing. So good job. You are a shining example of how all people should be. But you are semi correct and semi not correct. I could give you the email address of the Professor i know if you want.

Answer 9

So the family tree of the horse is complicated with dead end branches, rapid speciation and other things making it not nice and neat.

What is your point?

Edit: If all scientists agreed and knew all the answers, we'd stop science.

Answer 10

Atheists don't believe in horses either? That's news to me, a former atheist. I never got the memo.

if you want to settle the debate based upon the sheer numbers of PhDs on each side, your cause is doomed.

Answer 11

Did the quotes go on? I'd be interested to read this- got a link?