Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Creationists and People

Looking back through some of my remaining notes from the late 70s (I've been up in the loft ) I find that our "A level Geology" study group looked at the development of the horse.

Between about 54 my and about 4.5 my, there is a developmental sequence from Hyracotherium (originally found and named in Britain; later discovered in US and called Eohippus) through Miohippus (absent in Britain), Parahippus and Pliohippus to Equus. The last of these gradually becomes indistinguishable from the modern horse.

Like dogs, but in a much less extreme form, horses have since been subjected to selective breeding by humans, but such would not be included in any record of fossil forms.

of course you do realize that the word represent in context above does not require a comment like you posted.

ie...a representation of what evolution should be capable of producing.

Bill S, et al: I have viewed this thread, your post, and the flurry of threads by Paul, defending creationism and attacking Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution.

I am confused as to what is going on. Let me know what you think, OK?

Paul, how certain are you that what you say about Darwin and evolution is THE Truth?

Based on what I have seen, so far, I am tempted to post a thread: King is NOT amused. Indeed, I am

You are not alone Rev K I am completely confused.

Paul can you try following one or two ideas logically and simply or start seperate threads for different things you wish to discuss.

Makes what you are arguing alot easier to follow at the moment it's like one big jumble of different ideas.

I would also like to ask a simple question how do you view Drosophila synthetica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_synthetica)

Using science genetic knowledge in June 2012 we created that species from the wild population of fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. It can not breed with Drosophila melanogaster anymore but can breed with its own populations.

Forget the arguments about how it was done for now how is it viewed by your religion, this interests me.

Rev K perhaps you would also like to comment?

If you want some background
http://www.examiner.com/article/first-man-made-species-revealed

Perhaps I will extract one comment I want you to think about



In some ways it's quite funny watching beliefs such as Pauls still arguing issues when science has bolted and out the door. My concern is as scientists our morality is not based on altruistic beliefs and this area needs religion talking to science, but religion is still in denial of the very processes. This makes the area even more dangerous than it would be even with good governance.

Lets take the process to a radical place, take a human add in lots of beefy muscles and genetically engineer a brain that likes to follow orders and of coarse they can't breed with proper humans. There you go one made to order slave for a brand new world and they aren't human ... or are they?

To avoid any suspicion of clairvoyance it is safest to take posts at face value rather than attempt to divine any occult implication.

Were you saying that evolution should be able to produce forms that are progressively less fitted for survival?

I thought that was only forum threads.

lg



confusion about a certain subject matter is normally due to knowledge accompanied by a lack of wisdom.

ie... you could read every book on the planet and be filled
with knowledge , yet if you lack wisdom that knowledge that you have acquired is mostly worthless.

evolution is like a big puzzle , if you want to put the puzzle together you must first have all the correct pieces.

and the most important part of putting the puzzle together is
having a flat surface to assemble the pieces on.

evolution does not have that flat surface which can be described as a foundation that can be used to assemble the pieces together on.

that's where wisdom come's into play.

evolution claims that the different species all came from
one creature many millions of years ago.

but they have no proof , they just say that that's the way it happened.

wisdom would tell someone that evolution is not true.

wisdom cannot be taught in a school or obtained from the pages of a book.

wisdom is something that one acquires over time.

wisdom tells me that what I say about evolution is the truth

it's is a breed ! not a new species.



I find this very amusing that scientist are always claiming to
have Created , yet they dont believe in Creation.LOL



I once created a new species year's ago.

I call it dropusexcrementuspileofshittus indariverbydaseaus
I named it's genus analenormous

As Preearth has demonstrated in the past, a multiplicity of threads on a single subject can be used effectively for the purpose of obfuscation.

re-visiting another thread dealing with this topic, I realise the subject of the development of the horse has already been considered.

Interestingly, the development of the foot and its transitional forms between Eohippus and Equus is not mentioned. Perhaps that is because science lacks the impact of piles of pseudo crap.

that's not what I was saying , my intention was to
show that if evolution had anything to show , it should show what it has.

it should show a steady progression from one species to another.

but evolution only shows changes occurring in the same species.

they just claim that the changes are new species.

This is worth a look.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

I'm sure that there are many more changes that are found between the
different breeds than the foot in the horses pictured above.

just like the differences found in the many breeds of dog's.



here's an example of a breed of dog that often are born
without tail's.

no evolution required.



or is this breed of dog a new species?

what do you think , let me know Bill

I'm curious!

Paul, this is a serious question, so I hope it will not be consigned to the crescent archive of the unanswered.

How do you know there is only 3/4 inches of dust on the surface of the moon?

a couple = 2

2 cm = 0.787402 inches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regolith



I did find this , and if this is correct, then a close approximation
of the weight of the surface dust can be found.

note: these figures are associated with moon atmosphere.
I'm going to assume that they are considering the moon dust as being the atmosphere , I might be wrong.



thats 155,000 particles per cu cm excluding the trace particles , which must include the other 50,000 particles given
that the Abundance at surface is 2 x 10^5 particles/cm3.

200,000 particles

the dust feels like snow , and it smells like a fresh battlefield.

Thanks, Paul.

Would I not be right in thinking you do not believe humans landed on the moon; so the footprint is a fake.

Any information from a manned landing must be suspect; which still leaves the question: where did the information about the depth of the dust come from?

Bill s

I suppose that since you are a clairvoyant you might
consider yourself to be correct in thinking that about me.

but judging from your replies its easy to tell that you
may have acquired the ability that some turtles have that
you posted about earlier along with the ability to communicate
from that end also.

and according to evolution it's entirely possible!

Paul having to resort to offensive postings again because you are winning yet another argument.

Bill S is following a logical argument your evidence you build your belief on is a moon landing. The question is obvious do you believe in the moon landing there was even a thread on SAGG about it did you comment perhaps?

There are other obvious questions I would have asked if that is your basis like how do you know that one spot is typical of the entire moon ... these are the sorts of questions science asks.



You always act as if your very belief relies on each answer where as people of science we merely ask how accurate is each answer.

Suggested New Year resolution: Acknowledge when you are wasting your time, and stop it.

In that case you are wrong. They are not considering the atmosphere as being the dust. The atmosphere consists of the gases surrounding the Moon, just as our atmosphere consists of the gasses surrounding the Earth. Notice that the list is a list of gas molecules, not dust particles. Also that concentration of gases is a pretty good vacuum in comparison to what we generally consider a vacuum here on Earth.

Bill Gill

Thanks for the timely reminder, Bill. I was just about being drawn back into it all. But, as ever, the creationist hatches are battened down, and all guns are firing blindly in defense of sacrosanct delusions. No way to reason with that. The odd thing about it all is, I myself am not entirely opposed to the concept that we live in an intelligently designed universe. Maybe it is a Matrix