What is the evolutionary history of any mammal?

[Kevin Wirth]

OK, I asked this question a few days ago and some folks took off on a 'religious' tangent, which resulted in the question being moved to the "theology" forum.

 

However, I didn't ask a "theological" or "religious" question. And I'm not LOOKING for religious responses here. So, I'm going to ask everyone reading this thread to please keep your comments on target with my question if you would. Thanks.

 

I'm issuing a challenge here to anyone in this forum who is an evolutionist.

 

I would like you to show us the evolutionary history of a “vertebrate” mammal - ANY mammal - going all the way back to the Cambrian explosion. This means you need to start with a critter as it exists today, and then tell us who it’s ancestors were or 'must have been'. Trace it all the way back to the Cambrian explosion if you can. I don’t care if it’s a rat or a bat, but – I want you to SHOW ME how it 'must have' evolved, going back as far as you can.

 

Don't start from the Cambrian, start by choosing any existing mammal and work backwards, showing the evolutionary history.

 

And, you must do this convincingly, with evidence, ie, you must describe all the changes that were made to all the systems, like skin, bone structure, chemical structure, reproductive organs (if you can), breathing, etc. for each new intermediate all along the way. If you don't have evidence, then you must present your best guess. And then you must describe HOW those changes occurred.

[TheBigDog]

I'm issuing a challenge here to anyone in this forum who is an evolutionist.

 

I would like you to show us the evolutionary history of a “vertebrate” mammal - ANY mammal - going all the way back to the Cambrian explosion. This means you need to start with a critter as it exists today, and then tell us who it’s ancestors were or 'must have been'. Trace it all the way back to the Cambrian explosion if you can. I don’t care if it’s a rat or a bat, but – I want you to SHOW ME how it 'must have' evolved, going back as far as you can.

 

Don't start from the Cambrian, start by choosing any existing mammal and work backwards, showing the evolutionary history.

 

And, you must do this convincingly, with evidence, ie, you must describe all the changes that were made to all the systems, like skin, bone structure, chemical structure, reproductive organs (if you can), breathing, etc. for each new intermediate all along the way. If you don't have evidence, then you must present your best guess. And then you must describe HOW those changes occurred.

I am up to your challenge Ken. But I know before I start that that your question is loaded. There is no tangible evidence to show one species naturally evolving into another species. What we see are plateaus, but not the connecting slopes. You wish to see a connecting slope, and there may never be evidence of that strong enough to suit someone who wishes to doubt its merit, or you.

 

I have witnessed evidence of natural selection to provide a stronger species. I have witnessed selective breeding to create something that looks very different, but is genetically virtually unchanged from its ancient relatives. But I, like you, have not seen evidence of a link between two complex life forms that would explain massive genetic change.

 

So what we have left are methods of explaining the slopes between the plateaus.

 

Evolutionists extrapolate from what they have observed and hypothesize that there is a natural method of change that is linked to the theory evolution. They are investing time, money and energy into determining if that is true. And if so, what the mechanics of that process might be. And within the scientific community there is a great deal of FAITH that this hypothesis will prove to be true.

 

Others look at this as yet unproven hypothesis and see that faith in it is in conflict with other faith that they have. So they reject the evolution hypothesis at face value and demand that it be proven before it is discussed as factual. Yet their basis for the rejection, their own faith in some other explanation, is itself unprovable.

 

So it is a matter of choosing one faith over another. One based upon ancient teachings and handed down as part of tradition. And the other based upon logical extension of observed phenomena. As we sit here today neither side can disprove the other, and both sides are holding that as the standard of proof. And so we go in circles with zealots on both sides refusing to share middle ground.

 

The truth is that IE and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. And at this point of human knowledge virtually no theory could be proven correct. That doesn't mean that the theory is wrong. It means we have a long way to go, and we are busy learning.

 

I will side with Lucy Van Pelt - "When it is a matter of opinion, I am always right."

 

Bill

[Kevin Wirth]

I am up to your challenge Ken. But I know before I start that that your question is loaded. There is no tangible evidence to show one species naturally evolving into another species. What we see are plateaus, but not the connecting slopes. You wish to see a connecting slope, and there may never be evidence of that strong enough to suit someone who wishes to doubt its merit, or you.

 

 

Thanks Bill, for your willingness to step into this.

 

I understand the question is loaded. All I'm looking for here is the best explanation anyone can provide. That's all. And I would like to thank you for your honesty.

 

"There is no tangible evidence to show one species naturally evolving into another species."

 

This seems to be true. And if that IS correct, then can we also admit that connecting the dots (ie, promoting the evoutionary sequence for any mammal) with the available evidence is also therefore necessarily conjectural?

 

I have witnessed evidence of natural selection to provide a stronger species. I have witnessed selective breeding to create something that looks very different, but is genetically virtually unchanged from its ancient relatives. But I, like you, have not seen evidence of a link between two complex life forms that would explain massive genetic change.

 

So what we have left are methods of explaining the slopes between the plateaus.

 

Evolutionists extrapolate from what they have observed and hypothesize that there is a natural method of change that is linked to the theory evolution. They are investing time, money and energy into determining if that is true. And if so, what the mechanics of that process might be. And within the scientific community there is a great deal of FAITH that this hypothesis will prove to be true.

 

Agreed.

 

Others look at this as yet unproven hypothesis and see that faith in it is in conflict with other faith that they have. So they reject the evolution hypothesis at face value and demand that it be proven before it is discussed as factual. Yet their basis for the rejection, their own faith in some other explanation, is itself unprovable.

 

So it is a matter of choosing one faith over another. One based upon ancient teachings and handed down as part of tradition. And the other based upon logical extension of observed phenomena. As we sit here today neither side can disprove the other, and both sides are holding that as the standard of proof. And so we go in circles with zealots on both sides refusing to share middle ground.

 

OK, well, I have no problem with anything you have said here, but we're getting a little bit off the point, and I can almost feel TORMOD breathing down my neck getting ready to move this discussion elsewhere again unless we stay on point.

 

So, again, when would you like to begin offering some evidence for the evolution of any mammal? Many thanks.

[TheBigDog]

OK, well, I have no problem with anything you have said here, but we're getting a little bit off the point, and I can almost feel TORMOD breathing down my neck getting ready to move this discussion elsewhere again unless we stay on point.

 

So, again, when would you like to begin offering some evidence for the evolution of any mammal? Many thanks.

The point is that you are trying to discredit people for believing in a hypothesis that has yet to be proven. If you do agree with my response to your post then you must also agree with the pointlessness of the whole exercise. You are asking people to stick up their heads knowing that with current information, anyone who attempts to answer you with facts is setting themselves up for failure. That may not be so in 100 years, but it is the fact today, and you agree. If you are not trying to attack people's beliefs, then you truly are just seeking facts from people; facts that you could just as easily look up from any number of public sources. But since that doesn't seem to be your interest, I am hypothesizing that you are attempting to play whack-a-mole with whatever foolhardy evolution believer comes walking up with facts. And if you offer your counter argument (IE), Tormod will send you to the Theology forum again.

 

So, what is your point? Why are you going through this exercise?

 

Bill

[Kevin Wirth]

The point is that you are trying to discredit people for believing in a hypothesis that has yet to be proven.

 

Bill, you are putting words in my mouth here, and assigning an "ad hominem attack" mode to my question - which was not intended here. I'm not trying to discredit "people", I'm merely asking for those who are so convinced that evolution is a fact to please step forward and provide a response to my question.

 

I see MANY MANY people in this forum plastering those who do not accept an evolutionary premise with all kinds of derision, attacks, snubs, etc. I am asking people who are so thoroughly convinced about evolution to respond.

 

You are asking people to stick up their heads knowing that with current information, anyone who attempts to answer you with facts is setting themselves up for failure.

 

That's not the way many people in this forum think. Many of them talk really big about how evolution is a 'fact'. So, OK - if you are not one of them, great - you don't need to defend them.

 

So far, the silence is pretty deafening. I don't see any responses to my question so far. :cup:

 

If you are not trying to attack people's beliefs, then you truly are just seeking facts from people; facts that you could just as easily look up from any number of public sources.

 

Actually, I have done quite a bit of research in this area - and have read more 'public sources' than most people on this forum. However, this is precisely what is demanded of anyone who adheres to evolutionary theory. I really want to hear it. I'm asking as someone who HAS read a BUNCH of the literature. If these are "facts that you could just as easily look up from any number of public sources", then I suspect that it should be easy for someone to respond then, right? Don't try and dismiss my question so casually like it's no big deal - I'm not buying it. If it's no big deal, then let's hear it.

 

But since that doesn't seem to be your interest, I am hypothesizing that you are attempting to play whack-a-mole with whatever foolhardy evolution believer comes walking up with facts. And if you offer your counter argument (IE), Tormod will send you to the Theology forum again.

 

It's very funny that you should accuse me of playing "whack a mole" when I see this tactic used so often against evolutionary critics. I'm not playing a game here.

 

You can hypothesize all you want, but, how does any of that answer my question? Did I mention IE here anywhere in my question, or in any of my responses? No. So, get off my back and, like I said - let's stay on point here. :surprise: The point is, so many of the evolutionists in this forum claim that evolution is such a well established fact, and so I'm asking a very logical and fair question here - but so far, all I see from you is you're upset that I asked it. What a load of baloney that is.

 

Asking me to defend my alleged motives is an act of nearly libelous subterfuge, and draws attention away from my very explicit and direct question. So, again, when will you begin to respond to my question instead of giving me the third degree for why I asked it ????

 

BILL: PLEASE JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION - OK? :gift:

[Kevin Wirth]

Oh, and one more thing.

 

I WOULD like to go on record by saying that I am not going to advocate any 'religious' view of ID here.

 

No need to do that.

 

Just refer here if you want to know what I think about ID.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/28/do2803.xml

[Boerseun]

Kevin, I see you're complaining about the lack of response to your posts.

 

Do yourself a favour, and go read up a little on the ID threads that was run, resolved and died a graceful death before you pitched up on the scene.

 

I took the link you offered to see your view on ID, and, indeed, if that is your view, and if that is your ultimate aim with this thread, then this should go to 'Religion' and be done with.

 

The problem is, that we have stated to so many ID proponents at Hypography, simply that ID demands a leap of faith in the total absence of any evidence, in order to conclude that some form of 'advanced Intelligence' must be responsible for species. We don't have evidence for the 'beginning of life', therefore, it must have been 'designed'. With the absence of evidence for the beginning kept in mind, ID proposes that ID is the only solution. There is no alternatives. This is not science. At best, it is pseudoscientific drivel.

 

But, before you rant and rave again that nobody's answering your question, lemme give it a bash:

 

The Modern Horse (equus)

evolved from

Pleiohippus, fossils of which could be found in Pliocene rock strata which dates from approx. 10 million years ago, which evolved in turn from

Merychippus, with fossils found in Miocene rock and dating from about 30 million years ago. This little critter stood about 1 meter tall, and it evolved from

Mesohippus, standing 60cm at the shoulder. This sucker is to be found in Oliogocene strata, which puts its age at around 40 million years. And Mesohippus' granddaddy was

Hyracotherium, a gnarly 40cms tall. Hyracotherium is to be found in Eocene rock, putting grampa horsey at around 60 million years of age.

 

And so on, and so forth.

 

I expect you to pounce on my lineage here not reaching to the Cambrian Explosion, as you've asked in your post. I'll give you a homework assignment so that you can go look it up for yourself. It's easy.

 

The interesting thing is that hyracotherium fossils are only found in Eocene strata, and equus fossils (modern horse) are only found in recent layers.

 

These animals above show a continuous gradation from species to species, with two species never appearing in the same strata. Come on, the implications of this is pretty straightforward, and easy to understand. Unless, of course, you're set on indtroducing Creationism via ID, like you, and so many other ID supports have denied doing.

 

As we go down the strata to the older rocks, the fossils found in the above series indicate an absence of the most advanced in the bottom layers, and an absence of the least advanced in the top layers. Did you hear me say "evolution", matter of fact - did you hear me shout "speciation"?

 

You bet your *** I did.

 

Now do yourself a favour, go read up on some of the ID threads we have shelved under "Religion" - you'll also see exactly why we do so at Hypography - and prepare to become the next slaughtered casualty in the Hypography ID-Wars, where the noble axemen of the Hypographical Brotherhood is out to destroy pseudoscience. Vindictive bunch of bastards, ain't we?

 

I think the biggest reason for the lack of response to your posts is just simply that most of the guys here have tired explaining the same things over and over and over (ad infinitum). Go read up on the threads and see if you've got something new to add to the ID debate.

[Kevin Wirth]

 

I took the link you offered to see your view on ID, and, indeed, if that is your view, and if that is your ultimate aim with this thread, then this should go to 'Religion' and be done with.

 

Well, I sure hope not, becuase I'm not interested in talking about religion here. I'm wanting to talk about science.

 

But, before you rant and rave again that nobody's answering your question, lemme give it a bash:

 

The Modern Horse (equus)

evolved from

Pleiohippus, fossils of which could be found in Pliocene rock strata which dates from approx. 10 million years ago, which evolved in turn from

Merychippus, with fossils found in Miocene rock and dating from about 30 million years ago. This little critter stood about 1 meter tall, and it evolved from

Mesohippus, standing 60cm at the shoulder. This sucker is to be found in Oliogocene strata, which puts its age at around 40 million years. And Mesohippus' granddaddy was

Hyracotherium, a gnarly 40cms tall. Hyracotherium is to be found in Eocene rock, putting grampa horsey at around 60 million years of age.

 

And so on, and so forth.

 

I expect you to pounce on my lineage here not reaching to the Cambrian Explosion, as you've asked in your post.

 

Actually, I'm not here to pounce. I'm here to ask questions. It's OK with me that you can't push the evidence back as far as the Cambrian. That's what I asked for, but if you can't do it, that's fine. At least you tried.

 

I'll give you a homework assignment so that you can go look it up for yourself. It's easy.

 

The interesting thing is that hyracotherium fossils are only found in Eocene strata, and equus fossils (modern horse) are only found in recent layers.

 

These animals above show a continuous gradation from species to species, with two species never appearing in the same strata. Come on, the implications of this is pretty straightforward, and easy to understand. Unless, of course, you're set on indtroducing Creationism via ID, like you, and so many other ID supports have denied doing.

 

Well, I did some homework on this as you suggested.

 

(a) The horse series seems not to be as straightforward or certain as you indicate.

 

As for the species not appearing in the same strata, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are related just because they are separated this way. In fact, I would EXPECT to find an archetype in the same strata with its predecessor. But, do we?

 

Also, they COULD be evolutionary "dead ends" in their respective eras. No need to invoke ID here - or evolution for that matter. Heavy reliance on morphological similary is a dangerous way to establish evolutionary lineage. Can you demonstrate that they are NOT dead ends? Or that they ARE related? Arguments either way are just as strong. I have yet to see any full description of how one archetype morphed into the other in this series as I requested in my original post. In fact, I see something else.

 

Where are the reports about DNA on this series?

 

(:singer: It seems that this particular mammal series has been discredited for several years now. Did you know this?

 

Evolutionist Dr. George Gaylord Simpson debunks the simplistic constructions that have appeared in our science textbooks: "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the heart of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."

Life of the Past (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1953) pp. 125, 127.

 

"The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown."

Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, Nov 5, 1980, sec. 4 pg 15.

 

"High schoool textbooks propose that, ..., the rabbit sized Eohippus commenced his move up through the evolutionary ranks, one incremental step after another. ... The high school progression is an artifact; .... The facts are discrete. There is no hint of gradual change, no hint either of selective advantages accumulating."

D. Berlinski, review of Full House, O&D 18(1), pg 30.

 

“In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse”.

G. A. Kerkut, Implications of evolution, 1960, pg 149.

 

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."

Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

 

"...anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied upon for evolutionary lineages. Yet palaeontologists persist in doing just this."

J. Lowenstein and A. Zihlman, "The invisible ape", New Scientist, Vol. 120 (1641), pp. 56, 57, 1988

 

As we go down the strata to the older rocks, the fossils found in the above series indicate an absence of the most advanced in the bottom layers, and an absence of the least advanced in the top layers. Did you hear me say "evolution", matter of fact - did you hear me shout "speciation"?

 

You bet your *** I did.

 

Now do yourself a favour, go read up on some of the ID threads we have shelved under "Religion" - you'll also see exactly why we do so at Hypography - and prepare to become the next slaughtered casualty in the Hypography ID-Wars, where the noble axemen of the Hypographical Brotherhood is out to destroy pseudoscience. Vindictive bunch of bastards, ain't we?

 

Sorry, but, I won't agree to become fodder for your vindictiveness. If that's all you want to do, then I reall AM sorry to have bothered you.

I think the biggest reason for the lack of response to your posts is just simply that most of the guys here have tired explaining the same things over and over and over (ad infinitum). Go read up on the threads and see if you've got something new to add to the ID debate.

 

Well, no, that's not true at all. If it was, you would have referred me to a thread that was responsive to my specific question.

 

I'm looking for some evidence, and all you can be bothered to do is toss me a bunch of verbal baloney. Heck, you couldn't even send me a map of the family tree of the horse and then begin to explain how they all evolved.

 

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

 

Kind of lame, if you ask me.

 

Whre's the evidence? What IS the evidence for horse evolution? You haven't even begun to scratch the surface of this issue.

 

You guys talk big, but you sure don't put out. I can see I'm in the wrong place for a quality discussion on this issue.

 

Obviously, you are only interested in what you want to hear.

 

So hey - I'm done. Why waste my time AND yours?

[InfiniteNow]

Please see link for a simple definition of individuals who post with this tone under the guise of seeking truth and understanding.

 

Oops... this one might apply as well...

 

 

Cheers. :singer:

[Tormod]

Please see link for a simple definition of individuals who post with this tone under the guise of seeking truth and understanding.

 

Oops... this one might apply as well...

 

 

Cheers. :singer:

 

Amen. Certain of our fellow monkeys think people will jump at every challenge to prove their fart smells the best (while the rest of us know that only your own fart smells good).

 

Kevin, if you keep posting in this manner and also keep dragging my name into your posts I promise to move every single thread you post into the trash bin.

[infamous]

 

I can see I'm in the wrong place

Yep...........

 

Obviously, you are only interested in what you want to hear.

Very much like yourself Kevin...................

 

So hey - I'm done. Why waste my time AND yours?

Intelligent decision......................Infy

[C1ay]

I would like you to show us the evolutionary history of a “vertebrate” mammal - ANY mammal - going all the way back to the Cambrian explosion.

It looks like you want to exclude species like crocodiles from the discussion. Is there a reason for that?

[infamous]

It looks like you want to exclude species like crocodiles from the discussion. Is there a reason for that?

That question should solicit an interesting response from our friend, I do believe..................Infy