Ham on Horses

It seems that creationists like Ham and Dembski only pipe up in order to demonstrate that they've never bothered to learn about the theory that they dislike.

That's always the main goal of creationism, to keep people ignorant of real biologic science, and they embody that goal.

Glen Davidson

This guy must have to study really hard to come up with stuff that is so monumentally stupid. I mean really, exactly who does he think he is arguing against? Who exactly told him that if horses generally get bigger that all horses must get bigger at all times in every environment? Where did he get this idea? Did he just make it up without giving it a second of serious thought? Does he know that is just an ignorant piece of nonsense that isn't going to fool anyone with half a neuron in their cranium? Does he care? How stupid do you have to be before people stop being fooled by your nonsense? Has he hit rock bottom yet, or can he go lower, as if he were in a limbo contest?

Look at Thumbelina, the world's smallest horse. Oh my, horses are getting smaller!

"Outdated" evolutionary ideas, lol, as opposed to the cutting edge high tech stuff in Genesis.

"If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are pygmies + dwarfs??"

The problem is that Ham is a conman, and he knows and uses the basic rule that all conmen operate by: the mark has to want to believe it.

ksplawn said: "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are pygmies + dwarfs??"

The current meme is "I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit better arguments than that."

Perhaps the point Ken Ham was trying to make is that digging up the bones of a smaller horse from an older sediment layer doesn't automatically mean that all horses used to be smaller, just like all horses are not small now, yet some are. Similarly, digging up a four-foot Inuit skeleton in Greenland wound not mean that all humans were shorter in the 14th century, or even all Greenlanders. The Norsemen inhabited Greenland, too, and they were much taller than the Inuit.

In the early 19th century, the fossils of dinosaurs were problematic for early notions of evolution, as they were large animals which went extinct. In order for evolution to be accepted, it had to be understood as not being a directed process, such as in the direction of increasing size. Think of birds as the descendants of non-avian dinosaurs as a more dramatic example than horses.

By the way, isn't that lack of direction another example of a self-defeating argument of creationism?

rc19 said: Perhaps the point Ken Ham was trying to make is that digging up the bones of a smaller horse from an older sediment layer doesn't automatically mean that all horses used to be smaller, just like all horses are not small now

Robert Byers said: I think Mr ham makes a good point and just at the right moment. They always stress the horses as examples to demonstrate evolution as true. tHey pick the progression of horse fossils as a highlighted example. They originally and always showed small clawed horses becoming bigger hoofed horses and so on. their example was always about very small horses that evolved from something else becoming bigger over great lengths of time. mr Ham is replying to the small evolved into big concept. It was a wrong and poor case to say tiny horse became big ones and so evolution proved. there is no reason to see this. in fact the glory of a horses body inside and out trumps the minor matters of hoof types or claws or size. Trivial details were used to say the horses was a product of great time and selection. Like marine mammals the horse was used as stars in educating people about evolution. This point is further made by the case of the litoptern(sp) horse. This is a fossil creature found in South America that is grouped into very different types of looking creatures but using teeth or other minor details conclusions are made about classification. Just wiki it. This litoptern has a horse head, body, and legs and yet is said by evolutionists to not be a horse. Just ANOTHER example of convergent evolution. This litoptern is in fact just a horse that along with other creatures migrating to S America developed teeth or this or that adaptations to deal with a new unique world. This creature they say developed like body with REAL horses but unrelated. So they have horses being evolved descendants cause of hoof types but don't have litopterns being evolved horses because of teeth types. Mr Ham is not the one needing correction about horsey's.

rc19 said: Perhaps the point Ken Ham was trying to make is that digging up the bones of a smaller horse from an older sediment layer doesn't automatically mean that all horses used to be smaller, just like all horses are not small now, yet some are. Similarly, digging up a four-foot Inuit skeleton in Greenland wound not mean that all humans were shorter in the 14th century, or even all Greenlanders. The Norsemen inhabited Greenland, too, and they were much taller than the Inuit.

TomS said: In the early 19th century, the fossils of dinosaurs were problematic for early notions of evolution, as they were large animals which went extinct. In order for evolution to be accepted, it had to be understood as not being a directed process, such as in the direction of increasing size. Think of birds as the descendants of non-avian dinosaurs as a more dramatic example than horses. By the way, isn't that lack of direction another example of a self-defeating argument of creationism?

If evolution is true, then why is a chihuahua smaller than a wolf?

If evolution is true, then why are modern corn ears larger than the seed spikes of Teosinte?

These are all non sequiturs. The reason is because human directed evolution made them for our own purposes. Evolution is the basis for our agricultural systems which only matters to people that eat.

rc19 said: Perhaps the point Ken Ham was trying to make is that digging up the bones of a smaller horse from an older sediment layer doesn't automatically mean that all horses used to be smaller, just like all horses are not small now, yet some are. Similarly, digging up a four-foot Inuit skeleton in Greenland wound not mean that all humans were shorter in the 14th century, or even all Greenlanders. The Norsemen inhabited Greenland, too, and they were much taller than the Inuit.

Robert Byers said: This point is further made by the case of the litoptern(sp) horse.

Karen S. said: Look at Thumbelina, the world's smallest horse. Oh my, horses are getting smaller!

The first manual for training of warhorses was written around 1350 BCE. At that time it was all about horses that could pull small, two-wheeled combat carriages. According to war historian Gat it was not until about 900 BCE that war horses with riders on their back made their definite entry on the battlefield. ... Why did it take so long before mounted soldiers was invented? Gat answers that question by pointing out that horses had to become bigger first. It was only after hundreds of years of selective breeding that war-horses got so big that they could gallop longer distances with a rider on his back - instead of pulling a war-carriage.

Rolf said: It so happens that I have had a newspaper clipping lying on my desk for a while waiting for an opportunity. From Norwegian, I translate:

The first manual for training of warhorses was written around 1350 BCE. At that time it was all about horses that could pull small, two-wheeled combat carriages. According to war historian Gat it was not until about 900 BCE that war horses with riders on their back made their definite entry on the battlefield. ... Why did it take so long before mounted soldiers was invented? Gat answers that question by pointing out that horses had to become bigger first. It was only after hundreds of years of selective breeding that war-horses got so big that they could gallop longer distances with a rider on his back - instead of pulling a war-carriage.

Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: This point is further made by the case of the litoptern(sp) horse.

Couldn't even take a few seconds to look it up so you could spell it right? Litopterna had nothing to do with horses - they're closer to camels and llamas than horses.

while others, like Thoatherium (the litoptern “horse” Robert Byers was babbling about), achieved a very horse-like appearance, complete with single toe.

If you're learning about evolution from an 19th century textbook, ham may be right--what you're learning is a bit outdated. Unfortunately, he would replace it with a text considerably older.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of horse evolution as understood since early in the last century is the "bushiness" of the evolutionary tree, quite unlike the linear sequence many people picture. Another poorly-supported idea is that at some time "the ancestral horse" switched from browsing to grazing; in fact, some of the diverse species were browsers and other were grazers.
Instead of being a classic example of Cope's Rule (the trend toward larger size), horses (in approximately their last 20 million years of evolution) exhibited greater diversity in size, some groups getting larger, some getting smaller, and some staying about the same. Ham refuses to understand any of this.

I seriously don't want to sound like a paranoid twit, but, I was looking at Kenny's blog post yesterday. So I wanted to know more about the Kentucky Horse Park, and I was able to click on a link called the "Education Barn." It had some photos on the evolution of the horse and some other stuff. Today, while writing my response to Ken Ham (he has attacked little old me in the past on his Facebook page for comparing Ham to Meryl Dorey…you'd have to be into vaccines to get my humor), the link to the Education Barn no longer works. Maybe I was just confused, or maybe I clicked on the wrong link. But the education Barn link is now dead.

raven said:

while others, like Thoatherium (the litoptern “horse” Robert Byers was babbling about), achieved a very horse-like appearance, complete with single toe.

Oh, you mean, convergent evolution? Like marsupial "lions", marsupial "tigers", or marsupial "moles", none of which are all that closely related to the placental mammals they resemble.

If you’re learning about evolution from an 19th century textbook, ham may be right–what you’re learning is a bit outdated. Unfortunately, he would replace it with a text considerably older. Perhaps the most significant aspect of horse evolution as understood since early in the last century is the “bushiness” of the evolutionary tree, quite unlike the linear sequence many people picture. Another poorly-supported idea is that at some time “the ancestral horse” switched from browsing to grazing; in fact, some of the diverse species were browsers and other were grazers. Instead of being a classic example of Cope’s Rule (the trend toward larger size), horses (in approximately their last 20 million years of evolution) exhibited greater diversity in size, some groups getting larger, some getting smaller, and some staying about the same. Ham refuses to understand any of this.

Robert,

Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen or read something from a YEC that you knew was flat out wrong?? If so, what was it and why do you know it was wrong?

Thanks in advance for your time.

alicejohn said: Robert, Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen or read something from a YEC that you knew was flat out wrong?? If so, what was it and why do you know it was wrong? Thanks in advance for your time.

Just Bob said:

alicejohn said: Robert, Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen or read something from a YEC that you knew was flat out wrong?? If so, what was it and why do you know it was wrong? Thanks in advance for your time.

I'm betting no answer, or else something that has nothing at all to do with YECism.

Please do not feed (or bait) the Byers troll. I will send its comments to the Bathroom Wall as soon as I see them. It is not welcome to comment on any threads for which I am responsible until it learns about, well, anything and also displays an ability to write a coherent sentence.

Actually, Ham is simply putting paid to the notion that you (pl) are being honest about horse evolution.

If you were honest, you(pl) would show exactly what it is that you(pl) mean in textbooks. But you(pl) don't. Textbooks do show a progressively larger horse as time goes by. So if this is not the case, then why display it as such.

The inevitable answer is that teaching evolution is a pedagogical problem. Showing a series of progressively larger horses is simpler to teach and more visually stimulating than showing that subsequent generations of horses will be both big and small depending on their local environmental conditions.

So convenience (laziness) trumps accuracy. Thats the innocuous version anyway.

So, the complaint now is that beginning level courses omit some details from the material?

Of course they do; there are limits to how much material can be covered in one course.

Henry

SteveP. said: Actually, Ham is simply putting paid to the notion that you (pl) are being honest about horse evolution. If you were honest, you(pl) would show exactly what it is that you(pl) mean in textbooks. But you(pl) don't. Textbooks do show a progressively larger horse as time goes by. So if this is not the case, then why display it as such. The inevitable answer is that teaching evolution is a pedagogical problem. Showing a series of progressively larger horses is simpler to teach and more visually stimulating than showing that subsequent generations of horses will be both big and small depending on their local environmental conditions. So convenience (laziness) trumps accuracy. Thats the innocuous version anyway.

Sylvilagus said:

rc19 said: Perhaps the point Ken Ham was trying to make is that digging up the bones of a smaller horse from an older sediment layer doesn't automatically mean that all horses used to be smaller, just like all horses are not small now

If that is his point, its a pretty stupid one, because no one ever said it would "automatically mean that all horses used to be smaller." Many small animals evolved from larger ones, and vice versa. There is no claim otherwise. That's just a straw man constructed by Ham. The evolutionary model of the descent of horses is not based on size, but on changes in anatomical features. Not to mention the evidence based on modern DNA patterns.

DS said:

rc19 said: Perhaps the point Ken Ham was trying to make is that digging up the bones of a smaller horse from an older sediment layer doesn't automatically mean that all horses used to be smaller, just like all horses are not small now, yet some are. Similarly, digging up a four-foot Inuit skeleton in Greenland wound not mean that all humans were shorter in the 14th century, or even all Greenlanders. The Norsemen inhabited Greenland, too, and they were much taller than the Inuit.

Perhaps the point he was trying to make is that if you don;t want to believe in evolution you will accept absolutely any argument against it, no matter how insane.

Ken Ham was protesting an evolutionary model that is, according to Ken Ham, considered outdated even among evolutionary circles.

It’s not a straw argument if it’s actually being taught in school text books.

harold said:

rc19 said: Perhaps the point Ken Ham was trying to make is that digging up the bones of a smaller horse from an older sediment layer doesn't automatically mean that all horses used to be smaller . . .

No, that (perfectly reasonable point) is clearly not the point Ken Ham was making. His point may be absurd, but he made it pretty clearly. He denies evolution, he denies that modern horses evolved from ancestor populations, and in support of his denial, he uses the deceptive technique of constructing a straw man. He claims that the theory of evolution requires that all modern horses be larger than all ancestor horses. That is the straw man part. He then points out that small horses exist today (that part is true; they were mainly bred from larger horses by humans, though, and there is also some tendency for mustangs to be slightly smaller than domestic breeds overall, although mustangs fit into the category of full-sized horses). He then claims to have disproved horse evolution, but what he has "disproved" is his own straw man claims about horse evolution. The fact the modern horses are variable in size SUPPORTS the evolution of horses from different sized ancestors, of course.

raven said: If evolution is true, then why is a chihuahua smaller than a wolf? If evolution is true, then why are modern corn ears larger than the seed spikes of Teosinte? These are all non sequiturs. The reason is because human directed evolution made them for our own purposes. Evolution is the basis for our agricultural systems which only matters to people that eat.

Harold, thank you for your complement on my reasonable point. I think you are misunderstanding Ken Ham's article. He wasn't directly saying that evolution is outdated, although he probably believes that. He was saying the horse model referenced at the horse park was outdated. He also referenced http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n4/horse, an account of a similar model in a textbook. So, this is not a straw man; this is an actual teaching of some evolutionists. He's complaining that the Kentucky horse park and some textbooks are not correcting misinformation.

raven said:

Ken Ham was protesting an evolutionary model that is, according to Ken Ham, considered outdated even among evolutionary circles.

No he isn't. Ken Ham is claiming that the idea that evolution in horses even happened is impossible. He is claiming that those fossil horses can't be older than 6,000 years old. Ken Ham is a Presuppositionalist YEC.

It’s not a straw argument if it’s actually being taught in school text books.

Yes it is. The repository of current scientific knowledge isn't secondary school textbooks for children. It's the current scientific literature. Come on. You know Ken Ham the wild eyed religious crackpot doesn't give one damn about faulty school texts. He in fact, pushes a version of fundie xian home schooling that rejects most of modern science. As a Presuppositionalist YEC, he objects to anything that contradicts a whacky reading of a few pages of a kludgy old book, which turns out to be much of modern science including biology, paleontology, astronomy, geology, archaeology, cosmology, physics, and history.

Then how come neither Ken Ham, nor you will (or can) explain how or why saying God magically poofed horses into existence 10,000 years ago as they are now is supposed to be "accurate"?

... even though the park has many great attractions, it also promotes (outdated) evolutionary ideas—to both adults and children. Many of us will remember seeing the supposed “horse evolution” series in our textbooks many years ago. However, this idea has been basically thrown out—even by many secularists.

rc19 said: If you find yourself defending an unproven evolutionary model simply because a YEC is arguing against it, you are no longer listening to their arguments but presuming fault.

What actual evidence of special evolution have you seen with your own eyes...?

rc19 said: How about the Cambrian explosion? How did single-cell organisms suddenly diversify into such a wide variety of complex lifeforms?

rc19 said: apokryltaros said:

Then how come neither Ken Ham, nor you will (or can) explain how or why saying God magically poofed horses into existence 10,000 years ago as they are now is supposed to be "accurate"?

apokryltaros, Do you want fossil evidence of things "poofing" into existence? How about the Cambrian explosion? How did single-cell organisms suddenly diversify into such a wide variety of complex lifeforms?

Can you prove your hypothesis on how this happened true?

If not, then why do you ridicule those who hypothesize it happened suddenly because it was engineered intentionally?

Can you prove them wrong? Why do you demand more than circumstantial evidence from opposing views when that is all you have for your own?

Paul Burnett said:

rc19 said: How about the Cambrian explosion? How did single-cell organisms suddenly diversify into such a wide variety of complex lifeforms?

Please define "suddenly." How long do you think the Cambrian Explosion lasted? Did the Cambrian Explosion take place more than 6,000 years ago, or was it more recent?

rc19 said:

harold said:

rc19 said: Perhaps the point Ken Ham was trying to make is that digging up the bones of a smaller horse from an older sediment layer doesn't automatically mean that all horses used to be smaller . . .

No, that (perfectly reasonable point) is clearly not the point Ken Ham was making. His point may be absurd, but he made it pretty clearly. He denies evolution, he denies that modern horses evolved from ancestor populations, and in support of his denial, he uses the deceptive technique of constructing a straw man. He claims that the theory of evolution requires that all modern horses be larger than all ancestor horses. That is the straw man part. He then points out that small horses exist today (that part is true; they were mainly bred from larger horses by humans, though, and there is also some tendency for mustangs to be slightly smaller than domestic breeds overall, although mustangs fit into the category of full-sized horses). He then claims to have disproved horse evolution, but what he has "disproved" is his own straw man claims about horse evolution. The fact the modern horses are variable in size SUPPORTS the evolution of horses from different sized ancestors, of course.

raven said: If evolution is true, then why is a chihuahua smaller than a wolf? If evolution is true, then why are modern corn ears larger than the seed spikes of Teosinte? These are all non sequiturs. The reason is because human directed evolution made them for our own purposes. Evolution is the basis for our agricultural systems which only matters to people that eat.

Raven, you're using evolution in quite a different way than Darwin. "Human-directed evolution," as you are calling it, modifies plants and animals without changing their species. Modified corn is still corn. Modified dogs are still dogs. These modifications do not support or discredit Darwinism.

rc19 the creationist: Raven, you’re using evolution in quite a different way than Darwin. “Human-directed evolution,” as you are calling it, modifies plants and animals without changing their species. Modified corn is still corn. Modified dogs are still dogs. These modifications do not support or discredit Darwinism.

These modifications do not support or discredit Darwinism.

rc19 said: Harold, thank you for your complement on my reasonable point. I think you are misunderstanding Ken Ham's article. He wasn't directly saying that evolution is outdated, although he probably believes that. He was saying the horse model referenced at the horse park was outdated. He also referenced http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n4/horse, an account of a similar model in a textbook. So, this is not a straw man; this is an actual teaching of some evolutionists. He's complaining that the Kentucky horse park and some textbooks are not correcting misinformation.

rc19 the creationist idiot: What actual evidence of special evolution have you seen with your own eyes…?

How cancer shapes evolution, and how evolution shapes cancer. ww.ucdenver.edu/.../Casas-Selves-DeGregori_finalversionEVOO.p... by M Casás-Selves - Cited by 2 - Related articles Cancer development within an individual is also an evolutionary process, which in many respects mirrors species evolution. Species evolve by mutation and ...

rc19 said:

DS said:

rc19 said: Perhaps the point Ken Ham was trying to make is that digging up the bones of a smaller horse from an older sediment layer doesn't automatically mean that all horses used to be smaller, just like all horses are not small now, yet some are. Similarly, digging up a four-foot Inuit skeleton in Greenland wound not mean that all humans were shorter in the 14th century, or even all Greenlanders. The Norsemen inhabited Greenland, too, and they were much taller than the Inuit.

Perhaps the point he was trying to make is that if you don;t want to believe in evolution you will accept absolutely any argument against it, no matter how insane.

DS, you didn't even read the articles referenced, did you? You're just throwing out insults to feel good, aren't you? Shame on you. Now, expect more from yourself, and try again.

rc19 said: What makes a presumptive evolutionist any better than a presumptive Ken Ham?

rc19 lying: But, last time I checked, naturalists are also presuppositionalists. They presume unintelligent, natural causes and often refuse to consider any other explanations. If you find yourself defending an unproven evolutionary model simply because a YEC is arguing against it, you are no longer listening to their arguments but presuming fault. How long ago did this naturalism begin for you personally?

Parents! Protect your children from paleontology before it's too late.

PS The majority of xians worldwide don’t have a problem with evolution and science.

rc19 said: To quote Ken Ham's article, "Unfortunately, however, even though the park has many great attractions, it also promotes (outdated) evolutionary ideas—to both adults and children. Many of us will remember seeing the supposed “horse evolution” series in our textbooks many years ago. However, this idea has been basically thrown out—even by many secularists." Yes, he is making the argument that this horse model is outdated. Yes, he does claim to care about text books. Home schoolers use text books, too. Yes, he is a YEC. Yes, he seems to be a presuppositionalist. But, last time I checked, naturalists are also presuppositionalists. They presume unintelligent, natural causes and often refuse to consider any other explanations. If you find yourself defending an unproven evolutionary model simply because a YEC is arguing against it, you are no longer listening to their arguments but presuming fault. How long ago did this naturalism begin for you personally? Have you ever really considered the arguments of folks like Ken Ham, or have you always considered them false? What actual evidence of special evolution have you seen with your own eyes, or are you presuming, fitting circumstantial evidence into your preferred naturalism with almost religious fervor? What makes a presumptive evolutionist any better than a presumptive Ken Ham?

last time I checked, naturalists are also presuppositionalists. They presume unintelligent, natural causes and often refuse to consider any other explanations.

Karen S. said: Parents! Protect your children from paleontology before it's too late.

The claims about this particular model of horse evolution being outdated interested me, so I noticed that the AiG article linked above (written by Peter Hastie) was from 1995. It doesn't say which textbook was being discussed or when it was published. It's never been uncommon for schools to use older, slightly out-of-date textbooks. If the "scandal" of the article is merely that a school used an unspecifically outdated textbook, then all I can say is that public education should be better funded to keep the texts current. It is not an argument for attacking the institution of education or the theory of evolution, both of which are unmistakable threads in the article.

Regarding what Ken Ham actually said in his blog post, he's just inventing the claim that horses only get bigger through evolution. It's not a claim that was anywhere present in the textbook being harped on, nor the display he's pictured. It is the textbook definition (heh) of a straw man argument. Can rc19 admit this much?

rc19 said:Ken Ham was protesting an evolutionary model that is, according to Ken Ham, considered outdated even among evolutionary circles.

ksplawn said: The claims about this particular model of horse evolution being outdated interested me, so I noticed that the AiG article linked above (written by Peter Hastie) was from 1995. It doesn't say which textbook was being discussed or when it was published. It's never been uncommon for schools to use older, slightly out-of-date textbooks. If the "scandal" of the article is merely that a school used an unspecifically outdated textbook, then all I can say is that public education should be better funded to keep the texts current. It is not an argument for attacking the institution of education or the theory of evolution, both of which are unmistakable threads in the article. Regarding what Ken Ham actually said in his blog post, he's just inventing the claim that horses only get bigger through evolution. It's not a claim that was anywhere present in the textbook being harped on, nor the display he's pictured. It is the textbook definition (heh) of a straw man argument. Can rc19 admit this much?

But we won’t change our betting now, because Divine hasn’t yet won a single race. His record is one of 100% failure. Only a fool would bet on Divine at this point.

But, last time I checked, naturalists are also presuppositionalists. They presume unintelligent, natural causes and often refuse to consider any other explanations.

Karen S. said:

But we won’t change our betting now, because Divine hasn’t yet won a single race. His record is one of 100% failure. Only a fool would bet on Divine at this point.

But what about Holy Bull? Seems he could run.

last time I checked, naturalists are also presuppositionalists. They presume unintelligent, natural causes and often refuse to consider any other explanations.

I must be reading that wrong, or is 1991 actually his birth date? Aging like fine wine if it is, it would seem.

rc19 said:

Sylvilagus said:

rc19 said: Perhaps the point Ken Ham was trying to make is that digging up the bones of a smaller horse from an older sediment layer doesn't automatically mean that all horses used to be smaller, just like all horses are not small now

If that is his point, its a pretty stupid one, because no one ever said it would "automatically mean that all horses used to be smaller." Many small animals evolved from larger ones, and vice versa. There is no claim otherwise. That's just a straw man constructed by Ham. The evolutionary model of the descent of horses is not based on size, but on changes in anatomical features. Not to mention the evidence based on modern DNA patterns.

The outdated model of horse evolution that Ken Ham was exposing argues that horse ancestors started small and evolved into the larger horses we see today. Reference the article he referenced: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n4/horse. It's not a straw argument if it's actually being taught in school text books. Ken Ham was protesting an evolutionary model that is, according to Ken Ham, considered outdated even among evolutionary circles.

rc19 said: But, last time I checked, naturalists are also presuppositionalists. They presume unintelligent, natural causes and often refuse to consider any other explanations.

John_S said:

rc19 said: But, last time I checked, naturalists are also presuppositionalists. They presume unintelligent, natural causes and often refuse to consider any other explanations.

Scientists don't refuse to consider supernatural explanations; it simply isn't the job of science to investigate such things. It's like asking your plumber to fix your transmission. It's not that he "presumes" your transmission doesn't need fixing and refuses to consider that it does; it simply isn't his job to worry about it. Science has given you a natural explanation for biological diversity and backed it up with 150 years of arguments and evidence. If you don't believe it, go to a church and ask for one of the thousands of supernatural alternatives.

The situation with Ham is even worse. Ham cites an old 1995 AiG paper on the inadequacies of horse evolution. Meanwhile, at his own museum (!) there is a section mentioning the baraminologists, and their conclusion that evolution like the horse sequence occurs but is merely variations within a baramin (a "monobaramin" in their jargon). So Ham doesn't even know the content of his own museum, where they at least have thrown in the towel on the horse matter. Ah the pitfalls of laziness in YEC land.

Do you want fossil evidence of things "poofing" into existence? How about the Cambrian explosion? How did single-cell organisms suddenly diversify into such a wide variety of complex lifeforms? Can you prove your hypothesis on how this happened true? If not, then why do you ridicule those who hypothesize it happened suddenly because it was engineered intentionally? Can you prove them wrong? Why do you demand more than circumstantial evidence from opposing views when that is all you have for your own?

James Downard said: The situation with Ham is even worse. Ham cites an old 1995 AiG paper on the inadequacies of horse evolution. Meanwhile, at his own museum (!) there is a section mentioning the baraminologists, and their conclusion that evolution like the horse sequence occurs but is merely variations within a baramin (a "monobaramin" in their jargon). So Ham doesn't even know the content of his own museum, where they at least have thrown in the towel on the horse matter. Ah the pitfalls of laziness in YEC land.

John_S said:

rc19 said: But, last time I checked, naturalists are also presuppositionalists. They presume unintelligent, natural causes and often refuse to consider any other explanations.

Scientists don't refuse to consider supernatural explanations; it simply isn't the job of science to investigate such things. It's like asking your plumber to fix your transmission. It's not that he "presumes" your transmission doesn't need fixing and refuses to consider that it does; it simply isn't his job to worry about it. Science has given you a natural explanation for biological diversity and backed it up with 150 years of arguments and evidence. If you don't believe it, go to a church and ask for one of the thousands of supernatural alternatives.

Apokryltaros said: Artificial selection is a form of evolution where organisms have trait selected to suit human aesthetics. Furthermore, you are using the debunked Creationist canard of "evolution doesn't exist because X organism is still the same as its ancestor." So, are we to assume that you are stupid enough to think that wolves and chihuahuas and great danes are exactly the same? Or that you are blind enough to think wild corn and domesticated corn are identical? Of course, I know you aren't going to answer these rhetorical questions: you're just here to shame us and scold us for not giving Creationists the scientific recognition, respect and accolades they have made no effort to earn.

Paul Burnett said: "Were you there?" in other words - that's an old Ken Ham trope. "If this response were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed." - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA221.html

rc19 said: Why do you demand more than circumstantial evidence from opposing views when that is all you have for your own?

rc19 said:

Apokryltaros said: Artificial selection is a form of evolution where organisms have trait selected to suit human aesthetics. Furthermore, you are using the debunked Creationist canard of "evolution doesn't exist because X organism is still the same as its ancestor." So, are we to assume that you are stupid enough to think that wolves and chihuahuas and great danes are exactly the same? Or that you are blind enough to think wild corn and domesticated corn are identical? Of course, I know you aren't going to answer these rhetorical questions: you're just here to shame us and scold us for not giving Creationists the scientific recognition, respect and accolades they have made no effort to earn.

Artificial selection is a form of evolution; I agree. I am not trying to argue that wolves and chihuahuas are the same. I am arguing that they are both still canine, and that we have no living or conclusive fossil evidence that they have ever been anything but canines.

If I suggested that a wolf suddenly birthed a fertile goat, for example, that would be amazing evidence for evolution.

But, no one has provided me with any evidence that such changes in species has occurred in recorded history.

You are asking me to take the word of scientists who make money digging up bones, looking for similarities, and claiming that similar features equal ancestral descent.

To you, this might make sense, but to me this is gullibility at its highest. No zoo, no vet, no hospital, no midwife, and to my knowledge no scientist has ever seen such things happen in real life.

As for corn and such, I did not claim that organic and genetic enhanced corn are exactly the same. But, similar to animals, no evidence has been provided that corn grows anything but corn.

When you mix plants and animals and create hybrids, these hybrids are not fertile.

Mule’s, for example, are hybrids, but you do not have a new mule self-procreating species because mules cannot reproduce. Is there even one example of hybrid plants or animals that can reproduce their artificial selection/evolution?

If not, than this is evidence against evolution, is it not?

You could argue that lack of evidence is not evidence against, but then you are engaging in the same fallacy you are accusing theists of making.

At least theists have historical accounts of human-divine interaction, subjective as they may be.

Evolution has theory without observation. Where are the facts?! Where are the human observations of mutations begetting new, procreating species?

rc19 said: If I suggested that a wolf suddenly birthed a fertile goat, for example, that would be amazing evidence for evolution.

Evolution has theory without observation.

Where are the facts?!

rc19 said: Artificial selection is a form of evolution; I agree. I am not trying to argue that wolves and chihuahuas are the same. I am arguing that they are both still canine, and that we have no living or conclusive fossil evidence that they have ever been anything but canines. If I suggested that a wolf suddenly birthed a fertile goat, for example, that would be amazing evidence for evolution. But, no one has provided me with any evidence that such changes in species has occurred in recorded history. You are asking me to take the word of scientists who make money digging up bones, looking for similarities, and claiming that similar features equal ancestral descent. To you, this might make sense, but to me this is gullibility at its highest. No zoo, no vet, no hospital, no midwife, and to my knowledge no scientist has ever seen such things happen in real life. As for corn and such, I did not claim that organic and genetic enhanced corn are exactly the same. But, similar to animals, no evidence has been provided that corn grows anything but corn. When you mix plants and animals and create hybrids, these hybrids are not fertile. Mule’s, for example, are hybrids, but you do not have a new mule self-procreating species because mules cannot reproduce. Is there even one example of hybrid plants or animals that can reproduce their artificial selection/evolution? If not, than this is evidence against evolution, is it not? You could argue that lack of evidence is not evidence against, but then you are engaging in the same fallacy you are accusing theists of making. At least theists have historical accounts of human-divine interaction, subjective as they may be. Evolution has theory without observation. Where are the facts?! Where are the human observations of mutations begetting new, procreating species?

Where are the facts?! Where are the human observations of mutations begetting new, procreating species?

I wish there was an edit feature here. I always forget to proof read until its too late.

rc19 said: As for corn and such, I did not claim that organic and genetic enhanced corn are exactly the same. But, similar to animals, no evidence has been provided that corn grows anything but corn.

To recap, rc19 argues that evolution does not happen because wolves and chihuahuas really are the same, unless a wolf were to give birth to a goat, that evolution does not happen because organic corn and genetically modified corn are really the same, that all hybrids are sterile because the only hybrid he knows of is the mule, that scientists can never be trusted because he won't trust them, that there is no evidence for evolution because he is absolutely unwilling to look at any, and, most importantly, Creationists don't need to present any evidence because scientists are mean to them.

Evolution is life changing through time. This includes human caused so called artificial selection. The distinction between artificial and natural selection is semantics, they are basically the same thing inasmuch as we are part of nature. 1. Darwin used many examples of domestic plant and animal breeding in his books. His "favored races" in the longer title of the Origins of the Species referred to cabbages and pigeons.

2. modifies plants and animals without changing their species. You couldn't be more wrong here, this is impressive. Corn is modified Teosinte and they are considered separate species. Dogs are recently descended from wolves and some people classify them in the same species and some do not. This is common in recently evolved species, what is a species and what is a subspecies is fuzzy because reality here is fuzzy.

rc19 said: OK. Fair. I meant to assert that Darwin’s idea of undirected, new, reproductive species is not the same as artificial selection within a species. Artificially selected pigeons are still pigeons, and cabbages are still cabbages. I am correct on my main point.

So, I did a little research. Please reference http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/corn/, http://creation.com/transposon-amplification, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zea_(genus). It seems you may have provided me with a potential species transition within a genus, but according to wiki (I know it’s just wiki!), both corn and teosinte fall within the species “Zea Mays” in genus “Zea.” Do you agree or disagree with wiki on this?

1) As a child, I remember being taught that the difference between species is their ability to reproduce. It has come to my attention that the term “species” no longer has, if it ever truly had, any such solid definition. The result is this “fuzziness” between species and subspecies that you mention. The maize (corn) and teosinte hybrids are reproducing, just as wolves and dogs can. However, you claimed they were separate species and wiki claimed they were the same species. (Once again, I am open to confirmation either way on this.) Next question in this vain, do you know of any successful changes between two genus? Or, to put it another way, maize and teosinte are already very similar genetically. Is there any evidence that evolution is not limited to already-similar DNA strains?

2) Maize (corn) has been artificially modified significantly since domestication. This offers evidence of rapid evolution, albeit intelligently coerced and possibly within the same species.

Second question, if rapid evolution were possible between species or even genus, what scientific evidence requires an evolutionist to believe in millions of years of plant and animal evolution? Why could diversity within a species or genus not happen within several thousand years?

3) Third overarching question, do you have any explanation of where the exceptionally complex DNA information came from in the first place if not from intelligent design? Such complexity of information would be assumed to be authored by superhuman engineering if it were found anywhere but in nature by a naturalist. Even if evolution were to be proven beyond species or genus boundaries, why should a rational person not assume that such complexity was anything but intelligently engineered by a masterfully creative God?

Even if evolution were to be proven beyond species or genus boundaries, why should a rational person not assume that such complexity was anything but intelligently engineered by a masterfully creative God?

To assume the existence of an unperceivable being … does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world. – Albert Einstein, responding to an Iowa student who asked, “What is God?” July 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085

rc19 said: Artificial selection is a form of evolution; I agree. I am not trying to argue that wolves and chihuahuas are the same. I am arguing that they are both still canine, and that we have no living or conclusive fossil evidence that they have ever been anything but canines. If I suggested that a wolf suddenly birthed a fertile goat, for example, that would be amazing evidence for evolution. .......... No zoo, no vet, no hospital, no midwife, and to my knowledge no scientist has ever seen such things happen in real life.

rc19 the fundie xian troll lying some more: rc19 said: Why do you demand more than circumstantial evidence from opposing views when that is all you have for your own?

rc19 displaying his ignorance: If I suggested that a wolf suddenly birthed a fertile goat, for example, that would be amazing evidence for evolution.

rc19 being wrong: I am arguing that they are both still canine, and that we have no living or conclusive fossil evidence that they have ever been anything but canines.

rc19 - please answer three quick questions: How old is the earth? How long did the Cambrian Explosion last? How long ago did the Cambrian Explosion take place?

I'm just trying to figure out what level of scientific illiteracy we're dealiong with here.

Anyone up for crocoducks ?

Ian Derthal said: Anyone up for crocoducks ?

If I suggested that a wolf suddenly birthed a fertile goat, for example, that would be amazing evidence for evolution.

DS said:

rc19 said: To quote Ken Ham's article, "Unfortunately, however, even though the park has many great attractions, it also promotes (outdated) evolutionary ideas—to both adults and children. Many of us will remember seeing the supposed “horse evolution” series in our textbooks many years ago. However, this idea has been basically thrown out—even by many secularists." Yes, he is making the argument that this horse model is outdated. Yes, he does claim to care about text books. Home schoolers use text books, too. Yes, he is a YEC. Yes, he seems to be a presuppositionalist. But, last time I checked, naturalists are also presuppositionalists. They presume unintelligent, natural causes and often refuse to consider any other explanations. If you find yourself defending an unproven evolutionary model simply because a YEC is arguing against it, you are no longer listening to their arguments but presuming fault. How long ago did this naturalism begin for you personally? Have you ever really considered the arguments of folks like Ken Ham, or have you always considered them false? What actual evidence of special evolution have you seen with your own eyes, or are you presuming, fitting circumstantial evidence into your preferred naturalism with almost religious fervor? What makes a presumptive evolutionist any better than a presumptive Ken Ham?

So Ham is just saying that the horse evolution model is outdated? He isn't really trying to d]say it isn;t true or that he doesn't believe it? Really? That's what you are going with? Really? Well, since you already have a cue of questions to answer form several posters, I guess you won't mind a a few amore: 1) Exactly how would he know? He isn't a paleontologist, biologist or scientist of any kind. He doesn't read the scientific literature. Who cares if he thinks something he doesn't understand id "outdated"? 2) Do you think he is right? Do you think that someone who has believes something that no real scientist has believed in over one hundred years is right about the field of horse evolution being outdated? If so, please explain the following reference about ancient DNA and horse evolution: Journal of Molecular Evolution 66(5): 422-338 (2008). 3) Do you really think that presupposing that the world is only 6,000 years old and ignoring all evidence to thee contrary is equivalent to using methodological naturalism?

The lying troll also ignored all of my questions

If I suggested that a wolf suddenly birthed a fertile goat, for example, that would be amazing evidence for evolution.

Thanks Harold.

harold said: rc19 Evading questions is a sure sign of a hidden agenda, shame, and dishonesty. Here are some direct question you have been asked. Please answer them. Don’t give me the “lots of comments” dodge. Prioritize answering the questions. [...]

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: Actually, Ham is simply putting paid to the notion that you (pl) are being honest about horse evolution. If you were honest, you(pl) would show exactly what it is that you(pl) mean in textbooks. But you(pl) don't. Textbooks do show a progressively larger horse as time goes by. So if this is not the case, then why display it as such. The inevitable answer is that teaching evolution is a pedagogical problem. Showing a series of progressively larger horses is simpler to teach and more visually stimulating than showing that subsequent generations of horses will be both big and small depending on their local environmental conditions. So convenience (laziness) trumps accuracy. Thats the innocuous version anyway.

Then how come neither Ken Ham, nor you will (or can) explain how or why saying God magically poofed horses into existence 10,000 years ago as they are now is supposed to be "accurate"?

DS said: Thanks Harold.

rc19: If something that your revered creationist mentors told you, a simple fact, say, can be shown to be just plain WRONG, would that lead you to be much more critical of the other "facts" they have taught you?

Apparently you were taught that mules, the hybrids of horses and donkeys are ALWAYS sterile, and that somehow disproves evolution. Well, that's just plain WRONG. Mules are rarely, but sometimes, FERTILE! Look it up.

Now, will you admit that you, and your teachers, were WRONG? And if so, will you continue to accept uncritically all the other "facts" they taught you?

Just Bob said: Those small horses must have been pretty strong, since they could pull "chariots of iron", which were apparently too much of a challenge for the Lord Himself.

Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

I often say draw instead of pull.

Just Bob said: rc19: If something that your revered creationist mentors told you, a simple fact, say, can be shown to be just plain WRONG, would that lead you to be much more critical of the other "facts" they have taught you?

Apparently you were taught that mules, the hybrids of horses and donkeys are ALWAYS sterile, and that somehow disproves evolution. Well, that's just plain WRONG. Mules are rarely, but sometimes, FERTILE! Look it up.

Now, will you admit that you, and your teachers, were WRONG?

And if so, will you continue to accept uncritically all the other "facts" they taught you?

Rolf said: I often say draw instead of pull.

Rolf said:

Just Bob said: Those small horses must have been pretty strong, since they could pull "chariots of iron", which were apparently too much of a challenge for the Lord Himself.

Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

I've never been to a flea circus but from what I've heard, even fleas can draw a cart.

According to Wikipedia, there have been sixty or so reported cases of mule mollies (females that can go into oestrus) in the last 500 years, with 3 reported within the last 30 years.

harold said: Putting that aside, what is the creationist explanation for the fact that we have both horses and donkeys, anyway?

harold said: ...unless the person is a psychopath, and at least some creationists probably are not...

rc19 said:If I suggested that a wolf suddenly birthed a fertile goat, for example, that would be amazing evidence for evolution. But, no one has provided me with any evidence that such changes in species has occurred in recorded history.

Paul Burnett said:

harold said: ...unless the person is a psychopath, and at least some creationists probably are not...

...at least some...maybe a few...okay, one or two... Love it. In all seriousness, we really should differentiate between (1) the professional creationists who are arguably psychopaths, most of whom know creationism is a crock - the Liars For Jesus(TM) - and (2) the willfully ignorant naive majority of gullible dupes - the scientifically illiterate "useful idiots" - who have been lied to by expert liars. Group (1) are predators, group (2) are their prey.

Ladies and gentlemen, rc19 has left the building ...

John_S said: Ladies and gentlemen, rc19 has left the building ...

My critique at Ham's horsefeathers: "Open mouth, insert hoof".

"Critique at", what the hell? "Critique OF" Sheesh!

rc19 said: If I suggested that a wolf suddenly birthed a fertile goat, for example, that would be amazing evidence for evolution.

ksplawn said:

rc19 said: If I suggested that a wolf suddenly birthed a fertile goat, for example, that would be amazing evidence for evolution.

I disagree. That would be amazing evidence for God, and that He is giving wolves His only begotten goat.

But more seriously, anybody giving you this idea, that evolution works like wolves suddenly birthing goats, is either ignorant or lying. Frankly I don't even know how you can read much of anything about evolution and maintain that kind of mistaken belief. Please make a note of this error.

"The number you have dialed has crashed into a planet. Please make a note of it."

I disagree. That would be amazing evidence for God, and that He is giving wolves His only begotten goat.

Maybe rc is going through an existential crisis, having discovered that the ABSOLUTELY TRUE scientific fact--that mules are ALWAYS STERILE, and therefore EVOLUTION IS A LIE--which his pastor taught him is just wrong. Now he's questioning some of those other "facts" and doing some independent research. And discovering that they're wrong, too, or at least gross distortions. In a week or two, after much soul searching, maybe he'll be joining the ranks of the excellent ex-YEC posters here.

It's Spring, and the time for hope.

I wonder if one of the textbooks Ken Ham has in mind is Bruce MacFadden's "Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolutionof the Family Equidae," published by Cambridge University Press in 1992. The author has also contributed a Perspectives piece for Science magazine (vol. 307, 18 March 2005, p. 1728-1730). The text and the Science item mention variability in size (and in other features), and the Perspective notes that the bushiness of the phylogenetic tree has been known since the 19th century, and the diverse genera that have existed from the middle Miocene through today have had a range of body sizes.

Ham on horses? I don't see why not. I've little doubt it would be delicious with the proper cure and smoking. After all, if there is turkey pastrami and chicken hot dogs.........

(Perhaps I should hold off on posting until after lunch).

dpr

Just Bob said: Maybe rc is going through an existential crisis, having discovered that the ABSOLUTELY TRUE scientific fact--that mules are ALWAYS STERILE, and therefore EVOLUTION IS A LIE--which his pastor taught him is just wrong. Now he's questioning some of those other "facts" and doing some independent research. And discovering that they're wrong, too, or at least gross distortions. In a week or two, after much soul searching, maybe he'll be joining the ranks of the excellent ex-YEC posters here. It's Spring, and the time for hope.

D P Robin said: After all, if there is turkey pastrami and chicken hot dogs......... dpr

Just Bob said: But chickens do NOT have fajitas!

rc19 said: If I suggested that a wolf suddenly birthed a fertile goat, for example, that would be amazing evidence for evolution.

rc19 said:

Apokryltaros said: Artificial selection is a form of evolution where organisms have trait selected to suit human aesthetics. Furthermore, you are using the debunked Creationist canard of "evolution doesn't exist because X organism is still the same as its ancestor." So, are we to assume that you are stupid enough to think that wolves and chihuahuas and great danes are exactly the same? Or that you are blind enough to think wild corn and domesticated corn are identical? Of course, I know you aren't going to answer these rhetorical questions: you're just here to shame us and scold us for not giving Creationists the scientific recognition, respect and accolades they have made no effort to earn.

Artificial selection is a form of evolution; I agree. I am not trying to argue that wolves and chihuahuas are the same. I am arguing that they are both still canine, and that we have no living or conclusive fossil evidence that they have ever been anything but canines. If I suggested that a wolf suddenly birthed a fertile goat, for example, that would be amazing evidence for evolution.

Hey, what about them fertile hybrid mules, which can't happen 'cause God created them separately?

Mmmmmm I love the smell of burning crockaduck in the morning . . . . . .

waldteufel said: Mmmmmm I love the smell of burning crockaduck in the morning . . . . . .