Mongolian native horse and northern European horse breeds

[JohnR7]

It is a long way from Mongolia to Norway. Yet they say if you put Mongolian horses in a coral with Norwegian horse, you would not be able to tell them apart. So how can people say that Horses "evolved"? They do not seem to have evolved at all.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2052.2003.00922.x

 

[Mallon]

Here's what the first fossil horses looked like:

Eohippus. It's the size of a cat. Don't tell me horses haven't evolved.

 

[AdmiralBell]

These horses both have the same ancestor, so they are very alike.

 

[lemmings]

How is this an argument against evolution? It says that animals introduced to a new environment interbreed with the existing population and contributed their genes into the genepool. This is just an example of miscegenation and has no influence on macroevolution.

 

[Pikachu]

It is a long way from Mongolia to Norway. Yet they say if you put Mongolian horses in a coral with Norwegian horse, you would not be able to tell them apart. So how can people say that Horses "evolved"? They do not seem to have evolved at all.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2052.2003.00922.x

Its a long way from Maine to Australia, too. Do you think you could tell an Aussie apart from a Maine-ite if they were in the same room?

What relevance does this have to evolution? What, precisely is the point you're trying to make?

 

[flatworm]

It is a long way from Mongolia to Norway. Yet they say if you put Mongolian horses in a coral with Norwegian horse, you would not be able to tell them apart. So how can people say that Horses "evolved"? They do not seem to have evolved at all.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2052.2003.00922.x

The article you cite suggests that certain Northern European breeds of domestice horse are derived from Mongol stock.

Where, oh, where could these Mongol horses have come from?

 

[truth above all else]

Eohippus. It's the size of a cat. Don't tell me horses haven't evolved.

horses haven't evolved, I tell you

the alleged clear line of descent merely assumes (when it involves apparently different kinds of creatures) that one creature is related to another by direct descent.

the evolution of this magnificently designed creature has always been the subject of controversy,textbooks purport to show little skeletons followed by slightly larger and ever more equine structures continuously mutating till we have the modern day horse, the Darwinian imagination is very fertile indeed even though the arranged skeletons have nothing to do with each other

 

[AdmiralBell]

horses haven't evolved, I tell you

the alleged clear line of descent merely assumes (when it involves apparently different kinds of creatures) that one creature is related to another by direct descent.

the evolution of this magnificently designed creature has always been the subject of controversy,textbooks purport to show little skeletons followed by slightly larger and ever more equine structures continuously mutating till we have the modern day horse, the Darwinian imagination is very fertile indeed even though the arranged skeletons have nothing to do with each other

do you have some proof to support that?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

horses haven't evolved, I tell you

the alleged clear line of descent merely assumes (when it involves apparently different kinds of creatures) that one creature is related to another by direct descent.

the evolution of this magnificently designed creature has always been the subject of controversy,textbooks purport to show little skeletons followed by slightly larger and ever more equine structures continuously mutating till we have the modern day horse, the Darwinian imagination is very fertile indeed even though the arranged skeletons have nothing to do with each other

Enjoy.

 

[truth above all else]

Enjoy.

for your edification

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_12.html

 

[MrGoodBytes]

for your edification

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_12.html

Ooh, nice. After all, if they quote the famous creationist Boyce Rensberger, they can't be wrong.

http://web.med.harvard.edu/healthcaucus/bg_rensberger.html][/url]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution"
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Boyce Rensberger, Staff Writer
Washington Post, January 8, 1997 Maybe you've encountered them, the perfectly nice people who stop you with a statement like, "Well, you know, evolution is just a theory, and it's very controversial, even among scientists." Or maybe they say, "There's no way a bunch of gears and springs in a junk pile could suddenly fall together by accident and become a working watch. The existence of a watch tells you there had to be an intelligent watchmaker." Sometimes, they'll stump you by asserting that, on his deathbed, Charles Darwin renounced his theory of evolution. Usually the people who say these things mean well. But the statements are based on a faulty understanding of biology. Unfortunately, many of us challenged by those who call themselves creationists are not well prepared to respond. [/FONT]

 

[Mallon]

horses haven't evolved, I tell you

Tell me all you like. The fossil record suggests otherwise. Yes, a gradual, anagenetic evolution of the horse lineage was refuted years ago. That's what the experts in your link are admitting to. But evolution more typically operates according to cladogenetic principles. That hasn't been refuted.

the alleged clear line of descent merely assumes (when it involves apparently different kinds of creatures) that one creature is related to another by direct descent.

Are you suggesting that Eohippus and modern Equus are different "kinds"? Most creationists would disagree with you. Most would say that Eohippus and Equus belong to the same "kind."

Not that "kind" actually means anything.

the evolution of this magnificently designed creature has always been the subject of controversy,textbooks purport to show little skeletons followed by slightly larger and ever more equine structures continuously mutating till we have the modern day horse, the Darwinian imagination is very fertile indeed even though the arranged skeletons have nothing to do with each other

Ah. So God magically created each horse species separately and planted them sequentially in the fossil record to fool us all! (Just like He made Tiktaalik there in my avatar with fish and tetrapod parts to fool us all, right?)

That's not the mischievous God I worship. God is understood through what He has made.

 

[truth above all else]

Ah. So God magically created each horse species separately and planted them sequentially in the fossil record to fool us all! (Just like He made Tiktaalik there in my avatar with fish and tetrapod parts to fool us all, right?)

wrong

Your way of interpretation makes it appear as if Darwin proposed his theory because the presence of an abundance of fossil transitionaries required some explanatory hypothesis for the humble horse.
What happened is that the theory was accepted first, and the supporting evidence was discovered and interpreted as the theory demanded. The question raised is not whether God has been planting fossil evidence to test our faith in Genesis, but whether the not insubstantial Darwinist imagination has played a significant role in contruing the evidence to further its own scientific agenda. The pressure will always enormous in finding plausible evidence.Remember Piltdown man , it performed 40 years of service in influencing public opinion until finally its plug was pulled, in the fullness of time the horse scenario will follow a not dissimilar route

 

[Nathan Poe]

wrong

Your way of interpretation makes it appear as if Darwin proposed his theory because the presence of an abundance of fossil transitionaries required some explanatory hypothesis for the humble horse.
What happened is that the theory was accepted first, and the supporting evidence was discovered and interpreted as the theory demanded.

IOW, the theory made predictions, which have turned out to be spot-on accurate.

The question raised is not whether God has been planting fossil evidence to test our faith in Genesis, but whether the not insubstantial Darwinist imagination has played a significant role in contruing the evidence to further its own scientific agenda. The pressure will always enormous in finding plausible evidence.

And in explaining said evidence. What is the Creationist theory regarding the fossil line?

Remember Piltdown man , it performed 40 years of service in influencing public opinion until finally its plug was pulled, in the fullness of time the horse scenario will follow a not dissimilar route

You've forgotten to mention that Piltdown man was eventually debunked by evolutionary scientists.

Creationists were useless in that scenario -- as they seem to be here.

 

[flatworm]

wrong
Remember Piltdown man , it performed 40 years of service in influencing public opinion until finally its plug was pulled, in the fullness of time the horse scenario will follow a not dissimilar route

Can you demonstrate through evidence that known horse series fossils are fakes, or is this just another "faith-based" claim?

 

[Mallon]

Your way of interpretation makes it appear as if Darwin proposed his theory because the presence of an abundance of fossil transitionaries required some explanatory hypothesis for the humble horse.

Darwin certainly did use his theory to help explain transitional fossils, yes. My copy of Origins is back at the lab, though, so I can't confirm whether he addressed horse evolution.

The question raised is not whether God has been planting fossil evidence to test our faith in Genesis, but whether the not insubstantial Darwinist imagination has played a significant role in contruing the evidence to further its own scientific agenda.

Contruing?
You have it backwards, actually. The evidence is what has shaped the theory of evolution through time, not the other way around. For example, Darwin knew nothing of the mechanism of inheritance and understood little about large-scale, macroevolutionary change. Recent findings -- new evidence, that is -- changed these understandings and helped to shape the neo-Darwinian view of evolution 99.9% of natural scientists espouse today.

Remember Piltdown man , it performed 40 years of service in influencing public opinion until finally its plug was pulled, in the fullness of time the horse scenario will follow a not dissimilar route

And I suppose you will continue to spout off until then. In the meantime, evolutionary theory continues to march on, unphased.

 

[JohnR7]

Don't tell me horses haven't evolved.

Why because you show me a artistic drawing of something?
If I showed you a artistic representation of big foot would you believe that he existed?
In fact I can show you lots of photographs of a lot of different things. Does that make them real?

 

[JohnR7]

Its a long way from Maine to Australia, too. Do you think you could tell an Aussie apart from a Maine-ite if they were in the same room?

I could most likly do better then that. I could tell you what part of Europe their ancestors came from.

Can you demonstrate through evidence that known horse series fossils are fakes

We can show that the evolution of horses is extreamly difficult to prove because it is very complex and it defies explaination.
It takes a lot of faith on the part of the evolutionists to believe that something like that has ever taken place.

 

[JohnR7]

The article you cite suggests that certain Northern European breeds of domestice horse are derived from Mongol stock.

That is why I ask how did they get from Mongol to Norway. Maybe the Hittites are of Mongolian descent. But other than that there are no Chinese in Europe. If the horses went from Mongol to Europe then they must have been traded. The east and the west must have been doing some serious trading along the silk road a very long time ago.

Actually, what I am really interested in is the domestication of horses. There does not seem to be a lot of agreement on just when & where horses were first domesticated. We see drawings of 4 wheeled war charriots in Ur in about 2500 bc. We see 2 wheeled chariots that the Hittitutes used about 2,000 BC. Yet some people feel that domestication of horses could go back as far as 30,000 years.

The evidence seems to show that they had robe bridles & maybe even bits 30,000 years ago.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.geocities.com/gardenofdanu/IvoryHorse_VogelherdGermany_32000BC_2.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.geocities.com/gardenofdanu/The_Domestication_of_the_Horse.htm&h=100&w=180&sz=5&hl=en&start=13&tbnid=LWCrYnYqNvrF0M:&tbnh=56&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkurgan%2Bhorse%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff

 

[Valkhorn]

John, you're wrong. In that link the items you showed were dated to 14000-9500 BC. The image you DIDNT show was dated to 30,000 years.

Wrong again.