Title: Anybody Wanna Bat This One?
Post by: Sophus on March 30, 2010, 11:05:45 PM
Post by: Sophus on March 30, 2010, 11:05:45 PM
Some Creationist trying to refute the evolution of the horse. Why does he claim "this data is 40 years old" as if that makes it false?
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
It seems to have all been arguments taken from this book, which doesn't seem to have gotten good reviews from the scientific community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution). Surprise, Surprise!
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
It seems to have all been arguments taken from this book, which doesn't seem to have gotten good reviews from the scientific community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution). Surprise, Surprise!
Title: Re: Anybody Wanna Bat This One?
Post by: elliebean on March 31, 2010, 12:20:31 AM
Post by: elliebean on March 31, 2010, 12:20:31 AM
Did he forget how old his creationist 'data' is? 
Title: Re: Anybody Wanna Bat This One?
Post by: Sophus on March 31, 2010, 12:33:45 AM
Post by: Sophus on March 31, 2010, 12:33:45 AM
I find this part particularly funny for a creationist to say:
Oh, and the author of that book has no scientific training.
QuoteThe okapi is not a horse (or relative of the horse) at all. It is a relative of the giraffe.
Oh, and the author of that book has no scientific training.
Title: Re: Anybody Wanna Bat This One?
Post by: Recusant on March 31, 2010, 01:07:31 AM
Post by: Recusant on March 31, 2010, 01:07:31 AM
Very poor work on that page. The sources which are cited are weak at best (Peter Hastie*? really?), but the main problem I have with it is the many un-sourced assertions, one prominent example being:
By whom?
Then there is the usual quote mining which seems to be a standard technique for this sort of stuff. I'm not impressed.
TalkOrigins Archive has a couple of pages that deal with pretty much every point that is brought up by "Jesus, Dinosaurs & More." Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html) and here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html). And though the page layout of AlphaHorse (http://www.alphahorse.com/evolution-of-horses.html) is a little messed up, Jeffery Rolo has a few articles there that take on many of the same issues.
*"Peter Hastie, B.Juris, B.Th., LTCL, is minister of Ashfield Presbyterian Church in Sydney, Australia, where he has ministered for nine years. He is a regular writer for Australian Presbyterian Living Today."
You can read Hastie's weak attempt at... wait for it... AnswersInGenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/horse.asp#author).
Quote from: "url=http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html]Jesus, Dinosaurs and More[/url]"]The Evolution of the Horse as commonly shown in many textbooks was proven wrong over 40 years ago.
By whom?
Then there is the usual quote mining which seems to be a standard technique for this sort of stuff. I'm not impressed.
TalkOrigins Archive has a couple of pages that deal with pretty much every point that is brought up by "Jesus, Dinosaurs & More." Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html) and here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html). And though the page layout of AlphaHorse (http://www.alphahorse.com/evolution-of-horses.html) is a little messed up, Jeffery Rolo has a few articles there that take on many of the same issues.
*"Peter Hastie, B.Juris, B.Th., LTCL, is minister of Ashfield Presbyterian Church in Sydney, Australia, where he has ministered for nine years. He is a regular writer for Australian Presbyterian Living Today."
You can read Hastie's weak attempt at... wait for it... AnswersInGenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/horse.asp#author).
Title: Re: Anybody Wanna Bat This One?
Post by: skwurll on March 31, 2010, 02:40:55 AM
Post by: skwurll on March 31, 2010, 02:40:55 AM
Too... much... stupid...
Title: Re: Anybody Wanna Bat This One?
Post by: Ellainix on March 31, 2010, 05:00:05 AM
Post by: Ellainix on March 31, 2010, 05:00:05 AM
Brain... boiling...
Title: Re: Anybody Wanna Bat This One?
Post by: Sophus on April 02, 2010, 05:37:28 AM
Post by: Sophus on April 02, 2010, 05:37:28 AM
Quote from: "Recusant"TalkOrigins Archive has a couple of pages that deal with pretty much every point that is brought up by "Jesus, Dinosaurs & More." Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html) and here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html). And though the page layout of AlphaHorse (http://www.alphahorse.com/evolution-of-horses.html) is a little messed up, Jeffery Rolo has a few articles there that take on many of the same issues.
Thanks Recusant.
I'm just so mind-boggled by the blatant dishonesty. Their own confusion sometimes confuses me. Yet Jonathan Wells, unlike the other evolutionary horse denying author, has a Ph.D in microbiology. How can he possibly believe half the stuff he writes? He just throws out big sciency words hoping to make it sound credible to some bloke who doesn'y know anything about Biology at all.
Quote from: "url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/storming_the_beaches_of_norman.html]Jonathan Wells[/url]"]Furthermore, the similarity of HOX genes in so many animal phyla is actually a problem for neo-Darwinism: If evolutionary changes in body plans are due to changes in genes, and flies have HOX genes similar to those in a horse, why is a fly not a horse?
There's no way this man is this dumb... is there?
Title: Re: Anybody Wanna Bat This One?
Post by: Squid on April 02, 2010, 09:17:22 PM
Post by: Squid on April 02, 2010, 09:17:22 PM
Quote from: "Sophus"Quote from: "url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/storming_the_beaches_of_norman.html]Jonathan Wells[/url]"]Furthermore, the similarity of HOX genes in so many animal phyla is actually a problem for neo-Darwinism: If evolutionary changes in body plans are due to changes in genes, and flies have HOX genes similar to those in a horse, why is a fly not a horse?
Wells, proof that you can get a Ph.d. and still be an idiot.
Title: Re: Anybody Wanna Bat This One?
Post by: MikeTheInfidel on April 02, 2010, 09:37:25 PM
Post by: MikeTheInfidel on April 02, 2010, 09:37:25 PM
I knew "why is a fly not a horse" sounded really familiar. Sure enough, PZ Myers tore him a new sphincter back in October:
QuoteIt blows my mind, man, it blows my freakin' mind. How can this guy really be this stupid? He has a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley in developmental biology, and he either really doesn't understand basic ideas in the field, or he's maliciously misrepresenting them…he's lying to the audience. He's describing how he so adroitly fielded questions from the audience, including this one from a professor of developmental biology, who was no doubt agitated by the fact that Wells was feeding the audience steaming balls of rancid horseshit. I can't blame her. That was an awesomely dishonest/ignorant performance, and Wells is proud of himself. People should be angry at that fraud.Read the delicious response here (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/jonathan_wells_gets_everything.php).