The Branching Bush of Horse Evolution

Considering the punctuated equilibrium proposed by Gould (sudden appearance and then stasis). And our knowledge of limited variability within kinds. And absolutely no hard evidence of radical transmutation in the fossil record...Do you feel this scripture lines up with the (bottleneck) fossil record that is found?

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Bornagain007, how old do you think the earth is?

"Bond":

Thats NOT what punctuated equilibrium is. Gould was challenging conventional gradualism with the observation that paleontological evidence suggests that evolution occurs at relatively rapid paces for some periods (adaptation to environmental and ecological changes) leading to APPARENT sudden appearance, interspaced with stable periods. What are you trying to do with this "sudden appearance" stuff? Turn Gould into a creationist? As for "no hard evidence"...did you even read the linked essay? How do the fossils described in it count as "no hard evidence"? Explain in detail rather then just discounting it just because someone said that God said otherwise.

Bond, James Bond: Considering the punctuated equilibrium proposed by Gould (sudden appearance and then stasis). And our knowledge of limited variability within kinds. And absolutely no hard evidence of radical transmutation in the fossil record...Do you feel this scripture lines up with the (bottleneck) fossil record that is found?

Bond is right,

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so"

All we need to know about biology is in the Bible. People, please, stop all this research, stop wasting your time . Who needs "Science" when all the answers are already there in the Good Book.

SunSpiker,

Fine with me. You can ignore all of science if you want to. You can even stop doing any research if you want. All the answers are in the Bible after all. Of course, I hope you don't need any anitbiotics or surgery or any type of modern medicine any time soon. I hope you don't need to eat anything produced by modern agriculture any time soon.

Oh wait, that was parody wasn't it? Never mind.

Exactly! Who needs medical science when you have Leviticus 13:1-3?

"The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a bright spot on his skin that may become an infectious skin disease, he must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons who is a priest. The priest is to examine the sore on his skin, and if the hair in the sore has turned white and the sore appears to be more than skin deep, it is an infectious skin disease. When the priest examines him, he shall pronounce him ceremonially unclean."

I found it strange as I tried to email some people on the feedback page of TalkOrigins website, that my spam filter blocked them. Apparently I had blocked them for sending me spam. Are you aware that some of your contributors, some of whom are professors, are sending spam emails to people who visit your site?

I am entertaining a notion to forward a complaint to the proper authorities to have this properly investigated.

Dawn Wessel: I found it strange as I tried to email some people on the feedback page of TalkOrigins website, that my spam filter blocked them. Apparently I had blocked them for sending me spam. Are you aware that some of your contributors, some of whom are professors, are sending spam emails to people who visit your site? I am entertaining a notion to forward a complaint to the proper authorities to have this properly investigated.

CJO,
I think the earth is very old,,,For a reconciliation of Genesis and the evidence found in science, I find the work of Gerald Schroeder PhD. and Hugh Ross PhD. to be very insightful.. They are old earth creationists, and put forth some very compelling arguments in favor of Theism. It is interesting that the deeper I probe the entire range of science with Theism the more compelling Theism becomes. Though I can assure you that all my issues are yet to resolved with the Theistic philosophy. Whereas the deeper I probe the entire range of science with Materialism, and especially the evolutionary part of materialism, the more ludicrous Materialism becomes...Indeed I find that materialism as a whole is patently absurd as a overriding philosophy and find it quite remarkable that it continues to be the main hypothesis guiding scientists!

Indeed I find that materialism as a whole is patently absurd as a overriding philosophy and find it quite remarkable that it continues to be the main hypothesis guiding scientists!

Mr. Bond wrote:

"Whereas the deeper I probe the entire range of science with Materialism, and especially the evolutionary part of materialism, the more ludicrous Materialism becomes…Indeed I find that materialism as a whole is patently absurd as a overriding philosophy and find it quite remarkable that it continues to be the main hypothesis guiding scientists!"

Great, then you can just discard philosophical naturalism and still do science using methodological naturalism. Se there, you have no excuse whatsoever. I'm sure you realize that a method is not a philosophy. Or do you really think that scientists must adhere to a particular philosophy in order to do good science? If so, then why is it that statemensts of falth are only required at religious institutions?

By the way, how are you "probing"? We know how the real Bond did his. Are you reading creationist web sites and taking their word for everything? Or are you taking college level course work in biology and seriously studying the biological world around us?

So, we can trust scientists to tell us how old the earth is, materialists or not, but when they tell us the best explanation for the biological diversity that's been living on the earth for all those ages, materialists or not, we should not trust them?

Please explain why, in your view, the methods of evolutionary biologists are any more "materialistic" than those of geologists or meteorologists, or astronomers, or geophysicists, et cetera. Please note my emphasis.

And why is it only science that must not be "materialistic"? Do you realize that your HVAC serviceman ALWAYS looks for a material cause of your problem, and never a spiritual one? Would you actually go to a brake service shop that looked for supernatural causes of that spongy feel in the brake pedal? Are those the kinds of things we can look forward to if the Wedge succeeds and "materialism" is defeated?

Indeed I find that materialism as a whole is patently absurd as a overriding philosophy and find it quite remarkable that it continues to be the main hypothesis guiding scientists!

Yeah, he benefits from all the fruits of materialistic science, including computers, GPS, Internet communication, criminology and CSI, freedom of speech in a secular society, and, presumably, decent medicine; but he can't understand why anyone would take "materialism" seriously.

What a neat and welcome summation of creationist blindness and stupidity. And coming from someone trying to pretend to be a ficticious and utterly unreal super-agent, no less.

Sorry for this is a long post, but penetrating questions demand a penetrating response.

Theistic Philosophy Compared to the
Materialistic Philosophy of Science

There are two prevailing philosophies vying for the right to be called the truth in man's perception of reality. These two prevailing philosophies are Theism and Materialism. Materialism is sometimes called philosophical or methodological naturalism. Materialism is the current hypothesis entrenched over science as the nt hypothesis guiding scientists. Materialism asserts that everything that exists arose from chance acting on an material basis which has always existed. Whereas, Theism asserts everything that exists arose from the purposeful will of the spirit of Almighty God who has always existed in a timeless eternity. A hypothesis in science is suppose to give proper guidance to scientists and make, somewhat, accurate predictions. In this primary endeavor, for a hypothesis, Materialism has failed miserably. It will be my goal in this paper to briefly show where Materialism has led scientists down blind alleys in the past and then it will be my goal to show where Materialism may currently be tying science up in an unnecessary problem. First, lets take a look at a few of the predictions where Materialism has missed the mark and Theism has been accurate.

1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created.

2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space.

3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.
4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to be possible. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism.
5 Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life.
6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code.
7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA.
8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth.
9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, “U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland—Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis", Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth.
10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion.

11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and overall stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms.

12. Materialism predicts animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Yet man himself is the last scientifically accepted fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. Theism would have predicted that man himself was the last fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record.

I could probably go a lot further for the evidence is extensive and crushing against the Materialistic philosophy. As stated before, an overriding hypothesis in science, such as Materialism currently is, is suppose to give correct guidance to scientists. Materialism has failed miserably in its predictive power for science. The hypothesis with the strongest predictive power in science is "suppose" to be the prevailing philosophy of science. That philosophy should be Theism. Why this shift in science has not yet occurred is a mystery that needs to be remedied to enable new, and potentially wonderful, breakthroughs in science. Thus, the major goal of this paper is to indicate where Materialism may currently be leading scientists down a false path and potentially hampering future breakthroughs in science.
Materialism is committed to explaining everything that exists in this universe to chance acting on a material basis that has always existed. Surprisingly, this requires explaining invisible things such as consciousness and the force of gravity (space/time curvature) to a material basis. Scientists and mathematicians have had to invent “missing dark matter” to account for an “excessive” amount of gravity in the universe to keep the equations of gravity from becoming ineffective. Theism is not committed into inventing such hypothetical matter and is free to expect the “invisible” force of gravity to arise independent of the matter from a “primary higher dimension” in order to enable life to exist in this universe.
Scientists estimate that 90 to 99 percent of the total mass of the universe is missing matter. Bruce H. Margon, chairman of the astronomy department at the University of Washington, told the New York Times, "It's a fairly embarrassing situation to admit that we can't find 90 percent of the universe"

The philosophy of Materialism has a huge problem, to put it mildly, if it can’t find 95% of the material of this universe it insists is suppose to exist. What's more the problem may be intractable for materialism, because the “missing matter” had to be “invented” to keep the equations of gravity, that explain gravity (space/time curvature) to a material basis, from becoming ineffective. Yet, there very well may be a way around this problem with the general relativity equations. If scientists and mathematicians were to treat the force of gravity as a primary constituent of the universe and were to treat matter as subordinate to gravity (as Theism postulates), then the equations that explain gravity may very well be able to be reconfigured, or reinterpreted, to reflect this proposed truth found from the Theistic perspective. The Theistic postulation would state that space is curved from a higher dimension to enable matter to exist, and to have an existence that is conducive for life to exist in this universe. In fact, gravity is already found to be conducive (finely-tuned) for life at the level of star formation. That is to say, gravity is found in the anthropic principle (which is actually a Theistic postulation) to be exactly what it needs to be in order to allow the right type of stars to form, for the right duration of time, to allow life to be possible in this universe. Thus, the Theistic postulation for gravity has already found preliminary validation in empirical evidence. The question that truly needs to be asked, to solve this missing matter mystery, is not the vain materialistic question of “Where is the missing matter in this universe?” but is the Theistic question of “Why is it necessary for this precise amount of gravity to emanate from a higher dimension in order for life to exist in this universe?” It seems a preliminary answer to this question is already found in the anthropic principle once again. If gravity were not at it’s “just right” value in the big bang, a universe conducive to life would not exist. That is to say, gravity is found to act as the counterbalance of the big bang. If gravity were weaker, the big bang would have been “too e” and matter would have been too thinly spread out to allow the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. Thus, life in this universe would not have been possible. If gravity were a bit stronger at the big bang, matter would have collapsed in on itself shortly after the big bang. Again life, as we know it, would not have been possible. Thus in the anthropic principle, we already find a preliminary reason for the huge amount of “missing matter’ to exist, whereas the materialistic philosophy can postulate no reason why the matter is missing and is left vainly searching for non-existent matter in this universe to account for the “excessive” gravity that is found in this universe. I believe the amount of “missing matter” can be further refined to the anthropic principle. For instance, the missing matter may be further refined to reflect the fact that the huge amount of missing matter actually allows us the truly fortunate privilege of scanning the universe unimpeded with our telescopes ( “The Privileged Planet” by Guillermo Gonzalez Ph.D.). That is to say, if the huge amount of missing matter actually did exist, the universe would be a lot less “see through” than what it currently is. Our knowledge of the history of the universe would suffer dramatically as a result of this reduced visibility. As well, it is very likely that an answer for why the galaxies rotate at the much greater “unpredicted” value that they do will be found in the anthropic principle instead of the materialistic philosophy. As pointed out earlier, the Theistic postulations in science have already provided many correct predictions with stunning empirical validations. Predictions that materialism not only did not predict but was blatantly incorrect on. Thus, it is only natural to look to the Theistic postulations to answer the many remaining questions we have about the universe. To give further evidence of this “missing matter” problem, all matter is reducible to energy as illustrated by Einstein’s famous equation of e=mc2. Thus it may be plainly said that all material in the universe has been created out of energy. Yet energy in and of itself does not produce the force of gravity (space-time curvature). In fact, energy has exactly the opposite effect of gravity. Energy is thought, and somewhat verified, to actually make space “expand”, by “exactly the right amount” to allow life to be possible. Put simply, matter is not justified by the overall empirical evidence in science to have a totally equal status with gravity in gravity equations. Theism is free to expect gravity to arise independently of material objects from a higher dimension without ever having to “invent” matter that will, by all current indications of empirical evidence, never be found in the “physical” dimension of this universe but will only be found when taking into consideration the “primary higher dimension” of the Theistic philosophy.
The following is a released statement from science experts that gives further illustration to this “missing material” problem of the universe.

The abstract of the September 1006 Report of the Dark Energy Task Force (which, “was established by the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee [AAAC] and the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel [HEPAP] as a joint sub-committee to advise the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation on future dark energy research”) says: “Dark energy appears to be the nt component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our (materialistic) theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.”
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. As well light has been proven to be timeless by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Therefore energy most likely, from honest appraisal of empirical evidence, arose from some other “higher timeless” dimension prior to the big bang. As such, since the fundamental force of gravity does not arise from energy and also travels at the “timeless” speed of light, it falls to reason gravity must also arise from this other “primary higher timeless” dimension. Many people who do not believe in God say “Just show me God and I will believe!” Yet the foundation of this “material” universe that is found in relativity and quantum mechanics blatantly displays actions that defy our concepts of time and space. Defying time and space is generally regarded by most people to be a miraculous occurrence. It is considered to be a miraculous occurrence because it blatantly defies all materialistic presumptions that have been put forth! Indeed, the foundation of this universe has the fingerprints of God all over it.
Many times materialist object to theist by saying “God did it that way is not a scientific answer.” Well I have news for the materialists “God DID do it that way and the scientific answer is to try and figure out how God did it that way! As demonstrated repeatedly by the failed predictions of materialism, the materialistic philosophy is a blatant deception that only impedes further true scientific progress.
To remedy the Gravity problem it is necessary to define, as best as we can, this “primary higher dimension” that our universe came from and to shed the last vestiges of materialism that are blinding us to what is right in front of us! Having a proper mathematical foundation for gravity in science may very well enable even more wonderful breakthroughs in science. This problem of missing matter is a blatant gap in man’s knowledge and my assertion is simply that the mathematical remedy for the problems in gravity equations will not be solved until the proper Theistic approach is used in solving them.

Colossians 1:17
He was before all else began and it is His power that Holds everything together.

The following is a interesting quote from a article confirming the Theistic postulation for gravity:
Co-existing with normal matter is an unseen sort called dark matter. Astronomers don't know what it is, but they know it makes up about 23 percent of the universe. It is thought to have played a crucial role in the development of the first galaxies.

The rest of the cosmic mass-energy budget, some 73 percent, involves an even more exotic thing called dark energy, which appears to work across large distances and in the opposite manner to gravity. This anti-gravity force, as it is sometimes referred to, seems responsible for the accelerating pace of the universe's ongoing expansion.

Shadow of dark matter

Today's announcement directly concerns only normal matter. But astronomers have realized in recent years that this baryonic variety acts as a sort of shadow for the totally undetectable dark matter.

"We believe baryons are drawn to the gravity of the dark matter, so they trace the location of dark matter through space," Mathur said. "One provides a map to the other."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/missing_matter_030212.html

There are two prevailing philosophies vying for the right to be called the truth in man's perception of reality. These two prevailing philosophies are Theism and Materialism.

Materialism is sometimes called philosophical or methodological naturalism.

Materialism is the current hypothesis entrenched over science as the nt hypothesis guiding scientists. Materialism asserts that everything that exists arose from chance acting on an material basis which has always existed.

A hypothesis in science is suppose to give proper guidance to scientists and make, somewhat, accurate predictions. In this primary endeavor, for a hypothesis, Materialism has failed miserably. It will be my goal in this paper to briefly show where Materialism has led scientists down blind alleys in the past

1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created.

2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space.

3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.

Bond you do realize that if your assumption that science uses materialism as a principle is correct your assertions 1-3 must be incorrect because scientific thinking has generated all of those ideas. Further more you clearly did not understand the difference between some kind of artificially limited definition for materialism. A definition that magically suits the purpose of claiming that is has made bad predictions. In rhetoric that is called a strawman. In reality a practicing scientist realizes quite easily that based on his Lutheran catechism class we cannot properly predict what or why God would do anything because our intellect is puny and insignificant (yes that was a bit of hyperbole). No the practicing scientist understands that by logical definition all powerful omniscient beings are not constrained to act in anyway at all. So to argue to make scientific predictions about their behavior is impossible. God did it is always a correct answer. So we reject those explanation scientifically, but not necessarily philosophically. Now as a biochemist I'd love to take a gander at God's DNA, but that's not really going to happen, so I can do proper experimentation is it?

There are two prevailing philosophies vying for the right to be called the truth in man’s perception of reality. These two prevailing philosophies are Theism and Materialism. Materialism is sometimes called philosophical or methodological naturalism.

— Born Again

Anyone else have a deva vu experience reading that list of "materialism did not"s? I'm sure I've seen it on the web elsewhere. Might even have been here. I'm sure others will/did do a point-by-point refutaion, but I would like to point out that methological naturalism is used in science as a PRACTICAL measure. Science limits itself by seeking natural observations because those are the only observations that can be made and varified. Paranormal and supernatural observations are always disputed, and are usually only testimonials. If you open the door in science to accept "theism", you by default accept all possible "theisms", not just the fundamentalist chrisitian ones most creos have in mind, but all theisms from all cultures. Not just cultural theisms, but any idea about how the universe runs, no matter how half-baked, is equally under consideration in science. And, because science is no longer defined by natural observations, there is no way to prove or disprove ANY of them.

Science limits itself to methological naturalism because natural explanations can be falsified by natural observations, and natural observations are repeatable and without bias. They are not testimonials. There is nothing, logically, that says that supernatural forces are not at work. It's just that such explanations are beyond the reach of science. Depending on what poll you read, between 50 and 60 percent of scientists discribe themselves as religious. They have no problem using naturalism in their work. They have theistic philosophies. But any such philosophy must take the discoveries of science into consideration.

Life evolved. Humans decended from apes. Deal with it. There is nothing in MET that says that supernatural forces could not have used evolution as a mechanism. There is also nothing that says that they could. So science is not naturally atheistic; it is NEUTRAL to religion. Science is a "bottom up" way of observing the world. Because of the scrutany that natural explanations go through, it is given some reliabily.

The difference between PN and MN has already been pointed out to the mythical Bond. He bloody well knows the difference. He is just lying. I say, ignore him and he will go away. Unless of course he actually wants to address some of the issues in horse evolution. You know, the point of this thread. Or maybe that is too "materialistic" for him.

I thought this may be of interest

“Intelligent designers propose frameworks in which Intelligence is the origin of intelligence, Consciousness is the origin of consciousness, Love as the origin of Love, Beauty as the origin of aesthetic values, Good as the origin of moral values, and Freedom is the origin of free will. Such frameworks give meaning to life, they are consistent with the scientific method (minus the oxymoronic “methodological materialism”), and they make better sense of the empirical data and the actually known laws of nature.”
Of course this doesn’t represent the view of all ID advocates, but certainly of many, including myself.

JBJ: Materialism is sometimes called philosophical or methodological naturalism. [Braxton] Nooo You see, there are TWO different things here-you can't just blithely imply they are the same thing.

Yea sure, and ignorance is born of ignorance. What does that have to do with horse evolution?

Sorry to the moderator for disturbing the horse evolution thread and will cease from interfering any more Yet I was put on the spot as to my beliefs in my first post and answered them as best as I could. I hope something comes along this line of a topic in the future so we may debate this more fully...Until then Enjoy

Bond, James Bond agent Bornagain007: 3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.

I thought this may be of interest

— Bond, James Bond

Bond, James Bond: I thought this may be of interest “Intelligent designers propose frameworks in which Intelligence is the origin of intelligence, Consciousness is the origin of consciousness, Love as the origin of Love, Beauty as the origin of aesthetic values, Good as the origin of moral values, and Freedom is the origin of free will. Such frameworks give meaning to life, they are consistent with the scientific method (minus the oxymoronic “methodological materialism”), and they make better sense of the empirical data and the actually known laws of nature.” Of course this doesn’t represent the view of all ID advocates, but certainly of many, including myself.

There was a Daedulus column in Nature about 10 years ago that should really shed some light on "Thiestic" science. Arguing from the laws of thermodynamics and the clear implication that the relics of the church were touched by god and had a 'connection to the spiritual realm' (paraphrase not quote) we could easily test the ones which were truly holy by measuring their temperatures. The otherwordly connection meant that the relic had to be in thermodynamic equilibrium with the spirit world. There was a step in there that I have forgotten about how the average temperature of the spirit world was 4K. The wrap-up was that a truly holy relic has to be noticeably colder than it's surroundings. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why the Pope never called in to say that the Vatican had run these experiments to confirm for non-believers why they were correct.
Might I suggest we get our Bibles out and start making 'scientific' predictions according to a literal interpretation of the holy Scripture? I suspect for example that on the day God stopped the sun in the sky for Joshua that the force exerted must have created measureable faults and deformations in all of the hard bodies of the solar system? We can also apply those tools of population genetics and coalescence to pin down fairly reasonable limits on Noahs genome. By similar reasoning we can figure out some very interesting things about God by studying our own genome. Having been created in his image our genome must be a subset of the divine genome. However we have to factor in the death and sin component. This maybe complicated and non-straight forward, but should yield good results. Now since now other creatures are said to have been created in his image, we must subtract out anything found to be in common as this is just spurious correlation.
Anybody got any other ideas?

Bond, James Bond: Sorry to the moderator for disturbing the horse evolution thread and will cease from interfering any more.

Bond, James Bond agent Bornagain007: Sorry for this is a long post, but penetrating questions demand a penetrating response.

Whereas, Theism asserts everything that exists arose from the purposeful will of the spirit of Almighty God who has always existed in a timeless eternity.

3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.

6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code.

Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth.

If scientists and mathematicians were to treat the force of gravity as a primary constituent of the universe and were to treat matter as subordinate to gravity (as Theism postulates), then the equations that explain gravity may very well be able to be reconfigured, or reinterpreted, to reflect this proposed truth found from the Theistic perspective.

Sorry to the moderator for disturbing the horse evolution thread and will cease from interfering any more Yet I was put on the spot as to my beliefs in my first post and answered them as best as I could. I hope something comes along this line of a topic in the future so we may debate this more fully…Until then Enjoy

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

James Bond/Bornagain007/Philip Cunningham: Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.

Sorry to the moderator for disturbing the horse evolution thread and will cease from interfering any more Yet I was put on the spot as to my beliefs in my first post

and answered them as best as I could

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution,[10] Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism,[11] pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.[3] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that: Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales.[5] The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.

I know that BJB has threatened/promised to shut up about materialism and Theism, but I just got here and I have some naive questions:

Just exactly what is this "materialism" that BJB says is so intellectually barren? Is it the simplistic assertion that the universe consists of nothing but matter and energy? Is it Newtonian mechanics? Are there any working scientists who actually believe in such a thing?

Just what scientific theories or discoveries has Theism "predicted"? Did Theists, using Theism, "predict" that our universe began as a tiny point of proto-matter/energy and rapidly expanded to form spacetime? How long ago did Theists, using Theism "predict" that the universe is constantly expanding, even accelerating? Did Theists, using Theism, actually "predict" the Lorentz contraction or the the curvature of spacetime before Einstein predicted it? Which Theists, using Theism, "predicted" the wave/particle duality of small particles? Did they "predict" any of these before non-Theists discovered/predicted them?

In general, what would Theism "predict"? Judging from the dictionary definition, Theists would "predict" that God would sometimes intervene in the universe in a miraculous way that contravenes the ordinary workings of His natural world, just like He did in the Old Testament (like parting the Red Sea or saving the three men in the fiery furnace). Any examples of this happening today, like positive results from intercessory prayer? Anything out in the larger universe that looks like God is just playing around?

Does BJB or any other Theist have some "predictions" of as-yet-undiscovered phenomena or theories that they'd like to share with us? How did they arrive at these "predictions"? Did God speak to them directly, or do they know enough about God to guess correctly what new things we'll discover about his handiwork?

Isn't BJB confusing Theism with Deism? It sounds like BJB's universe is so bizarre and wonderful that it must have been put together by (or flow from) an infinite God but that He is just letting it run on its own (unless BJB believes that God is actively moving all the subatomic particles in the universe and making dark matter do whatever it does).

What would BJB want scientists to do differently from what they're doing now? Generate hypotheses and theories on the basis of theology? Pray for divine guidance concerning topics of research? Avoid "natural" descriptions of phenomena they observe?

Naive minds want to know.

I know that BJB has threatened/promised to shut up about materialism and Theism, but I just got here and I have some naive questions:

Hey, Bond, James Bond, you never did answer that question about how your version of "Theism" explains the trilobite Deiphon better than Paleontology does when you were lousing up PZ Myers' blog with your lousy quotemining.
So, would you care to answer my question, or are you going to continue your game of "Plagiarizing for Jesus"?

Anyway, that's really cool about those horses, don't you think?

Bond, James Bond--

I can't believe you posted that "Creationism predicts..." followed by predictions that were actually made by scientists. (Which 'argument' has been around at least since at least the 'Creation Science for Public School Teachers' schtick of the early 1980's.) That was SO off topic. You really blew it, big guy.

No.No.No. The classic creationist rebuttal to ANYTHING having to do with horse evolution is supposed to be, "But scientists admit that they can't prove the older skeletons in the museum displays are actually the ACTUAL grandparents of the younger skeletons, so scientists haven't PROVEN evolution. And the only other possible alternative is that the Bible is literally true and inerrant, nyah nyah nyah."

You should also have been all over Laelaps for admitting that scientists no longer accept the same version of the horse evolutionary tree that they did at the end of the 19th century-- even though Huxley, who championed that evolutionary tree was a PERSONAL FRIEND of Darwin. So scientists are sometimes wrong!(And the only other possible alternative is that the Bible is literally true and inerrant, nyah nyah nyah.)

Of course, it does occur to me that finding that straight-line evolutionary lineages are actually more like branching bushes is an almost inevitable result of finding more fossils. I mean, how could further research discover that what appeared to be a lot of different species was actually just a few? (Unless there were a LOT of transitional forms, which wouldn't be much comfort to the creationists.)

And the really important point of those early paleontologists, that horses evolved in the new world (not, as earlier paleontologists believed, in Europe) has stood the test of time.

So, all in all, Laelaps's post came across making evolutionary biology look like a really fascinating field, where new stuff is always coming up, and BJB made old earth creationism look like-- well, never mind.

Sorry, there is no such thing as the evolution of life forms.

But, if evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. 'Surely they have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.

And after all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemical collisions, without an instruction manual, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists estimation. Without any intelligence at all available to help them these 'simple ' cells miraculously created themselves into a living entity. Surely then today's evolutionists scientists should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.

If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of the flood of evidence CONTRARY to evolution which is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and EUREKA, LIFE!

Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
Please don't swallow the lies they tell about the 'first life' problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And, is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can't do it, how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????

Answers in Genesis?
The same site where Ken Ham said that Steve Irwin and everyone else who doesn't pray exactly like Ken Ham are burning in Hell?

James the troll: Sorry, there is no such thing as the evolution of life forms. But, if evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a "simple" living cell.

If Creationism is true, then, perhaps James would care to explain, in detail, why God, in His infinity mercy and wisdom, saw fit to exterminate all of the horses, save for the zebras, various donkey and onager species, and Equus caballus?

JC,

So, perhaps you could explain the horse fossil data. You need to come up with a better explanation than the one you rejest.

By the way, how are you coming with that talking snake?

Sorry, there is no such thing as the evolution of life forms.

JC: Thanks for the repost. I'll rephrase what I said last time: Building a cell from scratch proves NOTHING about evolution. It does not even prove anything about abiogenisis. At most, it will shine some light on potential natural abiogenesis processess. Why don't you address critisims of you drivel instead of reposting it?

And also, for Bond or Collins or any other creationists lurking about: How does the horse fossil data not support the theory of evolution? How do you explain the paricular geographical and geological ranges of each fossilized species? How do you explain the relationships between their morphologies and the locations and times in which they had lived?

You have to understand that ID creationists have to claim ignorance and cannot deal with specific data that undermines their ignorance because they have chosen to hide their God(s) there.

But, if creationists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their sincere prayers together and get their God to create a living cell out of nothing, and videotape this act of special creation.

PS: I can tell by the inconsistent numbering that Bond's latest post was hurriedly copied and pasted from another source, with absolutely no thought or comprehension on Bond's own part. (What's with the missing numbers, Bond? Were points 4 - 10 so lame even you knew they wouldn't fly?) Such is the depth of creationist debate: grab any talking-point that sounds at all good, throw it out in any direction, and run away.

But, if evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell.

Umm, wouldn't that actually be an example of "Intelligent Design"?

I call shenanigans on James Collins.

He never comes up with a new argument, or addressed criticisms of the old one.

He just does the same old cut-and-paste over and over and over.

When I get time I'll go back over the archives and see just how many times this idiot has reposted his excrement. I wonder if he writes on his walls with it, too.

Anyway, that's really cool about those horses, don't you think?

When I get time I'll go back over the archives and see just how many times this idiot has reposted his excrement.

— fnxtr

way off topic (moderator move to bathroom wall if you feel the need)

of the 10 commandments how many have IDiots and their conservative Fundy ilk publicly violated/flaunted?

Thou shalt have no other gods before me - checking - is putting God in the ever-shrinking box of human ignorance a violation?

Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol - isn't ID idolatry?

Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God - using God's name for political/personal gain - check - bunches of examples (Dr. Dino for one, televangelists that get wealthy from "ministry" check!)

Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy --checking- is that creation museum open on Sundays? do they charge admission or do they call the entrance fee a donation to a ministry?

Honor thy Father and Mother ----Checking

Thou shalt not murder - wasn't there some fundies that condoned/endorsed/acted on killing doctors that performed abortions? yup that would be murder

Thou shalt not commit adultery - lots of public instances of this among televangelists, fundie leaders, right wing politicians etc.

Thou shalt not steal - plagiarism ON THIS THREAD, tax evasion, embezzling - lots of examples

Thou shalt not bear false witness A.K.A. lie - many examples on this site, Dover trial, others

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife - hard to prove

so here's the tally as I see it
6/10 definite violations
2/10 I just don't know
1/10 no evidence

David Stanton commented

"So, perhaps you could explain the horse fossil data. You need to come up with a better explanation than the one you reject.

By the way, how are you coming with that talking snake?"

- well they're all horses aren't they. Perhaps the early ones were PYGMIES or DWARFS.

And there's plenty of evidence that snakes can talk but CHOOSE NOT TO. AFAIK the pythoness made a good living out of it for centuries.

time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.

Scientists estimate that 90 to 99 percent of the total mass of the universe is missing matter.

In fact, energy has exactly the opposite effect of gravity.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. ... Therefore energy most likely, from honest appraisal of empirical evidence, arose from some other “higher timeless” dimension prior to the big bang.

time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.

Scientists estimate that 90 to 99 percent of the total mass of the universe is missing matter.

In fact, energy has exactly the opposite effect of gravity.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. ... Therefore energy most likely, from honest appraisal of empirical evidence, arose from some other “higher timeless” dimension prior to the big bang.

time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.

I understand why science has to limit itself to materialistic explanations, because that's all that we can actually study objectively.However, I got a sense that many scientists think that just because materialistic explanations is all that is accessible, that there are no others as a result. Personally,I think that theory of evolution has many unexplained areas/problems. Perhaps they will be resolved in the future. Perhaps they already have been resolved and I just don't know about it, but basically the small list of some problems that I see are as follows: change in the chromosome #, meiosis, a complex process that I guess had to evolve from mitosis, and yet hard to see how it could've possibly been subjected to selective pressures while still on its transitional way, how males and females had to co-evolve to remain sexually compatible, while simultaneously other changes were taking place, how egg acquires "exclusivity", as other concommittant changes result in speciation, etc.

I am curious, can geneticists today manipulate the genetic sequence in such a way as to, let's say mutate chimp DNA so that its more like human's, change the regulatory pathways,even though that may not involve a mutation, so the chimp protein ptoduction more closely resembles human, and see what happens? If that's unethical, than perhaps some other,less fun species?

Scientists estimate that 90 to 99 percent of the total mass of the universe is missing matter.

In fact, energy has exactly the opposite effect of gravity.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. ... Therefore energy most likely, from honest appraisal of empirical evidence, arose from some other “higher timeless” dimension prior to the big bang.

Scientists estimate that 90 to 99 percent of the total mass of the universe is missing matter.

In fact, energy has exactly the opposite effect of gravity.

Scientists estimate that 90 to 99 percent of the total mass of the universe is missing matter.

In fact, energy has exactly the opposite effect of gravity.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. ... Therefore energy most likely, from honest appraisal of empirical evidence, arose from some other “higher timeless” dimension prior to the big bang.

However, I got a sense that many scientists think that just because materialistic explanations is all that is accessible, that there are no others as a result.

I understand why science has to limit itself to materialistic explanations, because that’s all that we can actually study objectively.However, I got a sense that many scientists think that just because materialistic explanations is all that is accessible, that there are no others as a result. Personally,I think that theory of evolution has many unexplained areas/problems. Perhaps they will be resolved in the future. Perhaps they already have been resolved and I just don’t know about it, but basically the small list of some problems that I see are as follows: change in the chromosome #, meiosis, a complex process that I guess had to evolve from mitosis, and yet hard to see how it could’ve possibly been subjected to selective pressures while still on its transitional way, how males and females had to co-evolve to remain sexually compatible, while simultaneously other changes were taking place, how egg acquires “exclusivity”, as other concommittant changes result in speciation, etc. I am curious, can geneticists today manipulate the genetic sequence in such a way as to, let’s say mutate chimp DNA so that its more like human’s, change the regulatory pathways,even though that may not involve a mutation, so the chimp protein ptoduction more closely resembles human, and see what happens? If that’s unethical, than perhaps some other,less fun species?

Anna said: but basically the small list of some problems that I see are as follows: change in the chromosome #, meiosis, a complex process that I guess had to evolve from mitosis, and yet hard to see how it could've possibly been subjected to selective pressures while still on its transitional way, how males and females had to co-evolve to remain sexually compatible, while simultaneously other changes were taking place, how egg acquires "exclusivity", as other concommittant changes result in speciation, etc. mutate chimp DNA so that its more like human's, change the regulatory pathways,even though that may not involve a mutation, so the chimp protein ptoduction more closely resembles human, and see what happens?

transgenic experiments

Anna,

Others have provided excellent answers to your questions. Please allow me to add a little bit more.

The evolution of sex is indeed a very active area of research. The important thing to remember is that the cell cycle and the processes of mitosis and meiosis are under genetic control. As we begin to understnad the geneitc mechanisms involved, we will get a much better idea of what pathways were followed and what selection pressures have affected the evolution of these systems.

As for the differences between humans and chimps, detailed chromosome mapping has revealed many similarities and some differences between the two genomes. Right now the emphasis seems to be on identifying the 1.5% sequence differences between the species. Progress is also being made in the examination of tissue-specific patterns aof gene expression and genetic regulation of developmental pathways.

Notice that all of these studies are limited to natural systems. There is plenty to learn, even if the supernatural cannot be investigated.

but basically the small list of some problems that I see are as follows: change in the chromosome #, meiosis, a complex process that I guess had to evolve from mitosis, and yet hard to see how it could’ve possibly been subjected to selective pressures while still on its transitional way, how males and females had to co-evolve to remain sexually compatible, while simultaneously other changes were taking place, how egg acquires “exclusivity”, as other concommittant changes result in speciation, etc.

— Anna

Anna--
More knowledgeable people than I am have responded already, but on the question of why the two sexes don't diverge more, remember, males leave some of their genes to their daughters, and females to their sons, so the two sexes must automatically evolve in tandem.

As far as methodological naturalism leading to philosophical naturalism, yes, for some scientists it does. But the more relevant question is whether a scientist must necessarily be a philosophical naturalist. And the evidence is that scientists who are devout Christians, Jews, etc., function just fine in the lab or the field, as long as they are guided by their research results, and don't let their philosophical position determine what results they're willing to accept.

To everyone who took the time to answer my questions: Thank you. Some of what you said went a bit over my head (I'll read it again later), while some other info failed to convince that the "problems" I mentioned have indeed been resolved,and of course I have many more quastions (but I won't torture anyone with them this very second).

Re why I am fascinated with transgenic experiments? How could anyone not be? If done carefully and ethically,we may learn how to aquire traits from other species that would benefit us.

Also, human chimp differences have been fascinating me ever since I learned how small a genetic difference and how huge the actual difference is. Aren't you ladies/gentlemen curious about that too?

Anna, as far as I know, the only reason why there are no transgenic or chimeric chimpanzees is because they're too expensive to creative.

Also, human chimp differences have been fascinating me ever since I learned how small a genetic difference and how huge the actual difference is. Aren't you ladies/gentlemen curious about that too?

Anna wrote:

"...while some other info failed to convince that the “problems” I mentioned have indeed been resolved,and of course I have many more quastions..."

You are correct. Many of the issues you raised have not been resolved. Many may never be fully resolved. Science does not have all the answers, it may never have all the answers. The important thing to remember is that you must first learn what is known and what has already been learned before you can reasonably expect to increase the sum total of our knowledge.

OK PPL are you all scientist or something...im in 7th grade and Im just trying to find recordings of horse fossil findings..not to mention I own 5 horses but anyway...you guys talk alot!!

I have tertiary syphilis.