Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Listen to the Humbugs sing...Darwinism is so dead!

Ken Ham enjoys a walk in a beautiful Australian National Park when home in Australia.
Within the confines of the park are found a not-uncommon to the area but entirely amazing bird!
The Australian Brush Turkey, or Megapode. An absolute mystery to Darwinists and a signal from God for Creationists!

Pictures from Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, who also posted on this subject: Megapodes!!!

Excerpt: "While in Australia, each morning I go for a 3-mile walk through a National Park right on the Coast. I meet many turkeys on this beautiful walk. These turkeys are fascinating—they are called “incubator birds.” This morning I took a photograph of part of the trail I walk through and a photo of one of the birds and a nest (taken at 6:30 am Thursday morning). What a reminder of creation—how could such a bird just evolve by natural processes? I downloaded some material from the internet (from that will explain more about the birds and the large nests they build:"

The rest of the article.

I (radar) have yet to meet a Darwinist that can even begin to explain the Australian Brush Turkey or Megapode, a bird that makes a huge pile of dirt and sticks and twigs and leaves to hatch its eggs and knows EXACTLY what temperature to keep the eggs and exactly when to add leaves or scratch away dirt.

Every Brush Turkey male and female knows exactly what to do concerning building mounds and laying eggs just so and coordinating activities, which is completely ridiculous from a Darwinist viewpoint. No parents teach the offspring anything.

Every newly-hatched Brush Turkey knows to begin digging out like mad from the mound to get out before starving or dying of thirst, fully ready to run and fly upon meeting fresh air.

Every young brush turkey hatchling innately understands when a predator approaches without being taught by a parent.

Without guide of parents, the hatchlings grow up to do the exact same inexplicable things...inexplicable unless you consider that God might like to leave a few clues that He did, indeed, make all things.

A bird as unusual as a Bombadier Beetle?

"The Megapode or "incubator bird" of Australia is unique among birds. This three to four pound bird resembles a chicken or a small turkey. Some native Australians call it the brush turkey.

The incubator birds are unlike all other birds. So, if they evolved, from what did they evolve? Or what are they evolving into? A recent Scientific American article[1] offers precious little by way of an evolutionary explanation for the origins of this strange bird.

All birds use body heat to incubate their eggs except the incubator bird.

"Instead, they pile up great heaps of debris which serve as incubators; the warmth of the fermenting compost does the work. In one species, the scrub fowl, a mound 20 feet high and 50 feet wide has been reported." [2]

Instead of using its own body heat to incubate its eggs (as does the chicken who sits on her eggs), the incubator bird uses fermentation heat or "...some use solar heat and others the heat produced by volcanic action." [3]

A bird that uses volcanic heat or the warmth of fermenting plant life to hatch its eggs: Incredible! If there are any creatures that could not possibly evolve, the Australian incubator bird joins the bombardier beetle as such a creature.

The female is responsible for two activities. First, she must test the nest to be sure it is adequate for incubating her eggs. What explanation can evolution offer for the ability of the hen to evaluate the suitability of a nest that may be dug three feet into the ground and extend 10 or more feet above ground and up to 50 feet across? And what would motivate a little three and one-half pound male bird to get busy constructing monstrous nest number two, should the hen reject his first effort?

After accepting the nest, the second responsibility of the female is performed. She lays 20 to 35 eggs at the rate of one egg every three days for up to seven months. "...As many as 16 eggs can exist in a normal mound at any one time." [4] Each egg weighs about a half a pound and is as large as an ostrich egg. That is a tremendous amount of work for a three to four pound hen. No wonder that upon completion of her laying task, she leaves the nest, never to return. She takes no part in the incubation and raising of her chicks. This is not your normal evolutionary way!

At this point the male begins to perform his God-given job of managing the incubation of the deeply buried eggs. For incubator bird chicks to survive they demand a precise temperature of 91°F. Yes, exactly 91°F. If the male bird wants the chicks to survive, he will not let the temperature vary more then one degree on either side of 91°F! How does the daddy bird maintain a consistent temperature of 91°F in a mound of decaying plants and dirt?

Scientists differ on the mechanism they think the bird uses to measure the temperature. Some think the bird's thermometer is in its beak. Others believe the tongue can distinguish 91°F and a few tenths of a percent above and below 91°F.

Here is the point: How could a bird evolve the ability to precisely measure temperatures with its beak or tongue? Evolution says nothing is evolved until it is needed. How would the incubator bird know it needed the ability to keep its eggs at 91°F? The chicks would get too hot or too cold and die before he figured it out. And dead creatures do not evolve into higher forms.

You may be asking, "Well, how does this bird keep those eggs at 91°F?" The male digs down into the nest and checks the temperature. On hot days, he may pile extra sand on top of the nest to shield it from the sun. He may even rearrange the entire pile of rotting leaves and grasses several times a day.

On cooler days, the male megapodes (which means big feet) will push material off the top of the nest to permit more sunlight to penetrate the decaying organic material. Or, to keep the humidity at 99.5% around the eggs, he may dig conical holes toward the eggs to get more moisture deeper into the nest. Keeping temperature and humidity just right is a big job. Concerning the precision needed for incubation temperature maintenance, Seymour writes:

"This process is very precise: one centimeter of fresh material added to the mound can increase core temperature about 1½°C." [5]

Not only must the eggs be kept at 91°F and 99.5% humidity, but the chick must get enough air to breathe. The father provides the fresh air for the chicks as he daily digs down to the eggs. But the chick must get the air inside the shell. The means to get air inside the shell was provided by the hen as she formed the shell. It has thousands of tiny holes (called pores) in it. These holes in the thick shell are shaped like conical ice cream cones with the narrowest part of the cone toward the chick. As the chick grows it cannot get enough air through the bottom of the cone so it begins to remove the inside layer of the shell. As it thins out the shell the holes get bigger (moving up the cone) and the chick can get more air. Amazing!

The way the chicks hatch is also unique among birds. Unlike other birds, they are ready to fly with full feathers as soon as they break out of the egg. Once they hatch, it takes up to three days for them to dig their way up out of the mound. How do they know they must dig their way out or else they die? They have not been instructed by either parent. Even so, they lie on their backs and dig up until they break out. Clearly, the God of the Bible is involved with all aspects of His creation!

Once the chicks dig out of the nest, they are on their own. They are not fed or cared for by either parent. When they are mature, the male will build a huge nest as an incubator for his mate's eggs. He will build this huge, precise mound without any instruction from his parents. This is not learned behavior.! How does the brush turkey know the importance of 91°F?

Credentialed men and women have the audacity to say that this bird is the product of the impersonal plus time plus chance. But truly, how could the incubator bird even exist? Only if the God of the Bible lives and is involved with His creatures.


[1] Roger S. Seymour, "The Brush Turkey," Scientific American, Vol. 265, No. 6, December, 1991, pp. 108-114.

[2] Roger Tory Petersen, Life Nature Library: The Birds (New York: Time-Life Books, 1973), p. 140.

[3] The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1990 edition), p. 1011.

[4] Ibid., Roger Seymour, p. 109.

[5] Ibid., Roger Seymour, p. 110."


There a plenty of such examples in nature, organisms that never could have evolved to be what they are if Darwinism was true. This Megapode has all sorts of evolutionary disadvantages and furthermore has behavior that cannot be explained by mutation and natural selection. As if those two have ever accomplished anything in tandem. To add to the Facilitated Variation and Genetic Redundancy findings of modern science that have put the lie to Darwin, allow me to present even more scientific evidence to see if that zombie Chance, the Evolution Fairy will finally and fully be put into the grave...

Evolution of multicellularity: what is required?

by Shaun Doyle

All evolution assumes either the augmentation of some prior system to fit a new need, or lateral gene transfer adding information for the same end. Even systems that seem to require completely new structures (feathers for example) are assumed to be modified from pre-existing structures. However, there are two significant events in evolutionary history where far more would have been required—the origin of life, and the origin of co-ordinated multicellularity.

Requirements for multicellular evolution

Genetic sameness

Photo by Karl Dolenc

Volvox spp. fail to meet the requirements to achieve true multicellularity.

Volvox spp. fail to meet the requirements to achieve true multicellularity.

The first requirement for multicellularity to emerge is that all the cells must contain the same genetic information. Wolpert and Szathm√°ry provide a good overview of why genetic sameness is required for a multicellular organism to be viable as an individual:

‘The first step in the development of a complex organism is the establishment of a pattern of cells with different states that can differentiate along different pathways. … [P]atterning processes require signalling between and within cells, leading ultimately to gene activation or inactivation. Such a process can lead to reliable patterns of cell activities only if all the cells have the same set of genes and obey the same rules [emphasis added].’1

Without the same genetic blueprint to work from, there is no guarantee that cells will be able to communicate properly so as to co-ordinate their actions.

A new level of biological organisation

Evolution requires more than a mere augmentation of an existing system for co-ordinated multicellularity to evolve; it requires the ex nihilo creation of an entirely new system of organisation to co-ordinate cells appropriately to form a multicellular individual. Nedelcu and Michod concur:

‘The current hierarchical organization of life reflects a series of transitions in the units of evolution, such as from genes to chromosomes, from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, from unicellular to multicellular individuals, and from multicellular organisms to societies. During these evolutionary transitions, new levels of biological organization are created [emphasis added]’.2

The first requirement for multicellularity to emerge is that all the cells must contain the same genetic information.

Williams talks of the irreducible structure of the cell, and finds a universal example in autopoiesis (self-making).3 He describes five levels of organisation in all living things that are needed for autopoiesis to occur:

  1. Perfectly-pure, single-molecule-specific biochemistry
  2. Molecules with highly specific structures
  3. Highly structured molecules that are functionally integrated
  4. Comprehensively regulated information-driven metabolic processes
  5. Inversely-causal meta-informational (information about information) strategies for individual and species survival.

Moreover, each level is greater than the sum of the levels that make it up such that the only way these levels can be explained is by information.

‘Each level is built upon, but cannot be explained in terms of, the level below it. And between the base level (perfectly pure composition) and the natural environment, there is an unbridgeable abyss.’4

How do multicellular organisms evolve from single celled creatures when cellular selection and organism-level selection are totally contradictory to each other?

To Williams’ autopoietic hierarchy, I wish to add another level of structure found only in multicellular organisms: intercellular co-ordination. The organism has strategies for arranging and differentiating its cells for survival and reproduction. With this comes a communication network between the cells that regulates the positioning and abundance of each cell type for the benefit of the whole organism. A fundamental part of this organisation is cellular differentiation, which is ubiquitous in multicellular organisms. This level cannot be explained by the sum of the parts, cells, and requires co-ordination from an organisational level above what exists in individual cells.

Biologist Eric Davidson5 identifies a 4-level hierarchy of control in multicellular organisms that constitutes a gene regulatory network. This gene regulatory network is essential for the development of the single cell zygote into a full-fledged multicellular individual. To put it in an approximate Linnaean framework, the hierarchy consists of kernels6 that roughly determine phylum body plan, plug-ins7 and input/output linkages8 that approximately determine class, order and family body structure, and differentiation gene batteries9 that carry out the terminal stages of development and contribute to variation at the genus and species level.

Repair and maintenance strategies

Repair and maintenance strategies are integral for the survival of the adult multicellular individual because cellular selection operates with cell populations, including multicellular organisms, to select for the most reproductively aggressive cells. This needs to be controlled at the organismal level to maintain bodily integrity. To do this, most systems in multicellular animals undergo a process of serial differentiation.10 In this system, multipotent11 stem cells are essential, though maintained at low population levels.

Cellular selection vs organismal integrity12

Evolution faces a tough dichotomy to get around if multicellularity is to evolve: cellular selection vs organismal integrity. At the single cell level, selection will favour cells that reproduce better. But if those cells are allowed to reproduce uncontrollably in a multicellular organism, they will inexorably destroy organismal integrity, and harm or kill the organism, also causing the ‘fitter’ cells to die.13

At the organismal level, selection will favour traits that preserve organismal integrity, which tries to control reproduction of cells beyond what is needed. Pepper et al. agree:

‘Multicellular organisms could not emerge as functional entities before organism-level selection had led to the evolution of mechanisms to suppress cell-level selection.’14

However, this leads to a mystery for the evolutionist: how do multicellular organisms evolve from single celled creatures when cellular selection and organism-level selection are totally contradictory to each other? The multicellular organism seeks to control the reproduction to what is needed at a higher level of organisation; a single cell seeks to reproduce more than its competitors.

It appears that mechanisms for apoptosis (programmed cell death) are necessary for multicellularity, whereby certain cells are triggered to die during development or because they have gone haywire. Such mechanisms are incredibly complex and arguably irreducibly complex.15 Explaining the existence of such a mechanism without intelligent design seems to be a futile exercise.16

Co-operation and colony: halfway there?

Co-operative and colonial organisms are proposed to be the route through which multicellularity evolved. Cooperative behaviour occurs in unicellular organisms. For example, Salmonella typhimurium can arrange themselves in two ranks for invasion—the first rank launches a suicide attack and the second rank slips through the confusion in the defence caused by the first wave.17 Therefore, some communication between unicellular organisms occurs to allow for co-operation.

Many organisms form colonies. However, single cells in most of these colonies retain the ability to ‘break off’ from the colony when circumstances are favourable to doing so. Colonial systems have co-operation, but no regulatory system to force the cells together as a unit of selection in its own right. Moreover, a colonial organism can be pulled apart without significantly damaging it, unlike a multicellular organism, which will be severely injured or die if pulled apart. Michod et al. concur:

‘Such associations and groups may persist and reform with varying likelihood depending on properties of the group and the component individuals. Initially, group fitness is the average of the lower-level individual fitnesses, but as the evolutionary transition proceeds, group fitness becomes decoupled from the fitness of its lower-level components. Indeed, the essence of an evolutionary transition in individuality is that the lower-level individuals must “relinquish” their “claim” to fitness, that is to flourish and multiply, in favor of the new higher-level unit.’18

Some colonial organisms, however, do appear to be obligate and show some specialisation, such as some members of the Volvolaceae family, like Volvox carteri. The point at which colonial organisms fail as true multicellular organisms is their lack of division of totipotency19 and ‘immortality’:20

‘The un-coupling of immortality and totipotency proved not possible in V. carteri: these traits are express either together and fully (i.e. in the gonidia) or not at all (i.e. in the somatic cells). Immortality and totipotency are thus still tightly linked in V. carteri, as they are in their unicellular ancestors. In support of this view is the fact that “cancer-like” mutant somatic cells, in which immortality but not totipotency is re-gained, are missing in V. carteri. There are, however mutant forms of V. carteri … in which somatic cells re-gain both immortality and totipotency, but in neither of these mutants are the two traits expressed partially or differentially (e.g. limited mitotic capacity or multipotency).’21

This means that differentiation in the colony could only extend to two different types of cells and no further. Because they are unable to split totipotency and immortality, volvocine algae cannot create new somatic cells, and are as a result unable to survive for very long as an organism. In other words, there are no maintenance or repair strategies in volvocine life forms, so they lack one of the essential features of true multicellularity.

Opportunities for further research

I’ve here tried to present some basic requirements that must be met for the evolution of true multicellularity. For true multicellularity there has to be genetic sameness among all participating cells. Intercellular co-ordination serves as another level of organisation in life that can’t be reduced to the sum of its parts. There is a 4-level hierarchy in the regulatory architecture that must all be there for a viable developmental plan to proceed. Repair and maintenance requires one or more pools of undifferentiated, generally multipotent, stem cells. Cellular selection and organismal integrity remain diametrically opposed, and provide a very tough problem for evolution to overcome. Colonial unicellular organisms don’t fit the bill as multicellular creatures because of the difference between of their lack of this 4-level hierarchy, and the lack of maintenance and repair mechanisms for the organism.

This is a neglected area of creationist research, where there are a number of opportunities for further investigation.


  1. Wolpert., L. and Szathm√°ry, E., Evolution and the egg, Nature 420:745, 2002. Return to text.
  2. Nedelcu, A.M. and Michod, R.E., Evolvability, Modularity, and Individuality During the Transition to Multicellularity in Volvocalean Green Algae; in: Schlosser, G. and Wagner, G. (Eds.), Modularity in development and evolution, Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 466–489, 2003; p. 466. Return to text.
  3. Williams, A., Life’s irreducible structure—Part I: autopoiesis, Journal of Creation 21(2):109–115, 2007; . Return to text.
  4. Williams, ref. 3, p. 111. Return to text.
  5. Davidson, E.H., The Reguatory Genome: Gene Regulatory Networks in Development and Evolution, Academic Press, Burlington, MA, pp. 195–196, 2006. For the definitions of terms in refs. 6–9, see p. 128. Return to text.
  6. Kernels are conserved subcircuts consisting of regulatory genes which interact with one another and which are dedicated to a specific developmental function. Return to text.
  7. Plug-ins are common subcircuits that are utilized for many different developmental functions. Return to text.
  8. Input/output linkages are regulatory controls on the same stand of DNA as the gene they work on either switching them on or repressing them, depending on the developmental situation. Return to text.
  9. Differentiation gene batteries are sets of genes that respond to a common set of cell-type regulators, which encode at the protein level the functional and structural properties of that cell type. Return to text.
  10. Doyle, S., Serial cell differentiation: intricate system of design, Journal of Creation 22(2):6–8, 2008. Return to text.
  11. Multipotent means the cell has the ability to differentiate into multiple cell types. It is not totipotent, so cannot reconstruct a whole organism, but can reconstruct certain tissues and cell types. Return to text.
  12. For a similar discussion relating to serial differentiation, see Doyle, ref. 10. Return to text.
  13. Michod, R.E., Cooperation and conflict in the evolution of individuality I. Multilevel selection of the organism, The American Naturalist 149:607–645, 1997. Return to text.
  14. Pepper, J.W., Sprouffske, K. and Maley, C.C., Animal cell differentiation patterns suppress somatic evolution, PLoS Comput. Biol. 3(12):2532–2545, 2007; p. 2533; . Return to text.
  15. Bell, P., Apoptosis: cell ‘death’ reveals Creation, Journal of Creation (TJ) 16(1):90–102, 2002; . Return to text.
  16. Bell, P., The non-evolution of apoptosis, Journal of Creation (TJ) 18(1):86–96, 2004. Return to text.
  17. Ackermann, M. et al., Self-destructive cooperation mediated by phenotypic noise, Nature 454:987–990, 21 August 2008. Return to text.
  18. Michod, R.E., Nedelcu, A.M. and Roze, D., Cooperation and conflict in the evolution of individuality IV. Conflict mediation and evolvability in Volvox carteri, BioSystems 69:95–114, 2003. Return to text.
  19. Here totipotency means the ability to produce a new organism. Return to text.
  20. i.e. the capacity for ongoing cell division, without end. Return to text.
  21. Michod, et al., ref. 18, p. 105. Return to text.

I keep posting articles focusing on the cell at the microbiological level to help people understand that Darwinists are used car salesmen who do not know what is under the hood. I am showing you what is under the hood and it ain't macroevolution!

The cell is determined to reproduce the same kind. Variation is built in to the cell within the genetic coding within the DNA but the cell controls the child and forces a reproduction built upon the framework of the mother. Switches are prepared in advance to turn on or off when mutations occur. Great redundancies are built in to the cells, far beyond the bounds of logic if Darwinism was involved in any way. The cell is clearly designed with all sorts of contingencies and redundancies with hardware and software more complex and efficient than any computer man has been able to make.

Now we also see the barriers that would prevent single-cell organisms from becoming true multi-cellular creatures. While Darwinists talk about whether a bacteria can "jump domains" the fact is that there is no conceivable way for a jump from a single-cell organism to a multiple cell single organism. Darwinism is so dead it is irretrievably dead. It has had the stake driven into the heart, the silver bullet has shattered it's breastbone and a shotgun has blown off it's zombie head. It is a HUMBUG!

When you read the comments, notice how the issues brought up by Facilitated Variation and Genetic Redundancy let alone this last post about the barrier to Multicellular Evolution are not truly addressed? The commenters have been rehashing the same old talking points while I have been systematically walking my readers through the scientific study of the cell at the microscopic level and the level where the DNA rubber is meeting the Cellular road. If you have been a regular reader since March you have seen the foundation for Darwinism revealed as shifting sand, unable to support a hypothesis, let alone a theory and certainly NOT accepted fact. Hoax. Humbug. Canard. Words like that. Darwinists have learned enough about the cell to realize that their belief system has no basis. How long will they prolong the agony?


Hawkeye® said...

Interesting read. Thanks.

Jon Woolf said...

Listen to the humbugs sing ... Darwinism is so dead!

A very apt title, Radar. This claim is indeed a humbug.

First, why are you listening to Ken Ham about anything, when he's a demonstrable liar? With my own ears I've heard him claim that the "dawn horse" Hyracotherium was just a rock hyrax, which is nonsense to anyone who has ever seen them both.

Second, you need to read a book called If a Lion Could Talk, by Stephen Budiansky. It focuses on the issue of intelligence in animals. One of the topics Budiansky discusses is how very complicated behavior can emerge from the interplay of two or three very simple mental rules. The Brush-turkey is probably running a simple mental program something like:

1) check temperature of mound as compared to body internal temperature

2) if too hot, then
2a) add some material
2b) return to 1)

3) if too cold, then
3a) remove some material
3b) return to 1)

(Numbers are examples, not intended to be accurate).

How many brush-turkey nests fail, partly or completely, because the male is not that good at maintaining the right temperature? How many fail because the male buries the eggs too deep and the chicks suffocate? How many fail because the chicks are buried too deep to dig their way out? I'd guess the answer is "quite a few." There's no perfection here, no marvelous design, just a bizarre nesting strategy, developed over many thousands of years by a line of birds that found that it somehow enhanced their nesting success rate as compared to their ancestors.

While Darwinists talk about whether a bacteria can "jump domains" the fact is that there is no conceivable way for a jump from a single-cell organism to a multiple cell single organism.

Of course there is. In fact, we've watched it happen. The premiere example is certain types of marine sponges. Take a sponge, pass it through a fine strainer, so fine that it allows only single cells to pass. Each cell promptly becomes a fully operational organism. But dump a bunch of these cells into the same tank, and eventually they meet, clump together, and reorganize into a single functional multi-celled sponge.

Of course, such colonial single-celled organisms are a long way from a human or an octopus. But the point is that there's a trait here that selection can work on. Establish colonialism first, as in sponges or Volvox algae, and there are then several paths forward into the realm of a single larger organism containing specialized cells, such as modern cnidarians. And many reasons to follow one of those paths.

creeper said...

Drawing a very predictable blank on the questions asked of him on dating methods, and still unable to find any explanation for the sorting of fossils in the fossil record that is in any way compatible with YEC...

... Radar somewhat predictably shouts "Look over there!" while pointing at some Argument from Incredulity.

" While Darwinists talk about whether a bacteria can "jump domains"[...]"

Where do you think "Darwinists" do such a thing?

"Jumping domains" is not a concern of any kind for modern biologists with regard to bacteria. It was merely a ridiculous thing that you asserted bacteria should do in a limited lab experiment to confirm some strawman version of the theory of evolution that you made up (or gullibly copied from somewhere else).

All this did was (yet again) demonstrate your stunning ignorance of something you attempt to argue against. For modern biologists (I'm just guessing that you meant some approximation of that with your use of "Darwinists" in this case), it's not even remotely an issue.

-- creeper

P.S.: re. dating methods, have we now passed into that phase where you're going to abandon this subject, and soon try to lie about having already answered it?

-- creeper

radar said...

creeper you again complain and make charges and in the end stay out of the conversation altogether. There is no such thing in the world of YEC as a Domain as you know it, we call it something else. But the point I made (which makes you the prevaricator not me) is that if you do not expect bacteria to "jump domain" then you do not believe in macroevolution. So choose your side.

I put off dating methods because I realized you guys were going to keep trying to lead the discussions around in circles so I decided to get down to hard science and kick butt.

Woolf must be on the payroll of the NCSE from his verbiage. While my posts focus on actual science, you guys throw around ridiculous statements. You mean to tell me, Woolf, that YOU have seen a Hyracotherium? I didn't read about that in the news. Calling Ken Ham a liar, what a joke. This from a guy who defends talkorigins?

Jon Woolf said...

if you do not expect bacteria to "jump domain" then you do not believe in macroevolution.

Just to refresh my memory, what exactly do you mean by "jump domain," and what would you expect to see if it happened?

You mean to tell me, Woolf, that YOU have seen a Hyracotherium?

[chuckle.wav] Radar, you're way too easy. Yeah, I've seen a Hyracotherium. Got pictures of one too. You can do the same by visiting any of a number of museums. See a skeleton of one, and sometimes a figurine that represents a hypothetical reconstruction of the living animal.

For that matter, you don't even need to go anywhere. The magic of the Web brings it to you. Go here and scroll down a few screens, til you see the over-under photos: Hyracotherium above, and hyrax below.

(The whole post is worth reading in detail, however the photos pretty much speak for themselves.)

Hey, I didn't say I'd seen a live one, did I? ;-)

Anonymous said...

So then Jon Woolf, you called Ken Ham a liar with no proof. Your unstudied opinion against his. I would think Ham has the edge here.

Ham is not the first to say that the Hyracotherium might not actually be a horse. He won't be the last. Without a good DNA study it cannot be proven. Certainly the old horse evolution chart is worthless, what with the varying lengths and numbers of the skeletal structure including lumbar bones that simply would not follow a vertical path and the presence of some early and late ancestors found in the same rock layers.

Eh, back to the cell. I cannot get pulled off the main topic now since that is where the fight is.


Jon Woolf said...

So then Jon Woolf, you called Ken Ham a liar with no proof.

No proof? [snork] The link I gave contains all the proof you could possibly need. Did you even look at it? Here's another look, from an entirely different source. Not the same skull. Not the same animal. Whether or not Hyracotherium is a horse isn't relevant. I'm not saying it was a horse. I'm saying it was not what Ham claimed it was.

This isn't rocket science. There are lots of websites that have pictures of hyraxes. There are lots of websites that have pictures of hyracothere skulls and skeletons. Compare them for yourself. The hyracothere skull couldn't fit inside the hyrax's head; the hyracothere's skeleton doesn't fit inside the hyrax's body.

On a tangent: this comment intrigues me: ...the presence of some early and late [horse] ancestors found in the same rock layers.

Care to elaborate on this?

creeper said...

"This from a guy who defends talkorigins?"

"I am going to withdraw my charge against Talk Origins that they post things they know have been refuted. Until such time as I want to go back there or research past notes to look for anything documented, I won't claim that they do anything like that. I will just say that I don't like the site and leave it at that."

-- creeper

creeper said...

"I cannot get pulled off the main topic now since that is where the fight is."

Actually, that's what you changed the subject to because dating methods turned out to be such a dud.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Just to refresh my memory, what exactly do you mean by "jump domain," and what would you expect to see if it happened?"

I think it started back in this post. Radar claimed that because bacteria didn't turn into something other than bacteria in a lab experiment (even though in that experiment they did speciate), the theory of evolution had been disproven.

The ignorance presented in that claim is possibly one of the most extreme examples that Radar has presented so far, and he is not exactly shy about repeating it.

-- creeper