Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Ark Equid
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

BlueCollarScientist
New Member

23 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  10:13:03  Show Profile  Visit BlueCollarScientist's Homepage Send BlueCollarScientist a Private Message  Reply with Quote

Does anyone here have any information on the "Ark Equid?" This is the eqquid supposedly at the root of the hippus clade, as proposed by the creation museum. There was mention of it today on Panda's Thumb, and I've dug up several references to it, including here and here.

What I'm specifically wondering:

1) Do the creationists consider this thing to be an "actual" animal, or do they think it is a "hypothesized" creature that may never have existed?

2) Are they seriously proposing speciation as a result of modification and descent? Where do the other equids come from in this hypothesis?

I've done some searching, and I'm just not coming up with details. I welcome remedial intervention of my flawed research skills.

http://bluecollarscientist.com/

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2008 :  13:03:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Never heard of it but what we appear have here is Ken Ham in a minor but not insurmountable tight spot. And the Creationists are dead serious about it, for reasons that I'll never understand.

Ham and his silly side show have stated empathetically that only 'Kinds' were taken aboard the Ark. These sole survivors then went forth after the Flood and re-propagated all of their various genera in some four thousand years, oh please.....

So the question is: what species, of all the extinct & extant equines, represented the Jackass Horsey Kind. Toughy ain't it?

No, it ain't. The specimens would have to be very small due to severe space allocations (I've dealt with this elsewhere), so there is only one, known answer: Hyracotherium (Eohippus). This animal was about the size of the family pooch and Ham can get away with it (with the flat-liners, anyway) because of another asinine claim: "All species, past & present, were represented on the Ark by their Kinds."

Of course, the little guys Would be living cheek-by-jowl with such as Thecodont Kind and Nimravidae Kind, but those sorts of things shouldn't be any obstacle to a good story.

I hate to break the bubble (Yeah, right!) but there was no Ark Equid because there was no Ark. And Hyracotherium's ancestors have yet to be described, at least as far as I know. Bet they were little cuties, though.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

BlueCollarScientist
New Member

23 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2008 :  12:22:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit BlueCollarScientist's Homepage Send BlueCollarScientist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy

....there is only one, known answer: Hyracotherium (Eohippus).


And Eohippus is not the same as their "Ark Equid" - er, right?

Are the creationists' "Kinds" approximately equivalent to taxonomical families? Or clades? Thus allowing one representative of a family/clade to represent all species in that "Kind" on the, umm, Ark? And if so does this mean that those representatives speciate through modification with descent?

Geez, I feel ridiculous even asking these questions as though these ideas have any validity.

What I'm really trying to figure out: After the creationist excrescence in the other thread about Piltdown and Archaeopteryx, do I feel justified in thinking that the creationists have committed a hoax of their own in the form of the Ark Equid?

http://bluecollarscientist.com/
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2008 :  12:45:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
BlueCollar asked:
What I'm really trying to figure out: After the creationist excrescence in the other thread about Piltdown and Archaeopteryx, do I feel justified in thinking that the creationists have committed a hoax of their own in the form of the Ark Equid?

Well, if by "hoax" you mean pure fabrication, then yes.

Some of them really believe that drivel though.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2008 :  13:00:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by BlueCollarScientist

Originally posted by filthy

....there is only one, known answer: Hyracotherium (Eohippus).


And Eohippus is not the same as their "Ark Equid" - er, right?

Are the creationists' "Kinds" approximately equivalent to taxonomical families? Or clades? Thus allowing one representative of a family/clade to represent all species in that "Kind" on the, umm, Ark? And if so does this mean that those representatives speciate through modification with descent?

Geez, I feel ridiculous even asking these questions as though these ideas have any validity.

What I'm really trying to figure out: After the creationist excrescence in the other thread about Piltdown and Archaeopteryx, do I feel justified in thinking that the creationists have committed a hoax of their own in the form of the Ark Equid?

Eohippus and Hyracotherium are one and the same. The name was simply changed some years back. It is the smallest equid yet known so it would have to be the one the apologists use for their Ark myth. Heh, the fact that those who composed that myth having never even conceived of the animal not withstanding.

As near as I can tell, a 'Kind' is whatever you want it to be if you happen to be a YEC. It has something to do with a translation of the Hebrew: 'Baramin,' if I have the story straight.

I put together an article on the Ark hoo-hah in general, and Kinds are touched upon: Fundies Hate Noah's Ark on the home page. Read that and you'll know as much about that 4,000 year old sea-story as I do. "Sea-story,' incidently, is sailor for 'bullshit.'

Yeah, they're running a hoax. The sad part about it is that it is such an obvious hoax, yet so many otherwise intelligent people buy into it and donate to the perpetrators of it beyond the wildest and most avaricious dreams of all grifterdom.

Edit: got to thinking about it and realized that I failed to put in the link. The article is now linked.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Edited by - filthy on 02/29/2008 05:55:38
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.06 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000