Sorry, Mauve Dog: you posted while I posited.
Thanks, Mojo, for so clearly displaying your denialist colors: the “little horse” was not a horse; it was, as pointed out by Mauve Dog, Hyracotherium. A separate species. You’ve been supplied with what you asked for, and as predicted, denied it.
This is not a debate about evolution: it’s a debate about stupidity and ignorance.
Sorry to disappoint. I don’t think about evolution much, outside of this message board.
Ok, I think see what you’re saying. But the question in my mind is “how different do they have to be to satisfy you?” That is, if we show with a fossil record that the ancestors of modern cetaceans were land-dwellers looking somewhat like hippos, would that show branching to you?
This is like saying “I just can’t picture a billion dollars. Therefore, all evidence to the contrary, I conclude that there’s no such thing.”
All sarcasm aside, Mojo, the problem is in your efforts to understand, not in the available facts.
If you were to read, from cover to cover, and try to understand, a book like The Beak of the Finch or River Out of Eden, you really might be able to “swallow the concept that every creature can be traced back like a tree to common roots.”
Seriously.
I think what I’d need would be fossil records long enough, and generally funnel shaped enough for me to easily look at and trace several distinctly different types of creatures back to common roots.
Lissener,
My lack of belief could easily be due to my lack of contact with a complete dataset. I’m not a denialist. It really doesn’t have any effect on my current state one way or the other. I have to honestly say, I really don’t have enough evidence to believe in creation, or anything else that’s been presented. I really don’t know what to believe, and I’ll go with whatever shows the most convincing evidence.
Eohippus (or whatever you call it) was NOT a horse by modern definitions. The reason the proto-horses are used so often as an example of evolution is not just size changes, it’s the way you can see how the structure of the foot gradually changed from a normal toed foot to a single toe with an oversized toenail (the hoof).
If you blew one of those tiny protohorses to full horse size, it would look like no animal you have ever seen.
Fine, I can appreciate that. But the “compelling evidence” doesn’t just float around and accidentally find its way into your brain through your earholes.
It’s inside a book, and you have to go to it.
I’m not saying you’re obliged to do this, I’m just saying that it seems kind of silly to weigh in on a debate regarding a subject about which you are intentionally, proudly ignorant.
Besides, Beak is a fascinating, entertaining book: it was bestseller, I believe, which means that it was read by more than just hardcore evolution geeks.
Sorry; this was in response to Mojo’s post above.
And regarding the your funnel-shaped requirements, you’d still have to study the fossil record in order to see this, which does exist. What you’re asking for is documentation of countless accumulated steps, but you don’t seem to be willing to look at more than one step. Fine, your call, but don’t say the proof is not there; say you don’t want to read the book.
Granted, I certainly haven’t read everything that’s been written on the subject. What I have read, hasn’t been convincing enough. The OP asked what it would take to convince me. I believe I answered that in my last post. Perhaps I’ll check out Beak.
Out of curiosity, what have you read, that was unconvincing?
Just curious about a possible different tack, what can be gleaned from genetic. I hear studies saying that humans and gorillas share X% of the same (genes?) which shows they diverged from a common ancestor at least Y million years ago. Or I’ll hear something like humans and, I don’t know, salamanders actually share X% of their genetic makeup.
Have I misunderstood both of these types of analyses, and if not, do they have any bearing on the discussion?
It is very entertaining and educational to read you folks’ extremely well written responses. Thanks.
Hmmm…large bills. Lots of them. In nice neat stacks. 
I mean, since you care so much what someone else believes…
This is not an aspect of evolutionary science that I’m particularly well versed, but I do know that some taxonomy has been revised based on DNA evidence. I.e., taxonomists infer a particular relationship based on physical evidence, only to find that genetic evidence suggests a different interpretation. Also, DNA evidence is often used to determine a timeline: which species predates another one, e.g., or how long ago two species might have been linked by a common ancestor.
In other words, yes DNA data is very relevant, but I’m not the one to give you a detailed explication of it.
Do you mind if I use it in my sig line? I am not now, nor have I ever been a creationist/denialist. (If not, I can easily go back and change it.)
obligatory link to Talk.Origins for showing evidence of evolution (transitional species link)…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
I remember seeing this a few years ago on TV and since then no one else has ever seen or heard of it butt…
In Hawaii with all of the volcanos and such one of the colleges did a study on Evolution. After an eruption they found two places that had not been effected by the lava that where close to each other. They then put insects in these different areas and watched both groups as a whole and IIRC they found that after a few months the insects had changed to different spieces and were unable to reproduce with each other. This to me would have been enough proff, but I already beleaved in evolution anyway.
On a side note one of my proffesors, of Biology who was VERY Christian said he believed in evolution because in nature things de-evolve (if that’s a word) and not evolve, hinch since things do evolve there must be something controling it’s evolution.
On another side note i once wrte a letter to the editor when some dork wrote into the paper, “if there is such a thing as Evolution how come we don’t see groundhogs evolve?” well I tore into him for that one.
This would have taken more than a few months, and I’ve never heard of this experiment, but I’d be interested if someone could find a cite for this.
FWIW, The Beak of the Finch is kind of a survey of empirically provable instances of evolution, and it doesn’t mention this experiment, IIRC.
Could you elaborate on this?
Izzy, I for one would like to hear WHY you decided the Biblical account was correct. Fair enough?
Thanks.
IzzyR, an addendum to ElvisL1ves’ question: Why do you consider the Biblical account and evolution mutually exclusive?