Artiodactyls (Talk.Origins)

Response to Artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals)

CreationWiki response:

Click here to see picture

The above quote shows that the only reason for linking Chriacus to Diacodexis is are some similarities in their teeth. That is hardly enough to prove a transition.

Translation: There is no real evidence of a link between Chriacus and Diacodexis.

Click here to see picture

Click here to see drawing of skeleton.

Please note that the only thing that Chriacus and Diacodexis seem to have that are similar are their teeth. This seems to be a common evolutionary comparison. The available drawing shows hooves, and this would be a sudden appearance of the hooves. The above Talk Origins quote indicates that the ankles are the only reason for considering it an ancestor to artiodactyl. The so called "species-to- species transitions" will be dealt with as they come.

Hippos & pigs
Helohyus had hooves and looked very much like a pig. It is probably a variety of pig.

Curiously, the hooves of Helohyus seem to have reverted back to toes. Anthracotherium is probably a variety of hippo.

No independent information is available on this type. The fact that is described as pig-like suggests that is a variety of pig.

Perchoerus is clearly a variety of pig.

Paleochoerus is a variety of pig.

Four out of the five of the types in this list are varieties of pig with a hippo thrown in the middle.

Camels
Based on this drawing, Homacodon would seem to be a variety of pig. The drawing clearly shows hooves.

While there is no independent information available on Poebrodon, the presence of separate hooves on each foot proves nothing since Homacodon clearly shows hooves.

Poebrotherium seems to be a variety of camel. Not only is there no evidence of a transition from Poebrodon&squot;s separate hooves to Poebrotherium&squot;s single hoof, but since Homacodon had hooves as well it would be nothing new.

It is interesting that the hooves are apparently replaced with pads in one step, with no mention of a transition between the two. This just show micro evolution in action, not macro evolution. The most it shows is that Llamas are varieties of camel.

Ruminants
No independent information is available on this type of Mesomeryx and Talk.Origins' description is too vague to use for analysis.

It is evident that evolutionists have yet to settle on a particular ancestor from this group, which may be all the same kind of animal. The repeated use of the word "primitive" shows the evolutionary assumptions behind this description. With such a vague description of Mesomeryx, there is no way to tell if their features are part of any kind of trend.

The so called "telltale transitional signs" are based on the assumption of evolution. Having a different number of toes on front and hind feet is not necessarily transitional&mdash;it just means they had different numbers of toes front and back. The descriptions of the teeth and bones sounds like nothing more than expected variation between different kinds of animals. This is particularly the case since none of these features are described for Mesomeryx.

Based on illustrations, Hypertragulus seems to have been a variety of deer.

Other than a few apparently minor differences, Hyemoschus seems to be much like Hypertragulus Indomeryx, which suggests the possibility that they are the same kind of animal. This is supported by the similarities in the illustrations of Hyemoschus and Hypertragulus. Besides, based on evolutionary dates, they would be too young to be an ancestor.

Archaeomeryx and Leptomeryx are dated as older than Hyemoschus. A comparison of illustrations suggest that Archaeomeryx, Leptomeryx, Hyemoschus and Hypertragulus are the same kind of animal. They also seem to be varieties of deer.

No independent information is available on Bachitherium and Talk.Origins' description is too vague to use for analysis.

No independent information is available on Lophiomeryx and Gelocus. However, they are considered to predate or be contemporary with Bachitherium, and as such Bachitherium cannot be their ancestor.

These are all simply varieties of deer as is evident from the fact that even the early ones are referred to as deer-like.

All of these seem to be varieties of giraffe, and it does suggest that giraffes and okapi are the same kind of animal.

Pronghorns seem to represent a distinct kind of animal. No actual connection is given with other types.

Talk.Origins starts out with nothing but teeth (Nebraska Bovid) while providing no evidence of a connection to Eotragus, Protragocerus, or any other type. They simply are claimed as ancestral making it an unsubstantiated claim.

This is just a list of three different kinds of animal with no evidence presented as to how they are supposedly linked other than the unsubstantiated claim that Eotragus and Protragocerus are ancestral.

Species-species transitions in artiodactyls
These are just examples of variation within different kinds of animals. It is important to note that they resort to punctuated equilibrium to explain a lack of smoothness.

Summary
It seems that distinct kinds of animal have been compared to one another by certain body parts while ignoring the general appearance of the animal. There are several cases were no real information is available and often they are critical to the claim of a link with other kinds of animals.