Carnivores (Talk.Origins)

Response to Carnivores

CreationWiki Response:

General
Since Creodonts are an order, it is too broad for pictures and consists of multiple kinds of animals. Note the lack of a definite ancestor Creodonts. Furthermore even Talk Origins expresses doubt about Creodonts actually being ancestors to Carnivores. Talk Origins omits the fact that Creodonts are classified as Early Tertiary, this would make them Paleocene and Eocene making them contemporary with many of their alleged descendants, and actually younger than some of their alleged dependents.

Reference: Creodonta

Note that Cimolestes are classified as late Cretaceous which would make them older than Creodonts, thus eliminating Creodonts as their ancestors. They look like a mouse, so it was probably a variety of mouse.

Reference: Cimolestes

Note that Cimolestes incisus & Cimolestes cerberoides are are classified as Cretaceous making them older than Creodonts, thus eliminating Creodonts as their ancestors and actually making them the oldest of the Cimolestes.


 * Cimolestes sp. are classified as (Paleocene) making them contemporary with Creodonts. Given the fact that the older Cimolestes would be older than Creodonts, it eliminates Creodonts as Cimolestes sp.'s ancestors.

There is no independent information available on this type, however its placement in the mid-Paleocene would make it contemporary with two of its alleged ancestors one of which is place two links behind it. Note that the main difference stated are in its teeth. This suggests the possibility that Simpsonictis tenuis could be a large tooth variety of Cimolestes.

Paroodectes, Vulpavus is classified as early Eocene and its alleged immediate ancestor; Simpsonictis tenuis; is classified mid-Paleocene, so where is the late-Paleocene? Besides there are too many differences to demonstrate any relationship with Cimolestes, even including Simpsonictis. It would require multiple intermediate forms for which there is no evidence. Paroodectes, and Vulpavus seem to be the same kind of animals.

Reference: Paroodectes

Reference: Vulpavus

Translation: They have no evidence.

There is no independent information available on Viverravus sicarius and the gap shows that there is no connection with Paroodectes, and Vulpavus.

Dogs
No clear link is given to any proposed ancestor. Based on it reconstruction Cynodictis is clearly a variety of dog. So what we have here is a sudden appearance of the dog kind.

Reference: Cynodictis

While there is no indication of a post cranial bones, All indications are that Hesperocyon was a variety of dog.

Reference: Hesperocyon

Reference: Wolf Facts at Wolf Web

'By calling Cynodesmus "First true dog;" Talk Origins make it clear that Cynodesmus as well as 'Tomarctus and Canis'' are all varieties of Dog.

Reference: Cynodesmus

Given the vast variety of dogs alive to day; it seems clear that Cynodictis, Hesperocyon and Cynodesmus are simply three varieties of Dog.

Bears
For the recored it is shown above that Cynodictis, Hesperocyon and Cynodesmus are varieties of Dog.

Ursavus was a variety of bear with no real evidence of any relationship with Cynodictis and Hesperocyon. There are significant differences. This would require a sudden shift between dog and bear with apparently nothing in between. They would probably claim punctuated equilibrium, but that would literally require a dog giving birth to a bear.

There is no independent information available on Protursus simpsoni, but based on the above description it is clearly a bear.


 * Ursus is the genus of modern bears

No problem sinces between species is not a problem, the fact is that these are all the same kind of animal.

Raccoons
Phlaocyon was a Dog, not a Raccoon, nor is there any clear conection to raccoons.

Reference: Phlaocyon

Reference: Wolf Facts at Wolf Web

Weasels
Click here to see pictures Weasels

Plesictis seems to be distinct kind of animal. Talk Origins claims that it is transitional between miacids and mustelids, without giving any reason for the claim. the impression is that their claim is to be taken as true, based only on faith. Sounds like a religion.

Reference: Plesictis

Potamotherium seems to be a variety of weasel. Note however that they do not consider it an ancestor to weasel, that means they don't have one.

Reference: Potamotherium

Seals, sea lions and walruses
could not find any independent information on Pachycynodon, but the fact that it is described as "bearlike" suggests that it was a variety of bear, however the lack of information make an analyzes impossible.

Enaliarctos looks like a seal and probably is a variety of seal. What we have here is the sudden appearance of seals. The ability of this seal to walk and run on it flippers suggests that seals have lost an ability. This shows the type of degeneration that would be expected under creation. Furthermore there is no reference to mid Oligocene, apparently they have no fossils from these layers. However since Enaliarctos has the first mention of flippers, Pachycynodon probably had feet. That is quite a big jump with no intermediates.

Reference: Enaliarctos

First of all Neotherium 14 my "date" would mean 10 my gape from the end of the late Oligocene and by its immediate alleged ancestor Enaliarctos. These are varieties of walrus since they are all part of the same family there would need to be several intermediate steps between these walruses and Enaliarctos for a connection to be credible, so we have a sudden appearance of the walrus kind interesting!

Reference: Imagotaria

Here we have a 13 my gap since its immediate alleged ancestor Enaliarctos. So we have a sudden appearance of the sea lion kind interesting!

Reference: Fur Seals and Sea Lions (Otariidae)

Seals seem to appear "earlier" in the fossil record but are called Enaliarctos. If Enaliarctos could run on its flippers it would be a loss not a gain and as such this would not be a problem for creationists.

So here we have 3 distinct kinds with no apparent connection. This shows no indication of a transition just a group of known kinds of animals.

Civets
If Stenoplesictis a "civet-like animal" why can it be a civet. In fact, it is called a civet by some sources, so it is likely just a variety of civet.

Reference: [http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/4505_Colbert_&_Morales_1991.htm Evolution of the Vertebrates, 4th ed. New York: Wiley-Liss.]

Dirtst of all where is the mid Oligocene? No type is mentioned from the mid Oligocene so there is no fossil connection between Stenoplesictis and Palaeoprionodon. Furthermore the description of Palaeoprionodon makes it sound less civet like than Stenoplesictis so this is going the wrong direction. However, it is called a civet by some sources, so it is likely just a variety of civet.

Reference: [http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/4505_Colbert_&_Morales_1991.htm Evolution of the Vertebrates, 4th ed. New York: Wiley-Liss.]

First off there seems to be a 2Ma gap between Herpestides and Palaeoprionodon, so there is no direct fossil connection. However since it is described as more civet like than Palaeoprionodon and its reconstruction looks like a civet, it is likely just a variety of civet.

Reference: Herpestides

These are unquestionably civets.

Reference: Civets and Genets

These are just four varieties of civet, and hence no evidence for macroevolution.

Cats
Unfortunately a lack of information on Haplogale categorizing it impossible. The claim that it is "slightly cat-like" suggests that it could be a variety of cat, but there is no way of be certain. However given the fact that the true cats Dinictis and Hoplophoneus would predate Haplogale by at 5-7 million years removes it from being a cat ancestor.

Unfortunately a lack of information on Proailurus julieni categorizing it impossible. The reference to "cat-like traits" suggests that it could be a variety of cat, but there is no way of be certain. However given the fact that the true cats Dinictis and Hoplophoneus would predate Proailurus julieni by at 10-13 million years removes it from being a cat ancestor.

Proailurus lemanensis was clearly a variety of cat, even Talk Origins calls it a true cat. However given the fact that the true cats Dinictis and Hoplophoneus would predate Proailurus lemanensis by at 10-13 million years removes it from being their ancestor and "The first true cat."

Reference: Proailurus

Reference: Proailurus

Pseudaelurus was definitely a variety of cat.

Reference: Pseudaelurus

Dinictis was definitely a variety of cat, and Hoplophoneus a variety of the famous saber-tooth tiger, also a cat. Note that these varieties predate all of their alleged ancestors.

Reference: Dinictis

Reference: Dinictis

Reference: Hoplophoneus

What we have here is a demonstration of the vast variety of cats within the cat kind.

Hyaenids
Herpestes antiquus was a variety of mongoose.

Reference: Herpestes:

Note that Protictitherium crassum seems to be contemparary with Herpestes making the claim of Herpestes as ancestor to Protictitherium on this bases alone however while Herpestes was a variety of mongoose, Protictitherium is a variety of Hyena.

Reference: The Hyena Pages -- Hyena Evolution

Curiously no epoch is given for Plioviverropsi, however Plioviverrops was a variety of Hyena.

Reference: The Hyena Pages -- Hyena Evolution

Tungurictis was a variety of Hyena.

Reference: The Hyena Pages -- Hyena Evolution

Ictitherium viverrinum was a variety of Hyena.

Reference: The Hyena Pages -- Hyena Evolution

There is no independent information on Thalassictis.

There is no independent information on Hyaenotherium.

There is no independent information on Miohyaenotherium.

It seems that Hyaenictitherium was a variety of the Hyena.

Reference: Hyaenictitherium:

'Palinhyaena''' was a variety of Hyena.

Reference: The Hyena Pages -- Hyena Evolution

Ikelohyaena was a variety of Hyena.

Reference: The Hyena Pages -- Hyena Evolution

Belbus was a variety of Hyena.

Reference: The Hyena Pages -- Hyena Evolution

Leecyaena was a variety of Hyena.

Reference: The Hyena Pages -- Hyena Evolution

Parahyaena is still alive and is a variety of Hyena.

Reference: Guides: Brown Hyena

Being genus Hyaena these are clearly varieties of Hyena.

Pliocrocuta was a variety of Hyena.

Reference: Pliocrocuta perrieri latidens GERAADS, 1997 Pachycrocuta was a variety of Hyena.

Reference: Pachycrocuta Adcrocuta was a variety of Hyena.

Reference: The Hyena Pages -- Hyena Evolution

Crocuta is a variety of Hyena.

Reference: Spotted Hyena

So were is the evidence. Of the animals in this list, for which there was sufficient information to learn any thing about. One is a mongoose, and the rest of them are varieties of Hyena and there is no evidence of a link between the Hyenas and mongoose.

Species-species
These are just examples of variation within different kinds of animals.

Conclusion
The lists on this page only show variety with in various kinds of animals, with no indication of transition between these kinds.