|EVOLUTION GETS The HORSE LAUGH!
Did giant draft horses and sleek Thoroughbreds evolve from rabbit-sized ancestors? Neat diagrams in science textbooks say yes. But research the details and you find a horse of a different color! Increasingly, scientists are questioning what has been the greatest array of "evidence" ever assembled in favor of evolution.
SOME YEARS ago a noted scientist rose to challenge the commonly accepted evolutionary family tree of the horse. The occasion was an august British science association meeting.
The scientist was Professor T. S. Westoll, Durham University geologist.
Professor Westoll told a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Edinburgh that nearly everyone had taken the early classical evolutionary tree for granted . The idea that one may trace the beginning of the horse family from the small, dog-sized eohippus to our present-day horse was all wrong, he announced . He did not, mind you, denounce the evolutionary theory. But he did contest major parts of the evolutionary horse family tree in favor of his version.
But why? The family tree of the horse is supposed to be the most convincing example of evolution in action!
Did the Horse Evolve? The saga of supposed horse evolution is found in countless texts in general science. Teachers pointing to neat, scientific-appearing diagrams tell their students, "Here is a simple, easy-to-understand proof that the modern-day horse evolved from a small, doglike ancestor."
One individual challenged us to take on this "proof" of evolution and attempt to refute it. In this reader's own words:
"I noticed that you perpetually pick on the areas of the evolutionary scheme that are weak. Weak spots do not make a thing wrong. Weak spots indicate a lack of time for drawing evidences. Why don't you pick on some of the well-proven parts of evolution. The evolution of the horse, for example. Every good encyclopedia in the world has that in it. Would they print false information in research books?"
This letter illustrates again how much FAITH people have in science. It seemed unbelievable to this person that any untruths could appear in "research books." But research books are not the words of divinity, but the notions of men. And they have contained, in the past, everything from the Piltdown Man hoax to the supposition that mice leapt into being spontaneously from piles of rotten rags.
Unfortunately, there are very few scientists who agree among themselves, and there exist almost as many ideas in the evolutionary patchwork of guesses as there are individual scientists to postulate them.
But let's get to the point — and not horse around about it.
The All-Important Fossil Record Look in any textbook on geology or paleontology. You find each contains some statement as:
"The most direct sort of evidence on the truth of evolution must, after all, be provided by the fossil record" (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, pp. 220, 221).
Here, then, is where evolutionists stand and fight. And they have chosen the horse as their most mighty weapon! The question is: Will the idea of horse evolution stand up under the cold, hard light of close scrutiny?
For over one hundred years, paleontologists have been amassing fossils, trying to patch together a genealogy for the horse.
It all really began about 1859 when Charles Darwin published his book, The Origin of Species. Paleontologists rushed to the fields searching for fossils. With bones of many animals in hand, they began to construct various sequences purporting to show how a particular animal might have evolved from some other form.
Their greatest "success" came in putting together sequences of bones to make up the evolution of the horse story. By 1900 the tale was complete. Only minor details have been filled in since then.
A Classroom Tool This supposed horse sequence is still the best tool evolutionists have to convince others that evolution is a fact. Simpson candidly tells us:
"The beautiful series of ancient and modern horses displayed in many museums are still the simplest way to convince any open-minded person that evolution is a fact. You can see it with your own eyes." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, p. xxxiii.)
You are confidently informed that fossils of an animal called eohippus (e-o-hi p'-us) gradually changed his teeth, lost three toes and grew in stature to become the horse of today.
The average high school or college student is told without hesitation that this is an incontrovertible fact. He is not encouraged to research for himself to find whether the supposed evolution, in fact, did occur. What dozens of paleontologists have put together over a span of one hundred years surely could not be wrong.
Or could it?
Can Scientists Be Wrong? Is it possible then, that the paleontological facts which have been unearthed with spade, shovel and scratcher — were wrongly interpreted?
In this article we challenge the interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves. We quote the admissions of the scientists themselves. Every quote in every article is from a leading scientist respected by his colleagues.
Our articles are merely a commentary on their admissions of where the theory is unproven. And, when you amass all the information, shockingly you find — the theory of evolution is unproved everywhere!
In most cases, the scientists themselves do not realize the significance of the admissions they make. With this in mind, let's delve into the horse story and see what the paleontologists do admit.
Under Grave Suspicion? Reading through a book on mammals by a well-known scientist, one is shocked to read that some scientists doubt the neat picture of the horse story.
"The origin of the horse was until recently thought to be better known than that of any other mammal; this was based on a series of complete fossil skeletons of dozens of different extinct creatures, starting with simple animals of the size and shape of small dogs with five fingers and four toes, and ending with the modern Thoroughbred.
"However, this pleasantly neat evolutionary picture of orderly progression in tooth structure, loss of toes, increase in size, and wrist and ankle elongation has now unfortunately come under grave suspicion.
"So many side-branches have been brought to light, so many intermediary forms are completely lacking that we can now only say that the classic description is no more than a guide to the probable steps by which the modern horse evolved." (Mammals of the World, Ivan T. Sanderson, p. 222.)
What is this?
The simplistic idea of horse evolution under grave suspicion? Too many intermediary or transitional forms completely lacking? Too many "side-branches"?
Only a "guide" to the probable steps?
George G. Simpson, well-known paleontologist, reveals other problems with the horse history chart so blithely reproduced in the average textbook.
Picky Paleontologists His admission is shocking:
"Earlier students usually pointed to the evolution of the horse as a typical example of orthogenesis [straight-line, constant evolution] and the best proof of that theory. It is now seen that this was a serious mistake, a mistake caused
WAS THIS A HORSE? — Artist's concept of eohippus — claimed to be a horse ancestor. Notice what appears to be horse-like head. See article for admissions by paleontologists that skeletal remains demonstrate eohippus was not a "hippus" — did not have a horse-like head. (See PDF for Pictures)in part by inadequate evidence and in still larger part by superficial and erroneous methods of study.
"Some students of evolution who were not really well acquainted with the whole picture of horse evolution simply picked out parts of it that seemed to fit an orthogenetic interpretation, and their false conclusions were accepted and endlessly repeated by others who knew still less about these subjects... There was, for instance, no constant and overall increase in size... The feet did not steadily change from four toes to three and then to one... And so it goes for all the changes that have occurred in the history of the family; not one of them shows the constant, guided change in a single direction that is demanded by the theory of orthogenesis." (Horus) George Gaylord Simpson, pp. 270, 271.)
Scientists picked out parts that made the theory appear right? False conclusions accepted and repeated by others? No steady changes in one direction?
The Facts If the theory of evolution is so logical, so capable of explaining everything — how did such mistakes occur?
Simpson admits there is no proof that the toes steadily changed from four to three (what happened to two?) to one. Paleontologists have no neatly linked transitional creatures. If evolution were a fact, one should see a neat progression — with all intermediate steps logically following each other. But one simply doesn't — not even among the supposed star proof of evolution — our maligned horse.
Simpson is not the only paleontologist who discusses this problem. Another well-known scientist frankly tells us:
"The horses are often cited as an outstanding example of 'straight-line evolution' or of 'orthogenesis,' and it is frequently maintained that these animals evolved with little deviation, along a straight-line path from the little Eocene Hyracotherium or eohippus to the modern horse, Equus....
"When all fossils are taken into account the history of horses in North America is seen to be anything but a simple progression along a single line of development." (Evolution of the Vertebrates, Edwin S. Colbert, pp. 360, 361.)
When you take all the fossils into account, there is, in fact, no evidence of evolution. Paleontologists — in spite of denials — still take the bones that seem to fit their theory.
Of course, many questions can be raised. If a five-toed ancestor is "primitive" and a one-toed horse is "progressive" — where does man fit? Man has five toes on each foot, not one. Is man to be considered "primitive"? Evolutionists don't usually consider such "problems."
Some scientists were candid enough to face the problems. They did not, of course, renounce evolution — but they at least had the candor to admit there were problems.
To Count or Not To Count Regarding the supposed reduction of toes, one of the proofs given of horse evolution, Simpson admitted:
"Regarding the feet, the old idea of a steady, uninterrupted reduction in number of toes is, as has lately become clear, not only over-simplified but also ESSENTIALLY FALSE... simply counting the toes gives hardly any idea of what was really going on in regard to the functioning foot in the living animals." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, p. 256.)
But "counting the toes" is crucial to the idea of horse evolution. The concept of toe reduction and tooth changes are the two major proofs cited for horse evolution. If these are not true, the theory has little by which to defend itself.
A Pony Tale Let's take the supposed genealogy of the horse step by step. Let's scrutinize each step and see if indeed evolution has occurred.
The story of how the horse genealogy was built up is an intriguing one. It goes back to the year 1838. Before this time there were no known bones of such an animal called eohippus. But in that year a discovery of bones was made which took its place at the beginning of the supposed genealogy of the horse.
In 1838, William Colchester, an English brickmaster, was digging in the clay banks of the river Deben. He dug so deep that his shovel hit sand. In a shovel full of sand he noticed what looked like an old tooth.
In the next year another Englishman, William Richardson, was rummaging around a place called Studd Hill on the coast of Kent. He found a large part of an ancient skull — with most of the teeth well preserved.
These have been called the first "horse" fossils discovered. But did they really look like horses? Let's take them at face value — without interpretation. Here is one plain admission.
"No one even suspected at that time these were ancestral horses. How could they? The specimens found by Colchester and Richardson had almost no special resemblance to the living horse.
"The teeth, instead of the great, ridged, grinding prisms of our present horse, were small, low, and cusped, really more like monkey teeth than horse teeth. The little skull... looked [as its first describer, Richard Owen, remarked] rather like 'that of the Hare or other timid Rodentia.'
"From the evidence then available, it would have been most unscientific to jump to the conclusion that this queer little beast was a sort of a horse. Owen named it Hyracotherium [Hie-ra-co-thee'-ri-um]. (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, p. 114.)
Calling a Hare a Horse Aha! Then eohippus is not a hippus (horse)! Its bones look like a hare or one of the scientific family of Rodentia (such as squirrels, beavers, and porcupines). Perhaps like a modern hyrax, or even the Biblical "coney," sometimes confused with a rabbit.
Simpson admits it would have been unscientific to claim this beast was a horse. Then what possible reason would you have for calling it a horse? It didn't look like a horse — different teeth, different skull, different body, different feet!
George Gaylord Simpson explains why paleontologists later called this UNhorselike fossil a horse.
"Owen compared the small Eocene mammal with the hyraxes... which, indeed, it resembles more than it does the recent horses... When, much later, similar fossils were found in the Eocene of North America, the principle of evolution had been well established.
"Professor Marsh [eminent 19th century paleontologist] was therefore able to recognize that these fossils were horse ancestors, and he coined for them the apt and euphonious name Eohippus, 'dawn horse,' referring also to the fact that they occur in the Eocene, 'dawn of the recent,' epoch." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, pp. 147, 148, 149.)
Instead of taking the bones at face value, as Owen did, Marsh interpreted the bones according to the theory of evolution. He forced the facts to fit the theory.
As Simpson admitted in an article appearing some years ago in the magazine Natural History, "The description of Owen would not seem amiss if our mental image of Hyracotherium were not so colored by later knowledge [?] that it was ancestral to the horse." ("Resurrection of the Dawn Horse," George Gaylord Simpson, Natural History. November, 1940.)
Any paleontologist wanting to preserve his professional status would never have considered Hyracotherium or Eohippus a horse in 1839. They all called it exactly what it was.
"When in 1839 part of a skull was found... in London days, even the most eminent paleontologists of the day little suspected that the 'Eohippus' belonged to the horse family... in fact Sir Richard Owen named its genus Hyracotherium... when he compared it with conies (hyrax), pigs and rodents." (Time, Life and Man, R. A. Stirton, p. 465.)
Eohippus After Evolution Even as late as 1872 — some 13 years after Darwin published his ideas on evolution — we find the American evolutionary paleontologist, E. D. Cope, still thinking eohippus fossils were what they looked like, not what an evolutionist arbitrarily claimed them to be.
Cope found a fragment of a lower jaw and one tooth at Evanstown, Wyoming in 1872. "Cope was no more able to deduce its horse relationships from this fragment than Owen could from similar fragments found 10 Suffolk... Cope also at first confused some of the teeth of dawn-horses [which they are not] and those of monkey-like animals." ("Resurrection of the Dawn Horse," George Gaylord Simpson, Natural History, November, 1940.)
Then why were these innocent, rabbit-like bones dumped into the horse family? Let Professor Simpson answer:
"The theory of evolution was soon [after 1859] accepted by practically all scientists.
"With the firm establishment of this theory, students of fossils, that is, paleontologists, naturally began to look around to see whether they could not,
A FAMILY AFFAIR — Top photo shows skeleton of modern horse alongside reconstruction of its supposed ancestor, eohippus. Paleontologists admit there is no reason to connect eohippus with the horse family — as even the above comparison indicates. Below, four-toed eohippus compared with one-toed horse. Both are distinct mammals with no relationship to each other except in name. (See PDF for Pictures)by comparing ancient animals of different ages, find the ancestors of living animals." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, p. 115.)
What Was Eohippus? It's time we cut through the confusion. Let's understand what eohippus was not and what he WAS. The work, in fact, has already been done for us. Scientists simply haven't understood the import of what they say.
Note the following which dearly tells us what eohippus was:
"The first discovery, made in Europe, was called Hyracotherium [same as eohippus] because of a superficial resemblance to the Old World cony, or HYRAX... some species were 10 inches high at the shoulder, weighed 8 or 9 pounds, and compared with an alley cat in build. Others were 20 inches high and weighed about four times as much. All had arched, flexible backs and high hindquarters, which gave the beasts an almost rabbitlike appearance." (The Fossil Book, Carroll Lane Fenton and Mildred Adams Fenton, p. 417.)
There is your answer! The bones called "eohippus" are similar to those of an Old World hyrax, often confused with the coney. Although to make a positive assertion today that eohippus was a type of hyrax would be looked upon as foolish.
But to call eohippus a "horse" is absolutely ridiculous. It has no connection with the horse family. Its looks prove it was not an ancestor of the horse.
No Need for Eohippus to Evolve Besides, why should "eohippus" evolve? He was a creature perfectly made to fit in his own environmental niche.
A leading paleontologist admits this to be true:
"Eohippus was NOT an imperfect model that needed to have the teeth, feet and other parts rebuilt to make it into Equus. Eohippus was a going concern on its own, a well-adapted animal that got along very well in its own world and following its own habits." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, p. 230.)
If eohippus got along well in the world, why did he have to evolve? If you claim he DID evolve, why are there little creatures alive today which so closely resemble eohippus?
Evolution cannot answer.
This forest-dwelling browser's brain didn't even resemble a horse's brain. One authority admits: "Another MOST UNHORSELIKE characteristic of Hyracotherium was its brain." (Introduction to Evolution, Paul Amos Moody, p. 203.)
But in spite of no obvious relationship, evolutionists tried to make eohippus look like a horse. They were determined to have their own way.
This little bit of hanky-panky IS commented on by Simpson:
"Proportions [for eohippus] are so different from Equus that the head of eohippus, WHEN CORRECTLY RESTORED, does not look like a small horse's head. The snout does taper slightly and suggest the beginning of a muzzle, but at this stage the development is so slight that we should not notice it particularly if we did not know what was to come later. The brain was small and its structure was so primitive that it suggests the most primitive mammal brains, or even the brain of a reptile, more than it does that of the living horse." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, pp. 152, 153.)
The head DID NOT look like a small horse's head. But scientists, desperately wanting evolution to be true, drew eohippus' head to look like a horse's head!
What kind of science is this?
Done in the Name of Science Why scientists did this is clear. Assuming that "what was to come later" was evolution, evolutionists imagined that eohippus fulfilled their analogy. Hence, he was the "primitive" ancestor of the horse!
A small example of how scientists tried to make rabbit-like eohippus look like a horse was not discovered until 1956.
"The scapula [shoulder blade] of Hyracotherium has usually been restored to resemble that of later horses... In the collection of the California Institute of Technology are a partial skull and nearly complete post-cranial skeleton from the Gray Bull beds of the Big Horn Basin of Wyoming.
"Both scapulae [shoulder blades] are virtually complete and are to my knowledge the only ones in existence with the blade intact. I have examined casts of both scapulae. They are far more doglike than horse-like.., the areas of muscle insertion on the medial side of the scapula are as nearly as can be determined from the cast, ALMOST EXACTLY as they are in Canis," (American Hyracotherium, David B, Kitts, 1956, p. 21.)
So artists were guilty of stylizing their drawings to force eohippus to fit into the evolutionary theory, What we have are tacit admissions by evolutionists that the neat artists' concepts you see in your science textbooks are NOT ACCURATE.
Scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky states without hesitation:
"Many textbooks and popular accounts of biology represent the evolution of the horse family as starting with eohippus and progressing in a direct line towards the modern horse, Equus... according to Simpson, this over-simplification really amounts to a FALSIFICATION" (Theodosius Dobzhansky, evolution, Genetics, and Man, p. 302).
Did you grasp that? Here an eminent scientist quotes another eminent scientist. He tells us that what teachers and college science students read about this subject in their science textbooks is an "over-simplification" — "a falsification"!
Well, it looks like poor eohippus has been rather widely misrepresented. If the animal were alive and could think) he would literally turn over in his grave.
Eohippus and the Hyrax When you carefully examine the record IN DETAIL some startling parallels between eohippus and the hyrax become evident:
One writer says this of eohippus:
"The grinding teeth [of eohippus], which had low crowns, were fit only for eating SOFT LEAVES AND PULPY FRUITS. the front feet had four toes, each with a hoof; the hind feet possessed only three" (C. L. Fenton, The Fossil Book, p. 418).
Then compare this with a description of the modern hyrax, which some have confused with the cud-chewing coney of the Bible:
"A small group of plantigrade-Herbivorous ungulates with HOOFS... FOUR TOES ON THE ANTERIOR [FRONT] limbs and three toes on the posterior [hind] limbs!" (L. A. Adams, Introduction to the Vertebrates, p. 44.)
How clear from the characteristics given!
The "horse ancestor" was not a horse at all. It was an animal very similar to the hyrax. Both were herbivorous — feeding on plants, soft leaves and pulpy fruits!
Notice also that both eohippus and the modern hyrax had four toes on their front limbs — and three on the hind limbs!
There are many other likenesses that prove the fossils to be of the same family as the hyrax and not the horse!
"In size these animals [hyrax and coney] may be compared roughly to rabbits and hares, and they have rodent-like habits of hunching up their backs" (Encyclopaedia Britannica. 11th edition, vol. 14, art. "Hyracoidean).
Both the modern hyrax and the eohippus fossil are "rabbit-like." Both hunch up their backs — another obvious similarity.
Both Had Dog-Like Pads Hyraxes, like conies, are rock-dwelling animals (see Psalm 104:18; Prov. 30:26). They have pad-like feet to insure a stable under-footing in such rugged country.
"The hyracoidea [hyrax family], a group of small, hoofed mammals, including the Biblical coney... climb easily, clinging even to almost vertical surfaces with the PADS ON THEIR FEET" (Encyclopedia Americana, art. "Hyracoidea").
"The feet are completely distinctive, being four toes on the front feet, three on the hind... a single pad makes up the bottom of each foot" (Edwin Colbert, Evolution of the Vertebrates, p. 403).
Now compare the modern hyrax — described above — with the assumed ancestor of the horse. You will find the same characteristics present in eohippus:
Most of the weight was carried by DOGLIKE PADS on the sales of the feet, not by the hoofs" (C. L. Fenton, The Fossil Book, p. 418). Of course, scientists cannot absolutely tell from the skeletons whether the foot had one single pad like the hyrax or one for each toe like the dog.
Again, from another author. the same fact is admitted:
"Though there were little hoofs... most of the weight was borne on CUSHIONED PADS back of the hoof" (R. A. Stirton, Time, Life and Man, p. 468).
That does it! Eohippus is a fossil type similar to the living hyrax — not the horse.
In other words, modern evolutionists gave a wrong name to hyrax — like fossils they found in certain rock strata. They should never have been called "eohippus."
Enter Mesohippus The rock-solid evidence for the evolution of the horse has crumbled at its foundations. Our "fearless charger" suddenly becomes a frightened "rabbit." But let's not stop here. Eohippus is no real "hippus" or horse. But what about the next stage in "horsey" evolution -the three-toed creatures, such as Mesohippus?
Let's have a look at Mesohippus Merychippus and others. Are they really horses of different color?
A three-toed horse called Merychippus supposedly began his evolutionary history somewhere roughly 20 million years ago, his remains today being found in what are called Miocene strata. This and other three-toed horses, claims evolution, evolved into the present-day one-toed horse in the Pliocene, perhaps eight million years ago. If they had to evolve, these three-toed horses should have become extinct.
Therefore, no three-toed horses should have been around for the last few millions of years. Otherwise, where is the need for evolution? If a three-toed horse managed to survive all these millions of years, there was no need for him to evolve. Now look at the facts —
Three-Toed Horses in Modern Times Three-toed horses known in modern times? Shocking as it may seem, it is nonetheless true!
This amazing fact is found buried In a 1922 Guide to the Specimens of the Horse Family! Department of Zoology, British Museum of Natural History, pp. 10, 11.
It discusses the foot bones of three Shire horses. One was called Blaisdon Conqueror, another Prince William. The third was unnamed.
Of Prince William, this Guide said he "MAY BE SAID TO BE A VERITABLE THREE-TOED HORSE."
The second horse also displayed this three-toed characteristic. Said the Guide, "The cannon-bones of 'Blaisdon Conqueror' also display an EQUALLY large development of the splint bones."
In fact ALL THREE of the horses were three-toed. The Guide continued: "There is the remarkable fact that three skeletons of Shire horses exhibit more or Jess strongly developed rudiments of the lateral toes of the extinct three-toed Hipparion.
"The obvious inference is that this IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF THE BREED!
"In a certain sense, therefore, a considerable number of existing horses are really three-toed animals."
Why haven't these facts been publicized? Why haven't they been given their true meaning and importance?
Unraveling the Truth These Shires were an example of what may be called "living fossils" — animals supposedly extinct but turning up unexpectedly to embarrass evolutionists!
This information is available in England for leading paleontologists to see, to evaluate and understand. It has been cited before — but the significance of these facts probably has never before been published.
American paleontologists also had similar facts available to see. In fact, the Yale Peabody Museum — which has the world's second-best collection of fossil "horses" — also has evidence of modern multitoed horses.
"The Yale collection contains specimens representing three examples of the occurrence of extra toes in the modern horse... although they are abnormal in the development of one lateral digit only... as we know of no two-toed fossil horses." (The Evolution of the Hone family, Richard Swann Lull, p. 9.)
Right here is rather an embarrassing problem. Can evolution really ask a person to believe that horses "jumped" from three toes to one — with no intermediate fossils? Certainly, one would
ARGENTINE LILLIPUTIAN HORSES — Are these an evolutionary link in horse evolution? Or just a variety within the species? (See PDF for Pictures)want some strong proof before accepting such an idea.
The author then goes on to another shocking example of multi toed horses.
"Pliny the Elder, a naturalist, in A.D. 79, tells us in his Natural History: 'It is said also, that Caesar the dictator had a horse which would allow no one to mount him but himself, and that its fore-feet were like those of a man.' Unquestionably this description is some~ what highly colored, but a multi toed horse without doubt forms the basis for the legend." (Ibid. p. 9.)
Here is proof against the theory of evolution. But the facts are glossed over.
Because there is no room for such facts within the framework of evolution. Since it is assumed that the horse evolved, such vital facts became unimportant curiosities.
Three Toed or One Toed? Even the "three-toed — one-toed" idea is simply not the whole story. Modern horses are not strictly "one toed." There are small digits on either side of the big toe.
"Horses are said to be... single-toed, but the term is not strictly accurate" (A History of Land Mammals, William B. Scott, page 294).
Then put this statement with one about Merychippus, the supposed three-toed ancestor of the supposed one-toed horse:
"Merychippus... is three-toed... digits two and four vary somewhat in development in the different species, though never reaching the ground, so that the feet are functionally one-toed." (Richard Swann Lull, pp. 22, 23.)
Are you confused? So are the paleontologists!
Any Reason for Side Toes? Many paleontologists have puzzled over the function of these side toes. Some have claimed they had no function. One eminent paleontologist disagreed. His disagreement focuses on a vital problem of evolutionary theory.
"In Merychippus the side toes were still present and fully formed and each still ended in a well-developed hoof. In the resting position, however, the side hooves did not quite reach the ground, so that their function, if any, is rather puzzling.
"It has been commonly supposed that they had no function at this time....
"Although this is stated or implied in almost every previous summary of horse evolution, it almost certainly is not true... I think that this may be another case where we have gone astray because we have thought of extinct horses as skeletons standing stiffly in museum cases, and not as the mechanical frameworks of living animals....
"When a spring-footed horse is galloping and lands on the middle toe, this toe is bent upward far beyond its normal resting pose. At the point of extreme flexion, the short side toes of Merychippus and its later three-toed descendants would touch the ground. May they not, then, have had an essential function to act as buffers to stop the bending of the middle toe at this point and to lessen the danger of spraining the elastic ligaments by stretching them too far?" (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, pp. 260, 261.)
A Problem of Lameness Lameness is distressingly frequent in certain breeds of supposedly improved domestic horses, and this is almost always caused by injury to the spring mechanism of the feet. The speed mechanism of modern horses can bear little more weight.
A veterinary authority laments:
"Quarter horses and Thoroughbreds often have feet that are too small to bear the weight of the animal. This is brought about by selective breeding, and although it gives the horse a pleasing appearance, it subjects the foot to greater concussion because the shock is distributed over a smaller area." (Lameness in Horses, O. R. Adams, pp. 27, 28.)
Then a larger hoof with three toes would allow a horse to bear more weight. In fact, a three-toed horse would in certain cases perhaps be a more efficient animal.
What is the point? Evolution demands "improvement." But for its purpose a three-toed horse is equally as good as a one-toed horse. No room for evolution here.
What About Size Increase? Neat diagrams of horse evolution imply that the horse evolved from a dog-sized ancestor to its present size. But a quick look at our animal world shows this is not really a proof at all.
A simple listing of horse species immediately makes clear how much the living forms vary in size.
There's a lot of difference between a 2200-pound Shire, a sleek Thoroughbred, a diminutive Shetland pony. But the differences do not stop here.
Several breeders have claimed success in making horses so small that they look like good-sized dogs.
A man in West Virginia says he raises ponies that are no larger than 32 inches high. The littlest, Sugar-dumpling, stands 20 inches low and weighs 35 pounds. He resembles a shaggy dog and is treated as a house pet.
An Englishman from Southall is said to raise portable household donkeys. For two decades this man has been breeding donkeys down to size. When full-grown his specimens compare in size with St. Bernard dogs.
Another miniature strain being produced is the Argentine lilliputian horse. This breed is also about the size of the St. Bernard — weighing about 200 pounds and measuring 30 inches high.
One can see these lilliputian horses by going to the Regina Winery in Southern California where they are bred from imports.
A Wrong-Sized Horse It should be quite clear that the analogy of size increase means nothing. Are we to say dog-sized lilliputian horses evolved INTO massive Clydesdales?
Of course, not! They are BOTH with us today. We should apply that same type of reasoning to the fossil record. A difference in size does not connote evolution.
Even here the fossil record speaks quite eloquently on the matter. It concerns fossils of Archaeohippus, a horse too small for its supposed place in the array of horse evolution.
Speaking of these fossils, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson says, "This reversal of the usual but by no means constant, tendency for the horses to increase in size is of extraordinary interest." (Horses, p. 171.)
Why "extraordinary interest?" Because it upsets a major concept of horse evolution. It proves untenable the idea that increase in size is a proof of horse evolution.
How About Tooth Size Next to toe reduction, the strongest claim for horse evolution is supposed to be a change in tooth size. Certain horses were supposed to have low-crowned teeth, others high-crowned.
Eohippus — the so-called dawn horse — had low-crowned teeth. In last month's installment, we saw that eohippus is not a horse. Then there was Mesohippus, probably an extinct animal UNRELATED to the horse. He too, had low-crowned teeth.
Before going further, let's understand one point. Classification experts say there are only six living genera of odd-toed mammals — which include the horses.
But from fossil bones, paleontologists reconstruct one hundred and fifty-two genera of odd-toed mammals.
What's the significance of this?
Simply that the horse kind may have had many more representatives in the past. There would be no evolution here; only much greater varieties within a single type. The same with differences in tooth structure. Even scientists admit, "...Species of horse with high-crowned cheek teeth lived alongside less specialized... browsing forms." (An Introduction to the Mammalian Dentition, T. Wingate Todd, p. 227.)
Whether all fossils dubbed "horses" are or are not horses is beside the point. Paleontologists find bones of claimed ancestors and descendants In strata they label by the same name I
What is the conclusion?
These were all animals — whether
Supposed evolution of horse feet. Neat charts in science texts place side views of forefeet of, from left to right, eohippus = Hyrocotherium, Mesohippus, Merychippus and Equus. Drawn to scale. As articles show, implied analogies are not proof of a point. (See PDF for Pictures)horses or not — living at the SAME TIME.
Where is evolution here? It is at this very point of further supposed tooth and toe changes in the fossil record that paleontologists are most confused. In seeking to find "where" tooth and toe changes occurred, they find a fossil record that makes no sense in terms of evolution — but one that does make sense once we divorce ourselves from this theory.
A Horse Out of Place What happens if bones which appear to be of the same animal are found in both "younger" and "older" strata? The paleontologists simply give the bones a different name! Or if the supposed ancestor and descendant are found together, the fossils are called "problematic" or labeled "parallel evolution," "conservative characteristics" or some such similar scientific-sounding phrase. Or the strata are renamed.
Otherwise, if the significance of the fact that the same animals are found in strata called by different names (and given different ages) were admitted — it would immediately disrupt the evolutionary theory.
Stratigraphy would then have no meaning in terms of evolution. It would be clear that life in certain strata had simply perished together! It just happened that in one region more of a particular creature died than in another.
Sometimes the overwhelming evidence is so glaring that evolutionists themselves recognize the theory must be revised. It never is discarded! Such was the case with the lauded five-toed ancestor of the horse.
A Five-Toed Stud Needed Scientists had dubbed some bones by the lofty title of Phenacodus and christened him the ancestor of eohippus. Textbooks repeated this idea.
But soon it was discovered that Phenacodus could not be the ancestor of eohippus. Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer tells us:
"This interesting form (Phenacodus) was once believed by some to be the actual ancestor of many of the hoofed mammals. This cannot be the case, for it is a bit too late in time [it was contemporary of eohippus] and was also somewhat too large to fit into the early ancestral stages of most later times." (The Vertebrate Story, Alfred S. Romer, pp. 255-256.)
What is meant by contemporary? Simply, the bones of Phenacodus were discovered in the same kind of strata as eohippus-type animals. This simply wouldn't do for evolution.
Otherwise, the five-toed ancestor that supposedly evolved into a four-toed one was living alongside its descendant.
Dumping Your Ancestors Actually, the trouble with Phenacodus was not only his place in the rocks. His size was wrong and so were other characteristics. Evolutionists finally had to dump him from his base position in the supposed evolution of the horse.
But for at least a generation science students were fed this concept.
"Phenacodus primaevus... found by Professor Cope, was hailed by him as the 'five-toed horse,' and an illustration of it has appeared in many textbooks under that label. It is far too large and in some respects too specialized to be in the equine series and moreover is contemporary with eohippus." (The Evolution of the Horse Family, Richard Swann Lull, 1931, pp. 5, 6.)
Of course, if you had lived shortly after Cope's pronouncement you would have been committing intellectual suicide to question whether in fact Phenacodus had evolved into eohippus.
Perhaps, as a reputable scientist, one may have been able to challenge Phenacodus. But to go on and challenge evolution? Never.
Mesohippus — A Connecting Link? We have yet to discuss the three-toed animal with the low-crowned teeth, Mesohippus. Evolution claims he links eohippus with a later form called Merychippus.
In 1875, O. C. Marsh proposed a new genus to be called Mesohippus. This was to be another rung in the horse genealogy.
Fossils of this animal had been found back in 1850. Joseph Leidy, well known 19th century paleontologist, had looked over the bones and described them. He called the fossils Palaeotherium Bairdii — referring it to an extinct species of animals.
In other words, as far as he was concerned the bones did not resemble any living mammal. But Marsh, with horse evolution on his mind, renamed it Mesohippus bairdii — and dubbed it as evolving from eohippus.
No Intermediate Species But just how close is Mesohippus to eohippus? The paleontologists admit there is a wide gap between the bones of these two animals. Paleontologist R A. Stirton frankly says:
"The immediate ancestry of Mesohippus is not definitely known" (Phylogeny of North American Equidae, R. A. Stirton, p. 169.)
Here a leading paleontologist says the "immediate ancestor of Mesohippus is not definitely known." There is a sudden appearance of so-called three-toed horses.
If evolution were indeed a fact, we should expect to find intermediate development. But we find no such steps.
And to say the Oligocene Mesohippus is "widely separated" from the Eocene eohippus is to understate the problem. In fact, there is no relation between them. Here is the proof.
A Brainless Horse? Scientist Tilly Edinger, in his monumental book, Evolution of the Horse Brain, came to the conclusion that there are "conspicuous differences between the brains of eohippus and Mesohippus" (p. 135).
Simpson writes of the brain of Mesohippus, "The brain case had become swollen, and its internal cast shows a remarkable transformation 111 comparison with Eocene forms." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, p. 164.) Actually, "transformation" is not the right word. Rather the brain of Mesohippus is remarkably different from that of eohippus.
Where is evolution here? Where are all the intermediate forms? There are none; there never were any. Mesohippus simply did not evolve from eohippus. And did Mesohippus really look like a horse? No, not at all.
"Mesohippus is about the size of a large dog, such as a pointer or a greyhound, and has the more slender proportions of the latter, but these animals already... looked like miniature horses... horse-like as they seem, almost every detail of structure, from the incisor teeth to the hinder hoofs is notably different from the corresponding part of Equus." (A History of Land
How DIFFERENT ARE THEY? Photographs show bones dubbed Miohippus (left) and Mesohippus (right). Evolutionists sometimes implied that one evolved from the other. However, experts have been forced to conclude that there really isn't too much difference between the two. They are simply closely related varieties of the some type of animal. Often, even paleontologists cannot tell the difference between bones dubbed by these two names. Another example where evolutionary theory obscures the true facts. (See PDF for Pictures)Mammals in the Western Hemisphere, William Berryman Scott, pp. 410, 411.)
How can Mesohippus look like a horse — when in almost every detail he appears different from a horse? This becomes an insult to intelligence.
Then compare this paradox!
Large numbers of bones which look like horses are found in South America. Some of the foot bones appear to be "more" one-toed than the present one-toed horse. But they are called "false horses."
These animals looked like horses; took the place of horses. But say evolutionists they are NOT horses. Why? They are found in strata much too "early." If evolution had to admit there were horses long before horses were supposed to evolve, it would strike a death blow to the theory.
What Happened to Mesohippus? Evolutionists would tell you that Mesohippus gradually died out over millions of years. But that is not what the fossil record reveals!
A shocking quote dearly shows that a sudden catastrophe wiped out Mesohippus.
"In 1922, an Amherst party ran upon a bed where a layer about a foot and a half in thickness was exposed along about one hundred feet of a ravine.
"This layer of day and sand was filled with fragments of bones and jaws of rhinoceros and horse, and it is safe to say there were twenty-five jaws of Mesohippus in every cubic foot of the layer.
"All were broken and mixed up.
"Very seldom was a long bone complete, and at the same time they were not broken to bits nor weathered, each fragment being cleanly broken and every tooth perfect. It looked like... their bones had been tramped into the mud and broken before the whole was buried." (The Evolution of the Horse, Frederick B. Loomis, p. 104.)
These bones were buried by sediment-filled waters. The encasing material is sand and clay.
The Mesohippus bones were not weathered — proof of immediate burial. The jumbled and tangled mess of Mesohippus bones also clearly shows this sudden burial was violent!
But evolutionists simply do not understand such facts in their true light. These proofs from the fossil record are usually passed off as rubbish piles of "early man" or watering holes where large numbers of mammals died.
But the facts often tell a different story.
They tell of burial; sudden burial; VIOLENT burial!
True horses suffered the same type of destruction as Mesohippus.
Why Become Extinct? Few realize that the horse, an Old World animal — has been given a North American genealogy! That is, the supposed evolution of the horse is built up from fossils discovered in North America. However, from the time of the great catastrophe until 1519, it is generally agreed there were no living modern horses on the American continent. They had become extinct in North America.
In February, 1519, horses were brought to the New World by Hernando Cortes. The early Indian horses of the Southwest were supposedly acquired from missions and traders at a later period.
The sudden "great dying" of horses in North America is one of the great unsolved problems of paleontology. Especially since conditions in our West were such that the few horses which escaped from the Spanish explorers increased phenomenally in numbers!
One leading scientist puzzled over this, saying:
"The extinction of the horse over the whole of North America and South America, where they had roamed in vast herds during the Pleistocene, is one of the most mysterious episodes of animal history....
"There has been no lack of speculation and a dozen possible explanations have been suggested, but all of these lack evidence and none is really satisfactory... this seems at present one of the situations in which we must be humble and honest and admit that we simply do not know the answer.
"It must be remembered too that extinction of the horses in the New World is only part of a larger problem. Many other animals became extinct here at about the same time." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, pp. 198, 200.)
In other words, catastrophe of unprecedented proportions had to wipe the horse off the face of North America. Otherwise, we are left with no logical explanation.
The Conclusion of the Matter What you have read in these two installments is only the tip of the information iceberg, thoroughly proving the horse did not evolve.
Yet, many leading scientists believe it did evolve. Why?
If you have cancer and the doctor tells you that you have one chance in a hundred of surviving, you would not be very happy. Suppose he said you had one chance in a million of living to a ripe old age. Not much "probability" of living out your three score and ten. Julian Huxley gives us such odds for a horse to evolve.
"A thousand to the millionth power, when written out, becomes the figure 1 with three million noughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about five hundred pages each, just to print!
"... one with three million noughts after it is the measure of the unlikeliness of a horse — the odds against it happening at all. No one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened." (Evolution in Action, Julian Huxley, p. 42.)
You would not bet on that kind of odds if it were YOUR life.
No — it has not happened!
The only possible proof of evolution, the fossil record, speaks eloquently against such an idea. Everywhere, the fossil record cries out, "The horse did not evolve!"
The facts have been presented. Whether you accept or reject them is your decision. If you reject them, you will be missing out on the deep meaning of how this universe, this earth and life upon it came to be. You will miss out on understanding why you are here and what your purpose in life really is.