Horse evolution refuted

[Mikemikev]

The inconsistency of the evolution of the horse becomes increasingly apparent as more fossil findings are gathered. Fossils of modern horse species (Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis) have been discovered in the same layer as Eohipus. (Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Were Darwin Went Wrong", New American Library, New York, 1982, pp.16-17, 19)This is an indication that the modern horse and its so-caled ancestor lived at the same time.

The evolutionist science writer Gordon R. Taylor explains this litle-acknowledged truth in his book, "The Great Evolution Mystery":

"But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change.....the horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time." (Gordon Rattray Taylor, "The Great Evolution Mystery", Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p.230)

All these facts are strong evidence that the charts of horse evolution, which are presented as one of the most solid pieces of evidence for Darwinism, are nothing but fantastic and implausible fairy tales. Like other species, horses, too, came into existence without ancestors in the evolutionary sense.

(From Harun Yahya, "Darwinism Refuted", 203, p.119-120)

[Herminator]

(06-21-2014 05:57 AM)Mikemikev Wrote:  The inconsistency of the evolution of the horse becomes increasingly apparent as more fossil findings are gathered. Fossils of modern horse species (Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis) have been discovered in the same layer as Eohipus. (Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Were Darwin Went Wrong", New American Library, New York, 1982, pp.16-17, 19)This is an indication that the modern horse and its so-caled ancestor lived at the same time.

The evolutionist science writer Gordon R. Taylor explains this litle-acknowledged truth in his book, "The Great Evolution Mystery":

"But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change.....the horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time." (Gordon Rattray Taylor, "The Great Evolution Mystery", Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p.230)

All these facts are strong evidence that the charts of horse evolution, which are presented as one of the most solid pieces of evidence for Darwinism, are nothing but fantastic and implausible fairy tales. Like other species, horses, too, came into existence without ancestors in the evolutionary sense.

(From Harun Yahya, "Darwinism Refuted", 203, p.119-120)

It's now 2014. "Darwinism" was something you could try to refute a hundred years ago.

Nowadays, it's called Theory of Evolution, there's a plethora of scientific evidence, and the ToE had evolved into something that is almost impossible to falsify.

Start reading here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evol..._synthesis

and we will take it from there.

[shiverleaf15]

The only part in horse evolution that seems a little peculiar to me is the part where the four toes turn to three with (from what I've looked at in the bone structure) one of the toes kind of just disappearing. On the other hand, the change from three to one flows, and you can see how the structures changed and what was left behind, etc. That seems quite clear to me.

But I know that change in feet/hooves isn't the only thing scientists take into consideration, they're probably looking at skull and other body changes over time, and similarities, etc. But if someone could share anything they know more clearly on this, that would be appreciated!

[Herminator]

(06-21-2014 09:43 AM)shiverleaf15 Wrote:  The only part in horse evolution that seems a little peculiar to me is the part where the four toes turn to three with (from what I've looked at in the bone structure) one of the toes kind of just disappearing. On the other hand, the change from three to one flows, and you can see how the structures changed and what was left behind, etc. That seems quite clear to me.

But I know that change in feet/hooves isn't the only thing scientists take into consideration, they're probably looking at skull and other body changes over time, and similarities, etc. But if someone could share anything they know more clearly on this, that would be appreciated!

As always, not exhaustively but very well referenced, and including some research on hoofs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

The interesting part to me (as usual) is the genomic record, in this case the nuclear DNA of the fossil of a horse that was more than half a million years old. It completed the lineage record quite a bit, since the oldest horse found before that was "only" 100,000 years old.

[HiEv]

(06-21-2014 05:57 AM)Mikemikev Wrote:  (From Harun Yahya, "Darwinism Refuted", 203, p.119-120)

First of all, let me comment on this. Your whole post was nothing but a copy-and-paste from that book. At least you cited it (though based on the copy on Yahya's website, the pages should be 120-121 instead), however since you didn't actually add your own comment it's basically plagiarism/copyright infringement.

I don't like to encourage this kind of lazy posting, and I have a general policy against arguing with websites/books/people who aren't here to defend themselves, so I'll just comment on the first part and ignore the rest.

If you want a real reply, put in the effort of making your own argument.

(06-21-2014 05:57 AM)Harun Yahya Wrote:  The inconsistency of the evolution of the horse becomes increasingly apparent as more fossil findings are gathered. Fossils of modern horse species (Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis) have been discovered in the same layer as Eohipus. (Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Were Darwin Went Wrong", New American Library, New York, 1982, pp.16-17, 19)This is an indication that the modern horse and its so-caled ancestor lived at the same time.

And to this I say a giant, so what?

Evolution isn't a ladder, it usually results in branches of species, like a tree. So it's entirely within the scope of evolution for one branch of a species to evolve one way, while another branch evolves differently or remains mostly unchanged. This means that some of the Eohippus could have continued to survive while others evolved into other species at the same time.

For example, humans and Neanderthals share a common ancestor and, for a period, both lived on Earth at the same time. The fact that evolution branches, and that multiple branches can coexist, is how evolution works. It's why we have the variety of species we see today. The idea that evolution goes in a straight line (as though towards some "goal") is completely wrong, and anyone who thinks that that's what evolution is saying is merely attacking a straw man.

On top of that, we can still see a series of fossils which indicate a highly likely progression from Eohippus to modern Equus species, regardless of what happened to the Eohippus species itself. This argument both ignores that fact, and completely fails to explain why we see this pattern, over and over again in the fossil record.

But even worse, the claim that modern horse species and Eohippus lived at the same time is simply untrue. From what I can find, it looks like Eohippus most likely went extinct around 30 million years ago, while Equus only appeared around 3.5 million years ago (source). Claiming that they lived at the same time is factually incorrect.

The closest thing to a decent chart of horse evolution I could find.

But the kicker is the source Yahya uses for that claim: Francis Hitching. This guy is a first rate crackpot, who thinks both evolution and creationism are wrong, and instead endorses Neo-Lamarckism, an idea so wrong it would get you laughed out of most 6th grade classrooms. This guy also claims that ancient magicians in Europe used the megaliths there to channel energy from the universe. Yeah. This guy is not a credible source.

So, Yahya uses false information from a pseudoscientific source, and comes to a conclusion that makes no sense, because it doesn't contradict what he's trying to claim it contradicts.

Even if it had, evolution being wrong about the horse doesn't somehow make creationism true. No evidence for creationism is given, nor is the evidence which is strongly for evolution explained away by a more plausible mechanism.

*edit - pointless final remark deleted

[Utnapishtim]

The creationists who make these claims would make lousy linguists. This is a little bit like saying French didn't develop from Latin because modern Sardinian is closer to Latin than medieval French. Imagine that! A modern language can be closer to Latin than a medieval one! Just because one language is newer than another doesn't mean it hasn't retained more archaic traits. You can still work out a linguistic timeline, but our glimpses at that timeline are intermittent, and it has many branches. Evolutionary phylogeny follows basically the same reasoning. If you ever think you've found an argument against evolution, ask yourself; is it a valid argument against language diversification? Often, the answer will be no.

[Herminator]

(07-12-2014 10:14 PM)Utnapishtim Wrote:  If you ever think you've found an argument against evolution, ask yourself; is it a valid argument against language diversification? Often, the answer will be no.

I don't think those people are interested in finding valid arguments... not in my experience on this forum anyway.

The OP in this thread is an interesting case btw: copy/pasting some stuff from creation.com or otherwise, and then disappearing from the forum... do those people really, in a million years, think using those "tactics" they will convince anybody that ToE is wrong???

[Utnapishtim]

(07-13-2014 03:26 AM)Herminator Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 10:14 PM)Utnapishtim Wrote:  If you ever think you've found an argument against evolution, ask yourself; is it a valid argument against language diversification? Often, the answer will be no.

I don't think those people are interested in finding valid arguments... not in my experience on this forum anyway.

The OP in this thread is an interesting case btw: copy/pasting some stuff from creation.com or otherwise, and then disappearing from the forum... do those people really, in a million years, think using those "tactics" they will convince anybody that ToE is wrong???

The parthian shot is a common tactic in debate forums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_shot

[Herminator]

(07-13-2014 12:20 PM)Utnapishtim Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 03:26 AM)Herminator Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 10:14 PM)Utnapishtim Wrote:  If you ever think you've found an argument against evolution, ask yourself; is it a valid argument against language diversification? Often, the answer will be no.

I don't think those people are interested in finding valid arguments... not in my experience on this forum anyway.

The OP in this thread is an interesting case btw: copy/pasting some stuff from creation.com or otherwise, and then disappearing from the forum... do those people really, in a million years, think using those "tactics" they will convince anybody that ToE is wrong???

The parthian shot is a common tactic in debate forums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_shot

Well, this wasn't only a parting shot... it was his opening and parting shot... that's what made it interesting!

[Achrelos]

I am sorry to interject, but what happened while I was gone that hiev got banned?