Fact or fiction??
Most children are taught in school at one point or
annother that the modern horse evolved over millions of years from the
tiny many toed forest dweller Eohippus, to the modern single hooved
Equus . We were taught that due to climate change and the need for flight
from preditors the prehistoric horse changed slowly. moving through
different stages the horse grew larger, swifter and more muscular, his
teeth becoming more refined for grazing tough grasses and his toes slowly
dissapearing to form the single hard hoof needed for swift running over
Recently i was searching through the internet trying to find information on the diferent stages of the horse's evolution hoping to share this knowlage with my viewers . During my search i found something that i fwould like share with you I hope you find it as interesting as i did
the following information was taken directly from the on line book "
the problem concerning transitional forms 2 - The "Transitional Form" Who Never Lived
to view the entire book visit the web site The
The horse series display found in a museum. These types of series are made up by the arbitrary arrangement of various animals which have lived in different geographies, in different ages with a biased point of view. Here the main purpose is to convince people who are not so knowledgeable about the subject.
Until recently, the fossils related to the "evolution
of horse" came at the top in the fossil classifications that were shown
by the evolutionists as evidence for the transition of one species into
another species. The modern horses were said to have been evolved from
an old ancestor at the size of a dog. A series of old fossils sized
bigger than a dog and smaller than a horse, were presented as the different
stages of this transition.
Today it is understood that the evidences related to the imaginary evolution of horse are null. Yet, this story is still being defended by some radical supporters of the theory of evolution. According to these conservatives, some evolutionists employing a "revisionist" manner, admit openly that this theory has gone bankrupt. Colin Patterson, one of the paleontologist scientists who had worked in the English Nature Museum where the most renowned exhibition was carried out on the evolution of horse, is one of those. Collin Patterson says the following regarding this legend which still rests in the lower floor of the museum he works:
"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."
As we have mentioned at the beginning, the story of the evolution of horse asserts that the modern horse has evolved from a four-nailed dog-sized creature in an evolution process of 55 million years. The biggest evidence of this claim is an arrangement sketched by the evolutionists according to their prejudices. The arrangement of the evolution of horse is made by aligning various fossils found in India, South America, North America and Europe, in a series from the smallest to the largest.
In real, it is not possible to talk of a single schema.
Because there exist more than 20 generation trees on the evolution of horse,
advanced by different researchers. The evolutionists have reached no common
point of view on these generation trees, all of which are unlike each other.
The most interesting common point of all these different versions of the evolution of horse scenarios, is the belief that the first ancestor of the modern horse was "Eohippus" (Hyracotherium) which was accepted to have lived nearly 55 million years ago, in the lower Eosen Age. This dog-like creature is alluded as the starting point of horse species in each scenario. But there seems to be a very interesting, and moreover, an ironic situation. Because Eohippus, presented as the ancestor of horse which has disappeared millions of years ago, resembles extraordinarily to an animal called Hyrax which still lives in Africa today. One of the evolution researchers, Hitchings comments as follows;
Eohippus, supposedly the first horse, doesn’t look in
the least like one, and indeed, when first found was not classified as
such. It is remarkably like the present-day Hyrax (or daman), both in its
skeletal structure and the way of like that it is supposed to have lived…
Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long
extinct, and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and
well and not a horse at all a-shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that
darts about in the African bush.
The most significant evidence showing that Eohippus has nothing to do with the current horse, is the number of the nails this animal has. Eohippus is a mammalian and therefore it theoretically has to be five-fingered. But the front foot of Eohippus is four fingered and its rear foot is five-fingered. The evolutionists have tried to overcome this big contradiction of the evolutionist perspective by accepting the part at the back of this animal's front feet as an atrophied finger. But this is entirely a forced and compulsory comment and has no basis. Prof Dr.Ali Demirsoy, who continues defending the story of the evolution of horse, confesses the contradiction emerged by the lack of fingers as follows;
"In nowhere could be found the transitional intermediates showing the transition from the five-fingered ancestor to Hyracotherium (Eohippus) which has three fingers at its back foot and 4 fingers at its front foot. In this circumstance, the only way out is to accept the protrusions in Eohippus' feet as an atrophied finger and suppose that it comes from a five fingered ancestor."
As seen, the only thing done is to "suppose" that Eohippus comes from a five fingered ancestor. There is no explanation to why we should suppose so. The only explanation is that "the evolution theory requires as such". That is, we have to believe in evolution, because to believe in it, is a value on its own. We have to comment on the firm discoveries according to this belief.... The entire reasoning of the evolutionists function in this vicious circle.
But concrete discoveries are so much opposed to the evolutionary belief, that they even cannot overcome them with their biased comments. The inconsistency of the assertion of evolution of horse is supported by new fossil discoveries found one after the other. Hitching, reports that modern horse fossils (Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis) were found at the same layer with Eohippus. This shows that modern horse and its purported ancestor lived at the same age and there is not a better evidence to collapse the theory.
The researches made on the nail numbers overthrow the legend of the evolution of horse from its root. If Eohippus, the supposed ancestor of horse is four or five nailed, and modern horse is single nailed, the nail number of horse should have been decreased continuously within the evolutionary process. But, the case is not like that. In many cases, the transition order from four nails to single nail is spoiled.
When different animals presented as the ancestors of horse are put in a neat order according to the nail number, it is seen that this time there is no continuity between their ages. Such that, senseless series emerge showing that the modern horse has lived before its ancestors.
Hitching, who says that horse series are totally imaginative, points out that even in the circumstances that the sequence has been made correctly, the fossils living in different geographies far from each other in different geographies is lined up from the largest to the smallest and from the four fingered to the single fingered in an impossible combination:
A complete series of horse fossils is not found in any
one place in the world arranged in rock strata in the proper evolutionary
order from bottom to top. The sequence depends on arranging Old World and
New World fossils side by side, and there is considerable dispute as to
what order they should go in. According to one authority, there are now
so many fossil horses competing for a place on the evolutionary tree that
‘the story depends to a large extent upon who is telling it and when the
story is being told.
In fact, there is not a contradiction in question; because the contradiction is in the inconsistent assertions of the evolution theory. Because modern horses have lived at the same time with the animals alleged to be its ancestors, even much earlier than them. Paleontologist Pettingrew says that modern horse was seen nearly 70 million years before the living creatures alleged to be its ancestors. According to this, single nailed horse has lived in Mesozoik Age, 120 million years earlier from our day, and multi-nailed horse has appeared in Eocene Age, 50 million years ago and has gone extinct 40 million years ago.
Besides all these, the rib and teeth numbers of the animals
aligned subsequently within the horse series, refute the evolution of horse
legend. As the evolutionists try to decrease the number of nails from 4
to 1 in the horse series, they try to hide the disorder apparent in the
bones. Since, as proceeded from the past to our day, the rib numbers of
the imaginary ancestors of horse first decrease, then increase suddenly,
and then decrease again. The same disorder is seen in the teeth number
of the imaginary ancestors of horse and the teeth number of the horse of
our day. But if there was an evolution towards a certain direction, an
orderly increase or decrease in the rib and teeth numbers should be observed.
On the other hand, the horse series which does not stand on any factual ground, become more unreliable by the deliberate disregard of some fossils unbefitting in the sequence. For example, "Moropus" that lived in the Miocene Age, is not included in the fossil series although it resembles a horse in great deal, just because it does not serve to the purpose of the evolutionists. It is thus expressed in the encyclopedia of Prehistoric Animals that Moropus of two metres height is larger in size than both Meryhippuston of the same age and the horse of today. This also confronts the evolutionary scheme in order.
Besides all these, it is revealed that the horse evolution
schemas presented as one of the most solid evidences in the fossil records
showing that living things have undergone an evolution once upon a time,
are imaginary classifications which have no validity. This imaginary schema
formed by the alignment of the fossils of different types of animals that
lived in different periods, is only used for deceiving people. This is
kind of an illusion produced in order to affect the ordinary people. After
seeing the pictures of animals lined up in a series gradually passing from
dog to the horse, a person who does not know details of the subject may
easily be cheated. And this situation is very important as a sample to
confirm how reliable and serious the evolution theory is! As a matter of
fact, this example is enough to display the real motivation of the theory’s
advocates and their deceitful methods.