Bialar Crais

I just got this little tidbit spammed too me:

"Ah, the horse of the condylarths. This was supposed to represent a direct lineal progression from the 4-toed Hyracotherium to Equus.
This lineal doctrine is philosophical and not empirical. The evolutionist's lineage progresses from Hyracotherium to Orohippus to Epihippus to Mesohippus to Miohippus to Parahippus to Merychippus to Dinohippus and then Equus. Oddly enough, Miohippus actually appears in the fossil record before Mesohippus and continues on through it. This makes it not possible for Mesohippus to be the ancestor of Miohippus.
G.G. Simpson (a noted evolutionist) has stated that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that "would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra." 1. So much for Condylarthra. Condylarthra were 5-toed that supposedly preceeded the Hyracotheria.
Each of these so-called transitional forms were basically found in different locations and falsely put together to make them look like evolution. Oddly enough, the transition (supposed) in South America of the ungulates (translate to horse) is from one-toed to three toed.
In Nebraska we find, in the same strata, both three-toed and Equus as contemporaries. One could not have evolved from the other.
At any rate, I really enjoyed this site, because it is filled with factual data. It is just the interpretation of that data that is bogus."

I can't find any good references to refute htis garbage. I mean, some of it is simple from a purely logical view like:

"In Nebraska we find, in the same strata, both three-toed and Equus as contemporaries. One could not have evolved from the other. "

I mean, just because one is ancestor to the others doesn't mean they can't co-exists after the split, but the rest?

Oolon Colluphid

Hi Bialar

I haven’t time to refute this claptrap myself, but you’ll find most everything you’ll need at TO of course:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/" target="_blank">www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/</a>

And if you can get it from the library, Bruce MacFadden’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521477085/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae</a> covers it all pretty thoroughly. And is rather more up to date than Simpson, who is certainly being quoted out of context anyway (though that quote, if indeed it is a real quote, only seems to appear on creationist sites).

Hope that helps.

Cheers, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

I’ve had a dig around and cannot find anything that supports this. As far as I can tell, Mesohippus celer and westoni came first, around 40mya. Miohippus assiniboiensis split off by cladogenesis c36mya, the two genera co-existed for around 4my, then Meso died out, leaving Mio to continue, then rapidly radiate in the early Miocene (c24mya).

See for instance here:
<a href="http://www.worldzone.net/recreation/virtuallyhorses/evolution.html" target="_blank">www.worldzone.net/recreation/virtuallyhorses/evolution.html</a>

So the ball is back with your spammer. Get him to offer some evidence for his claim, which none of the horse sites I’ve seen mention. I’ll check Benton, Carroll and co tonight and let you know if they say anything different.

Cheers, Oolon

Bialar Crais

Thanks Oolon, you're an ace!
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Valentine Pontifex

Lets trim the quoted creationist text to just the quote:

That quote is a half a century old. That creationist needs to be told point blank that such old material is not documentation that something has not yet been discovered. It is inexcusable to use a source over ten years old to say we have not found such and such a fossil.

It not just an old source, but it is not true anymore. Look at
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#peri" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#peri</a>

ageofreason2000

On another point....

Aren't Horses (and Donkey's both of the Equine Genus) kind of an example of evolution in action.

Cross a Male Donkey with a Female Horse you get a mule which most of the time is sterile.
Isn't this a case of two similar (Equine) species diverging?
In a million years how differant will the horse and donkey be, and will cross breeding be possible?

Just a thought, I'm no expert on this so DYO research and please feel free to abuse my lack of knowledge.

here is a site from a quick Google search
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/poitouthor/whichis.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/poitouthor/whichis.html</a>
not very technical I'm afraid.

Age