Could The Evolution Of The Horse Be A Fraud?By Jeffrey Rolo
Elsewhere on AlphaHorse we looked at the history of horse evolution and watched our equine friends develop from a small dog-like creature into the regal modern horse that we know and love today, but could the evolution of the horse be a giant hoax? Many people argue just that, so let's take a closer look at the controversy behind the evolution of horses.
The Argument: Horse Fossils Cannot Co-Exist Together
Opponents of the horse evolution theory point out that fossils of both the modern Equus as well as alleged former evolutionary incarnations (such as the Pliohippus) have been dug up within the same strata (strata are layers of soil and rock). They state that if evolution took place over the course of millions of years, one would expect the earlier evolutionary forms to be on differing strata. The fact that they share the same strata proves they co-existed at the same time, and as such they clearly must have been two separate creatures.
While it is true that older fossils are typically located within the deeper strata, the evolution of the horse is not a straight line. It was not uncommon for prior incarnations of the modern Equus to co-exist together, and in fact the very nature of evolution supports this premise: creatures evolve over time. They don't transform into a new being one day, and kill off all former incarnations immediately.
Additionally the Pliohippus, for example, was a cousin of the modern Equus, but modern studies indicate that the Equus actually evolved from the Plesippus. They were similar and both were members of the Equidae family, and it's entirely reasonable for them to both exist simultaneously. Think of evolution as a family tree with varying branches, rather than a straight line.
Finally, the claims of drastic fossil evolutionary incarnations existing simultaneously within the same strata are in dispute, for they appear to originate from a book written by Rimmer in 1935 (The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science). Studies about the evolution of the horse have come a long way in the past 60 years. Not only is this book outdated (it doesn't account for many discoveries made as recently as 2009), Rimmer was never able to adequately document some of his hypotheses that dispute horse evolution. They were speculation at best. You can read more about the Rimmer allegation at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html.
The Argument: Quantity Of Horse Ribs Changed Repeatedly
Throughout the alleged course of horse evolution, evolutionists would have you believe that the quantity of ribs fluctuated amongst the various incarnations. Some Equidae possessed 15 sets of ribs, others possessed as many as 19. This disproves any claims of evolutionary progression and instead suggests that each "Equid" was actually a distinct species rather than evolutionary members of the Equidae family.
The quantity of ribs each Equid possessed is irrelevant. Evolutionary changes are to be expected, and a fluctuating quantity of ribs throughout the evolution of the horse disproves nothing. In fact, the modern domestic horse disproves the above argument, because although the modern horse typically possesses 18 sets of ribs, some such as the Arabian Horse can possess 17, and it's not unknown for a horse to possess 19.
If the quantity of ribs can fluctuate within the modern horse, it's entirely reasonable for the ribs to have varied during an evolutionary process that spanned millions of years.
The Argument: Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, An Evolutionist, Challenged The Evolution Of Horses
Heribert-Nilsson was a Swedish geneticist that studied evolution and found the theory to be lacking any evidence. In 1954 he stated:
"The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. In the reality provided by the results of research it is put together from three parts, of which only the last can be described as including horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses as the present day damons are horses. The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series."
If an evolutionist killed the theory of horse evolution back in 1954, why is it still being taught today?
Science has progressed significantly since the 1950's, and not only have further fossils been uncovered, but the advent of DNA and similar studies allows us to "see" much more now than we could back then.
And while those that use Heribert-Nilsson's words against horse evolution are correct that he was an evolutionist, what they may not realize is that he was an evolutionist that believed in the theory of Emication. The theory of Emication states that violent revolutions destroyed all biota (animal and plant life forms) on Earth during various geological points of time. After this destruction, the organic molecules left behind would come together again suddenly, developing into new biota. Think of it as a lesser form of the "big bang" theory happening over and over again over time, leaving the fossils of the deceased in its wake.
Do those that use Heribert-Nilsson's words to discount horse evolution also believe in the disproven theory of Emication, or are they cherry-picking his statements to support their own beliefs without knowing where he truly stood?
We will wrap up our look at horse evolution in the final article of this series: Did The Evolution Of Horses Really Take Place?