10. Perhaps the best known demonstration of an evolutionary
scenario is that of the horse series displayed in school and
college textbooks and in museums. These charts and displays make
the theory of horse evolution very neat, seemingly historical,
all cut-and-dried. Actually there are important problems with the
theory and some serious disagreement, even among evolutionary
scientists. [Simpson, G.G., Tempo and Mode in Evolution
(Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1944), p. 167; Cousins, Frank W.,
Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 8, Sept. 1971, pp.
99-108; Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbuildung, (Verlag
C.W.K. Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953: reprint of English summary
published by Evolution Protest Movement of North America,
Victoria, B.S., 1953), pp. 1193-1194; Kerkut, G.A., Implications
of Evolution (Pergamon Press, New York, 1960), pp. 144-149;
Wentworth Baroness, Thoroughbred Racing Stock (Charles
Scribners, Sons, New York, 1938), p. 379.]
a. A complete series of horse fossils is not found in any one
place in the world arranged in the rock strata in proper
evolutionary order from bottom to top. The fossils are found in
widely separated places on the earth.
b. The currently accepted sequence of fossils starts in North
America, then jumps to Europe and back to America again. But
there are still differing opinions on whether one of the jumps
was from America to Europe or vice versa. Many different
evolutionary histories for horses have been proposed.
c. Hyrocotherium (eohippus), supposedly the earliest,
founding member of the horse evolution series, is not connected
by intermediate fossils to the condylarths from which it
supposedly evolved. [Simpson, G.G., Horses (Oxford Univ.
Press, New York, 1951), pp. 105-112, 115-116.]
d. The first three supposed horse genera, found in rocks
classified as Eocene, are named Hyracotherium, Orohippus,
and Epihippus, and they are said to have evolved in that
order. However, the average size of these creatures, sometimes
called "old horses," decreases along the series, which
is contradictory to the normal evolutionary rule, and they were
all not larger than a fox. [Ibid., pp. 116-117; Simpson,
G.G., ref. 3, p. 135]
In view of their similarity, these
genera could be considered to be members of an originally created
biblical "kind."
e. Between Epihippus and Mesohippus, the next
genus in the horse series, there is a considerable gap. [Simpson,
G.G., ref. 30, p. 124. Other fossil horse data cited below can be
found in the same work] The size increases about 50 percent and
the number of toes on the front feet decreases from four to
three. The series of genera, Mesohippus, Miohippus,
and Parahippus, sometimes called the (small) "new
horses," were three-toed animals much more similar in
appearance to modern horses than the previous group discussed.
These, perhaps, were members of another created kind.
f. Merychippus, the next genus in the supposed horse
evolution series, and the first of the (large) "new
horses," was about 50 percent larger than the group of
genera just discussed. It was three-toed, but the two side toes
on each foot were quite small and unimportant, and the animals
looked very horselike. Pliohippus, the next genus in the
series was a one-toed horse. These animals had some
characteristics of skeleton and teeth which differed from modern
horses, but they may, perhaps, be classified with them as members
of the same original created kind.
g. According to the theory, in Europe and North America
three-toed horses evolved into single-toed horses. It is
interesting that fossil horse-like ungulates of South America
would seem to tell the opposite story. If one kind of ungulate
evolved into another in South America, it would appear from the
location of the fossils in the rock strata that the following
succession of evolutionary stages occurred: first, the one-toed Thoatherium
gave rise to Diadiaphorus having two small extra toes,
which then evolved into the three-toed Macrauchenia. [Gish,
Duane, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record
(Master Books Pub., San Diego, 1985) pp. 83-84; Romer, Alfred S.,
Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd Edition (Univ. of Chicago
Press, 1966), pp. 260-261]. But perhaps all of these animals were
created, rather than evolved.
h. In northeastern Oregon the three-toed Neohipparion
is found in the same rock formation with the one-toed horse, Pliohippus.
[Nevins, Stuart E., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, Vol.
10, March 1974, p. 196.]
i. There is a mystery about the theory of horse evolution. It
arises from the fact that the brain of little Hyracotherium
was simple and smooth, as indicated by the smooth inner surface
of the fossil skulls. The brain of true horse, Equus, has
on its outer surface a complex pattern of folds and fissures.
[Simpson, G.G., ref. 30, pp. 177-179; Davidheiser, Bolton, Creation
Research Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 12, Sept. 1975, pp. 88-89].
Cattle brains are quite similar and equally complex and have an
almost identical pattern of fissures. Cattle and Hyracotherium
supposedly evolved from a common ancestor which had a simpler
pattern of fissures. Therefore, it must be assumed that parallel
evolution by chance processes produced the same complex brain
pattern possessed by both modern cattle and horses. Such a tale
is difficult to swallow.
Intelligent, purposeful creation
provides a more believable explanation.
j. Dr. Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural
History admitted in an interview that the Museum houses a display
of alleged horse evolution which is misleading and should be
replaced. It has been the model for many similar displays across
the country for much of this century.[ Bethel, Tom, "The
Taxonomic Case Against Darwin," Harper Magazine, Feb.
1985, pp. 49-61. Niles Eldredge is quoted on page 60.]
To summarize, the alleged horse
evolution series actually appears to be three groups of genera.
The first in the series has no connection by fossil intermediates
to the supposed ancestors. The three groups may well have no
connection one with the other, and the overall fossil horse data
can be fitted into the framework of the biblical creation model.
The three groups of genera may represent three created kinds
which should be fitted into the classification system as three
separate "families" of ungulates. There is no need to
assume that horses were evolved rather than created. The faith of
atheistic materialism leads one to evolved horses. The faith of
biblical theism leads to created horses.