| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"~Glorious Appearing~~" |
| Date: |
31 Aug 2005 03:04:38 PM |
| Object: |
What happened to the horse? |
Many textbooks teach that the horse has evolved from only 61 centimeters to
its present state of over 2 meters over a 60 million year period. But learn
what inconsistencies the textbooks don't teach about the horse's evolution.
A couple of youngsters in our church recently asked me a question on
evolution and the Bible:
"How can the Bible be true if life has evolved over millions of years?
Evolution is a fact. Look what's happened to the horse."
"What has happened to the horse?" I asked.
"Well, over a period of 60 million years it's grown from being a small
fox-like animal only 61 centimeters tall to the modern-day horse that stands
more than two meters high. And it's lost all its toes too."
"Really?" I said. "That's a spectacular change. Can you show me your
textbook?"
When the textbook finally arrived, this is what it said:
The horse did not always look like it does today. The diagrams below show
how the horse has changed. It took about 60 million years for the horse to
develop. Here's a surprise. The earliest horse was only about 61 centimeters
[two foot] tall.
At the bottom of the page was this fascinating piece of logic:
A tiger eats only meat. A tiger's teeth are mainly pointed. The earliest
horse had pointed teeth. What does this tell us about what it ate?
My young friend had filled in the answer:
"Meat. It was a carnivore."
I was staggered. If the Melbourne Cup had been held 60 million years ago, it
would have probably been a dog race held at Wentworth Park! Could this
really be true? I decided to get to the bottom of it for the sake of my
young friend, and so I set off to the library. This is what I discovered
after digging around on the shelves.
1.. In 1841, the earliest so-called "horse" fossil was discovered in clay
around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a
complete skull that looked like a fox's head with multiple back-teeth as in
hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it
and the modern-day horse.
2.. In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link
between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years
old, and the modern horse.
3.. In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous
evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley
gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show
the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the
teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary
diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way
into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn't changed. It
shows a beautiful gradational sequence in "the evolution" of the horse,
unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks.
The question is: "Is the scheme proposed by Huxley and Marsh true?"
The simple answer is "No". While it is a clever arrangement of the fossils
on an evolutionary assumption, even leading evolutionists such as George
Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.
So what's the difficulty for the horse with the theory of evolution?
1.. If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils
in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed
"earliest" horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are
found right next to modern horse fossils!
O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there
were cases in the American Southwest where "both fore and hind feet may each
have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus
corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus".
In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the
foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus
that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says:
"Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains." Doesn't this
suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of
one?
2.. There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of
the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from
several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used
to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify
as objective science.
3.. The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to
overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar
vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the
number of ribs in the supposedly "intermediate" stages of the horse varies
from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae
also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.
4.. Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown
progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that
modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the
Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43
centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has
evolved from the other.
5.. Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example
of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Why do they
continue to teach our kids something that is not scientific? Dr. Niles
Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said:
"I admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into
the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example
still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse
evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal
truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ...".
6.. I agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of
toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved, and
the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large modern
horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing
they lived at the same time. And there are tiny living Fallabella horses
only 17 inches ( 43 centimeters) tall.
REFERENCES
a.. O. C. Marsh, "Recent Polydactyle Horses", American Journal of
Science 43, 1892, pp. 339-354 - as quoted in Creation Research Society
Quarterly correspondence, Vol. 30, December 1993, p. 125.
b.. Niles Eldredge, as quoted in: Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's
Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, fourth edition (revised and expanded),
Master Book Publishers, Santee (California),1988, p. 78.
--
Most of my quotes are from:
http://www.carm.org/doctrine.htm http://www.carm.org/cults.htm
http://www.carm.org/apologetics.htm http://www.carm.org/seekers.htm
http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm http://www.carm.org/boards.htm
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ http://www.christianquotes.org/
http://bible.gospelcom.net/ Let no one be found among you
who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination
or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who
is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Deut 18:10
http://www.christiananswers.net/
.
|
|
| User: "Joseki" |
|
| Title: Re: What happened to the horse? |
31 Aug 2005 03:46:06 PM |
|
|
~Glorious Appearing~~ stated:
4.. Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown
progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that
modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the
Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43
centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has
evolved from the other.
Though not a biologist I beg to differ with your conclusion here. The
Clysdale and Fallabella have evolved from a common ancestor. Now much
of the current difference in these two horses may be due to selective
breeding mediated by man, but it is still a form of evolution.
Evolution is a change in the representation of alleles in a species
population with time.
Again I am not a biologist, but with the size difference between these
breeds makes me wonder why aren't they different species. The typical
test is whether they can typically bred and produce viable offspring.
I know of no documentation of this. Did you find any in your reearch?
Oh, wait a minute. When your message says "A couple of youngsters in
our church recently asked me a question on evolution and the Bible"
you are falsely giving the impression that it was "me" = ~Glorious
Appearing~~ that experienced this, when in fact your entire message was
plagairized word for word from:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/tools/xnv1n6.asp which in
turn properly credits the author Peter Hastie, who orginally wrote it
in Creation 17(4):14-16, Sept.-Nov. 1995 .
Now in Christian circles presenting others work as your own may be fine
- I am sure Biblical quotes can be found promoting either view. But
many of us frown on the basic dishonesty you have engaged in here.
How are we to trust anything you say?
In the future, if you wish me to believe any of your writing is in fact
yours, please properly credit the text you quote.. That means saying
something like "the below was written by Peter Hastie", not just giving
a bunch of websites and giving the impression that your quotes were
scattered among those.
There is ignorance and there is dishonesty. I think you are falling on
the side of dishonesty.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: What happened to the horse? |
31 Aug 2005 06:37:30 PM |
|
|
"~Glorious Appearing~~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:df52gm$er6$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
Many textbooks teach that the horse has evolved from only 61 centimeters
to its present state of over 2 meters over a 60 million year period. But
learn what inconsistencies the textbooks don't teach about the horse's
evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
<SNIP nonsense>
Common guy, where are the lies we haven't seen before. You're boring us.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DH" |
|
| Title: Re: What happened to the horse? |
31 Aug 2005 04:59:39 PM |
|
|
"~Glorious Appearing~~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:df52gm$er6$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Many textbooks teach that the horse has evolved from only 61 centimeters
to
its present state of over 2 meters over a 60 million year period. But
learn
what inconsistencies the textbooks don't teach about the horse's
evolution.
A couple of youngsters in our church recently asked me a question on
evolution and the Bible:
"How can the Bible be true if life has evolved over millions of years?
Evolution is a fact. Look what's happened to the horse."
"What has happened to the horse?" I asked.
"Well, over a period of 60 million years it's grown from being a small
fox-like animal only 61 centimeters tall to the modern-day horse that
stands
more than two meters high. And it's lost all its toes too."
"Really?" I said. "That's a spectacular change. Can you show me your
textbook?"
When the textbook finally arrived, this is what it said:
The horse did not always look like it does today. The diagrams below
show
how the horse has changed. It took about 60 million years for the horse to
develop. Here's a surprise. The earliest horse was only about 61
centimeters
[two foot] tall.
[snip]
1.. In 1841, the earliest so-called "horse" fossil was discovered in
clay
around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a
complete skull that looked like a fox's head with multiple back-teeth as
in
hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between
it
and the modern-day horse.
2.. In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a
link
between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million
years
old, and the modern horse.
3.. In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous
evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley
gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to
show
the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the
teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary
diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way
into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn't changed. It
shows a beautiful gradational sequence in "the evolution" of the horse,
unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks.
Uh, 1841? 1874? 1879? Are we surprised that new evidence has revealed
some of the early work to be mistaken? Do we still believe in the corpuscle
theory of light? Do we now know that a large part of the living world is
visible only through microscopes? Do we now know something about the roles
DNA and RNA play in living things?
Here's a decent, contemporary explanation of the evolution of the horse:
http://www.pbs.org/wildhorses/wh_origin/wh_origin.html
Not that you're interested but if we let your post stand unanswered, weak
minds might thing you were on to something and you're not. You might be on
something, that's certainly a possibility.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: What happened to the horse? |
31 Aug 2005 05:59:58 PM |
|
|
Hello and thank you for your insight.
Yes I was taught this account of the evolution of the horse. But it is
really more complicated.
You see a mutatation (a change) takes place as a result of a chance error in
reproduction (sometimes caused by cosmic radiaton) and this changed animal,
if it survives, will co-exist with the original group and will mate with a
member. The result is two similar but different animal types living in the
same area.
The two lines may separate and further mutations occur (this is a random but
continuous process that usually gives rise to a sick animal that dies young)
and each time the new breed co-exists.
Well one day a breed arises that is better at surviving and the old species
is squeezed out.
However the old species may continue elsewhere.
So all the time there are different animals around and the successful ones
are those that fit best into a niche and sqeeze out the competition.
That is as it always has been. And always will be. There are no
transtional forms only competing animals that are related through a common
ancester.
All the mammals are descended from a single breeding pair of srew-like
mammals that survived the cataclismic asteroid impact 65 million years ago
that killed everything on the surface, the liittle survivors were in their
burrow at the time and did not see the pyrocalstic cloud that enveloped the
whole earth killing everything exposed over a few hours.
Chris.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: What happened to the horse? |
31 Aug 2005 04:08:23 PM |
|
|
on 31 Aug 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet ~Glorious Appearing~~
(inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Many textbooks teach that the horse has evolved from only 61
centimeters to its present state of over 2 meters over a 60 million
year period. But learn what inconsistencies the textbooks don't teach
about the horse's evolution.
Why do you hate science?
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
Plonked by Raytard
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "VO here@there" |
|
| Title: Re: What happened to the horse? |
31 Aug 2005 05:30:10 PM |
|
|
~Glorious Appearing~~ wrote:
A Horse.
An animal with four legs, one on each corner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: What happened to the horse? |
02 Sep 2005 07:57:30 AM |
|
|
Still there.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
