One of the most commonly used proofs of evolution is the abundant amount of discovered “missing links”... transitional fossils that prove that macroevolution is a scientific fact. Pictures as well as artists drawings of these transitional fossils can be found in everything from high school textbooks to websites promoted by evolutionists. Furthermore, the scientific explanation that evolutionists put forth in defense of these fossils are of such confidence that one would find it hard to believe these fossils are anything but true “missing links.”
Because the theory of evolution either stands or falls on the evidence for true transitional fossils, I decided to look at various evidences used by many evolutionists. The reason I say “many evolutionists” is because some of the most well known evolutionists today speak about the fact that there are no true transitional fossils. It was very confusing to see a website that listed over 100 transitional fossils, and then read information from other evolutionists where they emphatically state that no “missing links” have ever been found.
Obviously there exists a problem here. Either there have been transitional fossils discovered or there hasn’t been. It seems that proponents of evolution don’t need creationists to war against because evolutionists are in the midst of their own internal war. Because of this fact, for this paper I will attempt to use only quotes from evolutionists themselves instead of turning to writings of creationists. I am fully aware that evolutionists claim that creationists are always using evolutionist quotes out of context. I have no doubt that this sometimes does happen. One argument I hear often is that when quotes are taken from evolutionist writings, creationists are trying to claim the evolutionists are denying evolution theory. Therefore, I am not suggesting that evolutionists are denying their belief in evolution theory.
When searching for evidence that evolution did indeed happen, I had always been taught the fossil record was the place to search. In other words, evolution theory either was true or false based on the fossil record. And now?
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. (Mark Ridley, in New Scientist, volume 90, “Who Doubts Evolution?”)
While many inferences about evolution are derived from living organisms, we must look to the fossil record for the ultimate documentation of large-scale change. In the absence of a fossil record, the credibility of evolutionists would be severely weakened. We might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis. (Steven Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process)
Here we have two quotes from two evolutionists. When I use these quotes as I just did, I am not suggesting that these two people are denying evolution. But with the conflicting views of the importance of the fossil record, it does give me another reason to deny evolution.
First, I would like to mention something concerning the number of transitional fossils that we should see if evolution really happened. Many times I hear people talking about the “missing link.” Even well known magazines such as Time and Newsweek have carried the story of a supposed “missing link” that was recently discovered. Science, Nature, and National Geographic proudly display the “evidence” of the latest fossil that evolutionists believe to be a true transitional. All of this ignores an important aspect of evolution theory.
There have been literally millions upon millions of fossils that have been found. This would mean that if evolution really took place, there should be numerous transitional fossils. This means that whenever an evolutionist proclaims that they have discovered the “missing link”, their fanfare that follows is totally uncalled for. Along with this is the fact of what these transitional fossils should look like. If evolution really did take place, we should be seeing fossil creatures with scales turning into feathers, partially evolved forelimbs, halfway wings, etc. Nothing like this has ever been found.
Many evolutionists will look at a human and an ape, or see similarities between other species, and then come to the conclusion that we must have evolved from a common ancestor because of the similarities. Although similarities between species could indicate evolution, the most plausible answer is the fact that they all were created by the same Creator and Designer. One thing is for sure; there are only two choices when it comes to explaining the similarities, as evolutionist Niles Eldredge pointed out:
Indeed, the only competing explanation for the order we see in the biological world, this pattern of nested similarity that links up absolutely all known forms of life, is the notion of Special Creation: that a supernatural Creator, using a sort of blueprint, simply fashioned life with its intricate skein of resemblances passing through it...And, of course, it was precisely this notion of divine Creation that furnished the explanation for all life--the very existence, its exuberant diversity and its apparent order--in Darwin’s day. (Time Frames)
Although the similarities are evident, what are even more evident are the vast differences that separate types. It is these differences that the fossil record should fully answer. If everything, including humans, did indeed evolve from a common ancestor, we should see the intermediates that indicate this evolution.
There have been such a vast amount of fossils discovered that the excuses used in Darwin’s day no longer applies. Darwin believed that as soon as enough fossils had been found, the record would show the intermediate fossils needed to prove evolution. Today there are no excuses.
There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps. (T.N. George, Science Progress, volume 48, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective.”)
It is these gaps that are the problem for evolutionists. As I researched this I found such a wide variance of opinions on the issue of evolution that it helped me to further understand why I no longer believe in evolution. It is clear that if there really were an abundant amount of true transitional fossils, every evolutionist would be united in their position and belief in evolution.
Since Darwin, every knowing person agrees that man is descended from the apes...Today, of course, there is no such thing as the theory of evolution; it is the fact of evolution...The only arguments now are over technical problems, but the basic fact of evolution is so clearly established that no scientist worries about it anymore. (Ernst Mayr, professor of biology, Harvard. “Interview” in Omni)
Dr. Mayr comes across as if evolution has so much proof, including in the fossil record, that the theory of evolution has been replaced with the fact of evolution. It seems that Dr. Mayr knows something that many other evolutionary scientists don’t know. Or is it possible that Dr. Mayr is completely wrong?
I know that at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data. (David Pilbeam, in Human Nature, “Rearranging Our Family Tree”)
Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been its obvious imperfection...The inability of the fossil record to produce the “missing links” has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory. (A.J. Boucot, Elsevier Scientific Publishing, Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls)
Because Dr. Mayr mentioned how “every knowing person agrees that man is descended from the apes“, he must have found some kind of secret evidence over the past 30 years that others haven’t been made aware of.
Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans--of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings--is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter. (Lyall Watson, in “The Water People”)
Before we move on to look at the individual “missing links” that many evolutionists use as proof of evolution, one more thing must be mentioned concerning transitional fossils.
One huge problem for evolution theory are on one side is found those that state emphatically that there are transitional fossils, and on the other side those evolutionists that propagate what is called Punctuated Equilibrium. It is important to realize what evolution really means. Classic evolution theory says that one type slowly evolved into another type and in Darwin’s day it was believed that as soon as enough fossils were found, this gradual evolution from species to species would be clearly visible. Here we are over 100 years after Darwin and with millions and millions of fossils discovered, the same gaps in the fossil record in Darwin’s time are the same gaps we have today. This is why many well known evolutionists have now turned to punctuated equilibrium.
Harvard University paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould made this comment concerning punctuated equilibrium:
Thus, our model of “punctuated equilibria” holds that evolution is concentrated in events of speciation and that successful speciation is an infrequent event punctuating the stasis of large populations that do not alter in fundamental ways during the millions of years they endure. (Paleobiology, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?”)
Furthermore, Gould and Niles Eldredge had this to say in (Nature, “Punctuated Equilibrium Comes of Age.”)
Stasis, as palpable and observable in virtually all cases (whereas rapid punctuations are usually, but not always, elusive), becomes the major empirical ground for studying punctuated equilibrium.
Look closely at these lasts two statements. Here we have two of the world’s most foremost evolutionist’s say that evolution is provable by the evidence from “stasis.” Stasis literally means “un-changing” and is the complete opposite of evolution theory! Punctuated equilibrium has come on the scene to defend evolution by saying that even though there are no transitional fossils, evolution is still true because the changes happened so fast nobody could ever see it. Paleontologist Steven Stanley further clarifies this:
The fossil record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving much. We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly, when species come into being by the evolutionary divergences of small populations from parent species. After their origins, most species undergo little evolution before becoming extinct. (The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species)
Evolutionist Larry Azar commented on the problem of trying to prove evolution by using the obvious gaps in the fossil record.
I can understand the inherent difficulty in attempting to discover intermediate forms. My problem concerns the methodology of science: If an evolutionist accepts gaps as a prerequisite for his theory, is he not arguing from a lack of evidence? If a biologist teaches that between two existing fossils there was a non-existing third (and perhaps several others), is he not really like the man of religious faith who says: “I believe, even though there is not evidence?” (In Bioscience, volume 28, “Biologists, Help!”)
It seems that the only thing “changing” in evolution theory is the theory itself. If true transitional fossils really did exist there would be absolutely no reason for evolutionists to come up with a new theory. Punctuated equilibrium is a belief not based on evidence for evolution, but instead a belief based on the total lack of evidence for evolution. What is even more amazing is this theory admits that the fossil record shows that species remained in “stasis”, literally remained un-changed.
The fact that evolutionists are now turning to punctuated equilibrium should be enough proof that no true “missing links” have ever been found or will ever be found. And yet, in every high school and university textbook, numerous magazines, and evolutionary websites we find descriptions and artists renderings of these intermediate fossils. It is hard to understand how an artist can draw a complete “missing link” when nothing but a tooth or a skull has been found. Furthermore, the past 40 years have seen a dramatic increase in the freedom that artists take when illustrating these fossils. In 1960, evolutionist Gerald Kerkut commented on artist’s illustrations of fossils:
It takes a great deal of reading to find out for any particular genus just how complete the various parts of the body are and how much in the illustrated figures is due to clever reconstruction. The early papers were always careful to indicate by dotted lines or lack of shading the precise limits of the reconstructions, but later authors are not so careful.
(Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press)
Along with the flawed artist illustrations is the way major magazines and news organizations handle the issue of transitional fossils. Each time a supposed “missing link” is discovered, magazines such as Nature, Science, National Geographic, etc. will promote the newest discovery as a true transitional fossil. But as we will see, these same magazines usually fail to update their readers if this same fossil turns out to be a non-transitional, or in some cases, the fossil turns out to be a complete hoax.
T-Rex evolved into a chicken?
We will now start with looking at some of the fossils that many evolutionists believe prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Anytime an evolutionist is asked for proof of transitional fossils, be assured that at least one of the following will be put forth in defense of evolution. The best known is:
Protarchaeopteryx; Sinosauropteryx; Caudipteryx; and Archaeopteryx:
Supposedly each one of these are an intermediate between dinosaurs to birds. Although creationists are accused of believing things on “faith”, when it comes to a dino evolving into a bird, the evolutionist has the ultimate faith. In fact, for scales to evolve into feathers would take a genuine miracle.
The difference between scales and feathers are so vast that no amount of wishful thinking or billions of years will ever change scales into feathers. In truth, if evolutionists wanted to attempt to make a case for evolution, they should postulate that feathers evolved from hair, not scales. Hair and feathers have much more in common than do scales and feathers. Unfortunately, to say that feathers evolved from hair would negate the evolutionary order.
A feather grows out of a follicle, very similar to how hair grows out of a follicle. When a hair falls out, it falls out of its own follicle just as a feather does. Scales are the complete opposite. The most that will happen to scales are they will shed off in a sheet due to the fact scales are nothing but folds in the epidermis.
At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different. (A.H. Brush, in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, “On the Origin of Feathers”)
There are other serious problems with believing a reptile can evolve into a bird. The entire digestive system would need to change, the nervous system would need to change, the bones would have to change for it to fly, the respiratory system would have to completely change, and somehow a birds beak would need to form. If indeed this all did happen as evolutionists claim, then we should see fossils showing scales evolving into feathers, legs turning into wings, etc. Nothing like this has ever been found.
Birds have an extremely complex system of air sacs used to keep the air moving in one direction, which travels through tubes in the lung. Blood moves through the blood vessels of the lung in the complete opposite direction. This is opposite of reptile lungs in which the air is drawn into tiny sacs and then breathed out.
One supposed “missing link” that was studied was Sinoauropteryx. John Ruben, a respiratory physiology expert at Oregon State University, led a team that analyzed fossil outlines of the internal organs of Sinosauropteryx and came to this conclusion:
The bellows like lungs could not have evolved into the high-performance lungs of modern birds. (“Lung Fossils Suggest Dino’s Breathed in Cold Air”, in Science, quoted in Ann Gibbons)
Other studies have shown that the “feathers” of Sinosauropteryx were nothing more than frayed collagen fibers. And as for Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx, they were probably only flightless birds. Caudipteryx even used gizzard stones just like modern plant eating birds. But none of these so-called “missing links” can compare to the fossil that many evolutionists claim to be the best evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs...Archaeopteryx.
Archaeopteryx is claimed to be a true transitional fossil mainly based on the fact that it had feathered wings as well as teeth and claws. As for the feathers, this does point to the fact that it was a bird. But what about the teeth and claws? First, evolutionists believe Archaeopteryx could not have been just a bird because it had teeth. This is an empty argument for reptiles evolving into birds because many reptiles don’t have teeth. Second, Archaeopteryx having claws does not equal a connection to reptiles. Bird experts point out that Archaeopteryx had what is known as a grasping hallux, a hind toe pointing backwards. This is identical to the feet of all perching birds. Only perching birds have this grasping hallux along with curved claws. Zoologists admit that other birds have wing claws, namely the hoatzin, ibis, and sivans. Archaeopteryx is a perfect example of a bird having an arboreal (tree dwelling) habitat, just the same as other birds.
Bird expert and evolutionist Alan Feduccia has studied Archaeopteryx in depth and has stated:
Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that. (Alan Feduccia, ornithologist of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as cited in Science, Virginia Morell, Archaeopteryx: “Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms“)
Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds, because Archaeopteryx was, in the modern sense, a bird. (Alan Feduccia, in Science, volume 259, “Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx”)
Because Archaeopteryx has been shown to be a true bird with feathers, this has caused problems within the supposed order of evolution. Archaeopteryx is dated some 25 million years older than Protopteryx, a bird evolutionists believe had primitive feathers. This means that evolutionists are “dating” the “feathered dinosaurs” at millions of years later than true birds.
Archaeopteryx was considered such an important find that it even led to its on scientific conference. What came out of this conference was clear: Archaeopteryx was a bird; and evolutionists were concerned that creationists would play-up this fact:
At the end of the three days of presentations, Charig orchestrated a concerted effort to summarize the ideas for which consensus exists. The general credo runs as follows: Archaeopteryx was a bird that could fly, but it was not necessarily the direct ancestor of modern birds...A communique’ expressing the unanimous belief of all participants in the evolutionary origin and significance of Archaeopteryx was adopted, in order to forestall possible misuse by creationists of apparent discord among scientists. (Peter Dodson, in Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, volume 5, “International Archaeopteryx Conference”)
Archaeopteryx might have been a unique bird, but the world is full of unique species that no evolutionist would consider a transitional. Case in point? The Platypus. The Platypus has a poison sac like a reptile, suckles its young like a mammal, has a duck-bill like a bird, has fur, and spends most of its time in the water, just as an amphibian. As evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould noted on this “superbly well-designed creature”:
To be a platypus sports an unbeatable combination for strangeness...its obvious melange of reptilian (or birdlike), with obvious mammalian, characters...a superbly well-designed creature for a particular, and unusual, mode of life...The platypus is one honey of an adaptation. (Stephen Jay Gould, in Natural History, “To Be a Platypus”)
One other so-called “missing link” in the dino to bird theory is Archaeoraptor. At first I was not going to include Archaeoraptor in this paper, but because there are still evolutionary websites and writings that include this fossil as a true transitional fossil, I could not ignore it.
Archaeoraptor is a good example of the desperation felt by some evolutionists to have a “missing link.” It is also a good example of major magazine and news organizations jumping on a story to show that evolution is true. But at least in the case of Archaeoraptor, one well-known journal did finally admit their mistake.
National Geographic had run an article (“Feathers For T-Rex?”, November 1999) concerning the proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The heading of the article proudly proclaimed: “We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals.” The entire furor was based on the latest fossil classified as a “feathered dinosaur”...Archaeoraptor.
As I mentioned earlier, the entire issue of birds evolving from a reptile would literally take a supernatural miracle. Dinosaurs have the complete opposite and wrong anatomy for flight, especially considering their short forelimbs and large hind limbs. Plus the “feathered dinos” are dated at millions of years later than true birds. Of course, none of this has stopped magazines such as Nature and National Geographic from jumping on the dino to bird bandwagon.
Archaeoraptor turned out to be nothing but a faked fossil. Many of these fossils (including Sinosauropteryx) come from China, and the evidence shows that Chinese farmers are altering fossils to sell them. This is exactly what happened with the “feathered dinosaur” Archaeoraptor. An article in the Feb. 2000 issue of New Scientist talks about the problem of faked and altered fossils, and it seems these fossils are growing in number. In the article, University of New Orleans paleontologist Kraig Derstler commented on the fossils from China: “almost every one that I’ve seen on the commercial market has some reconstruction to make it look prettier.”
In the end, National Geographic did post an article in a later issue that informed their readers of the Archaeoraptor hoax. Although they should be applauded for admitting their mistake, it is deceitful when other journals and news organizations do not update the public when a supposed “missing link” later proves to be a non-transitional or even a hoax.
National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism...it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs...The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientist acting in concert with certain editors of Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age--the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. (Written in a November 1, 1999 open letter by evolutionist Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution)
Note: Mention should be made that there are many scientists on the creation side that believe even Archaeopteryx was a hoax. For years Archaeopteryx has been locked away in the basement of the British Museum of Natural History. This has kept anyone from further study of Archaeopteryx. Although this in itself could indicate that there are problems with Archaeopteryx, the scientists that believe Archaeopteryx is just another fraud base their opinion on research performed before Archaeopteryx was locked away.
Israeli scientist Lee Spetner and British astronomer Fred Hoyle studied Archaeopteryx and set forth good evidence that the fossil was just another fraud. As stated by (G. Vines, in New Scientist, volume 105, “Strange Case of Archaeopteryx Fraud”)
His [Spetner] suspicions were aroused when he read that the two specimens with the clearest feathers-the London and Berlin fossils-came from the collection of a Bavarian doctor, Dr. Karl Haberlein. Spetner and his colleagues argue that Haberlein gouged out an area around two genuine fossils of a dinosaur-like reptile, and made a matrix with cement which he applied to the fossils. Then, Spetner claims, he pressed chicken feathers or the like to the mixture to create the feather impressions.[Photos taken by Robert Watkins, of the physics department at Cardiff]...show signs of a forger’s work: a fine-grained substrate under the feathers, blobs that look like chewing gum that could be the remnants of the forgers cement...The fossil is split into two halves: an imprint of the creature is reflected in a ‘counter slab’ created when the rock containing the fossil was split open, like two halves of a mould. Hoyle and his colleagues find elevated or depressed regions on one slab that are not perfectly mirrored on the other. Finally, they point to ‘double-strike’ impressions of feathers. In a few places the same feather has apparently left two impressions slightly displaced to one side.
( For a much more in-depth treatment On The Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry Of Birds: http://www.trueorigins.org/birdevo.htm )
The Horse Series: A Series of Mistakes?
The evolution of the horse supposedly shows how one small horse ancestor eventually evolved into the modern horse of today. Textbooks show a beautiful straight line of the upward and gradual evolution of this creature, which took about 60 million years. According to evolutionists, the horse fossil order is as follows:
Eohippus (Dawn Horse); Orohippus; Mesohippus; Miohippus; Merchippus; and Equus (Modern Horse)
Keep in mind that when we see artist illustrations in textbooks, these illustrations are based on assumptions. Instead of asking “did the horse evolve”, they instead assume evolution to be true and ask “how did the horse evolve?” Under the assumption that the horse did evolve, their illustrations must be constructed to show how the horse evolved, even if the evidence suggests otherwise.
The first problem concerning the evolution of the horse concerns the “dawn horse” Eohippus, the supposed ancestor of our modern horse today. This fossil was first discovered in 1841 by paleontologist Richard Owen. Owen originally named this fossil as Hyracotherium because he believed it was similar to a Hyrax, a small jackrabbit sized creature with a short tail. Owen did not see any similarity between his fossil and a horse, and it was only later that evolutionists decided to call similar fossils by the name Eohippus, thereby having their first horse ancestor. Although some evolutionists are now calling this fossil by its original name, they still have a faulty basis for the ancestor of horse evolution.
Another problem with the horse series is how the fossils were put together. The fossils in the textbook examples were not found in one location. Instead, the fossils were put together from many different locations of the world. The supposed succession of the horse has never been found to occur in one location. It would seem that if the horse really did evolve, there should be at least one area on the planet that would show this in the fossil record.
If the horse did evolve as the textbooks suggest, it seems the hooves involved a type of reverse evolution. The earliest fossils have hooves with 5 toes, then as the horse evolved the toes de-evolved to hooves with 3 toes and then to the hooves with 1 toe today. Evolution theory teaches that the simplest life forms will be in the lower layers of rock strata and then as creatures evolved, they would be found in strata layers working their way to the top. The supposed evolution of the horse does not fit the evolutionist’s own theory. The 1-toed horses are found below the 3-toed horses in strata in South America. In other areas of the world the 1-toed and 3-toed horses are found in the same strata layer. Furthermore, in the January 1981 edition of National Geographic appears pictures of the foot of the modern horse Equus and the foot of the supposed ancestor horse Pliohippus. Both of these fossils were found at the same location and in the same rock formation at a Nebraska volcanic site.
Many evolutionists will see no problem with the fact that fossils of the modern Equus has been found right beside fossils of Pliohippus. The thought behind this is that when one population evolves into another, there will still be some of the first population left over living with their evolutionary “offspring.” The problem with this is that evolution theory tells us that everything moves in an upward progression, from least complex to more complex. It is survival of the fittest. When one creature evolves into another, each step on the evolutionary ladder is a step toward superiority. But if creature “A” evolved into creature “B” and creature “A” still lives along side creature “B” over long periods of time, there will be interbreeding. Basically there will be interbreeding between the less complex creature with the more complex creature, which means creature “A” will always be mixing it’s “inferior” genes with the “superior” genes of creature “B”. Because of entire populations interbreeding, evolution could not take place. When creature “A” evolves into creature “B”, the entire population of creature “A” must die out for evolution to take place. The fossil record shows us over and over that entire populations of species lived at the same time as their supposed ancestors.
Although every textbook shows a nice “tree”, that is, an upward progression of the evolution of the horse, evolutionist and paleontologist David Raup commented not only on the problems of the gaps in the total fossil record, but also the problem with the supposed evolution of the horse.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be modified or discarded as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated. (D.M. Raup, in the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology”)
The illustrations of the supposed horse series show how the horse evolved to its size of today. As I mentioned earlier, the supposed horse ancestor was only the size of a jackrabbit. Supposedly as the horse evolved through its stages, it grew in size with each evolutionary step until finally the horse of today appeared. If the horse did indeed evolve in size, why do we have small horses today? Today there is a modern horse that stands only about 17 inches high (Fallabella). And yet we still have large modern horses such as the huge Clydesdales. What this shows is there is indeed a wide variation within a created kind, not one horse evolving from another.
Possibly the largest problem for the textbook evolution of the horse concerns how many ribs were discovered with each horse fossil. Fossils show the supposed early horse had 18 ribs. Then as the horse evolved, the ribs de-evolved to 15, then the ribs evolved to 19, then reverse evolution kicked in and the ribs went from 19 to 18.
Although evolutionists would like us to believe the evolution of the horse shows a nice “tree” progression, the evidence suggests this “tree” does not exist. Trying to build an evolutionary horse series by taking different fossils from different areas of the earth isn’t good science. As mentioned by evolutionist and paleontologist Stephen Stanley, the “tree” is more like a “bush.”
The horse is the most famous example--the classic story of one genus turning into another, turning into another. Now it’s becoming apparent that there’s an overlap of these genera, and that there were many species belonging to each one. It’s a very bushy sort of pattern that is, I think, much more in line with the punctuational model; there isn’t just a simple, gradual transition from one horse to another. This is now becoming fairly well known. (Stephen Stanley, in Bioscience, volume 36, “Resetting the Evolutionary Timetable”)