There are some serious misrepresentation of Evolutionary theory in your cut n paste.
quote:
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.
Strawman. Why is this a problem? Nowhere in Evolutionary theory is it predicted that fossils from any species have to be found in one place.
quote:
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.
Strawman. Again, Evolutionary theory does not predict that all members of a lineage's fossils must be found in exactly the same place. You do know that the arrangement of continents wasn't always the one we have now, don't you?
quote:
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,
Strawman. There is no "evolutionary rule" which states that creatures must get larger.
quote:
and they were all not larger than a fox.31 In view of their similarity, these genera could be considered to be members of an originally created biblical "kind."
Please define "kind". That is not a scientific term, so I don't know what it means.
Specifically, I would like to know how to tell the difference between "kinds".
Are Humans and Bonobo Chimpanzees the same "kind"?
Are my housecat and Bengal Tigers the same "kind"?
quote:
Between Epihippus and Mesohippus, the next genus in the horse series, there is a considerable gap.
Please explain why this is a problem for Evolution.
quote:
32 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.
Well, were they a new "kind" or not? The fossils are readily available, and have been for decades.
How do you know if they are another "kind" or not?
quote:
h. In northeastern Oregon the three-toed Neohipparion is found in the same rock formation with the one-toed horse, Pliohippus.34
Strawman. Evolution is a bush, not a ladder. Evolutionary theory does not predict that a parent species must completely die out before it's daughter species can exist. It is predicted that many branched-off species will be contemporary with the parent species.
quote:
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.35 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.
OK, this is just stupid.
As intelligence increases for
any animal with a brain, so do the number of brain surface sulci.
To make the cattle/hyracotherium brain fold connection and extrapolate a more likely special creation is so painfully uneducated and ignorant I can hardly believe it.
™ Version 4.2
