And yet another lengthy quote mine from ol' bart. When are you going to learn that "argument by spurious quotation" and "appeal to authority" doesn't cut it? You been reading the infamous "Quote Book" again?
Moving on to the only substantive remarks you've made:
quote:
Taking the entire skeleton into account, the Hyracotherium is a lot closer in appearance to the modern Hyrax than it is the the horse. Like Hyracotherium, the Hyrax has four toes on the two front feet and three on the hind legs. The two are about the same size in height and have the same number of ribs. Evolutionists like to show sketches of Hyrcotherium standing like a horse, but sketches could just aas well be drawn to show hyracotherium in the same posture as a modern day hyrax as the legs of both are very similar.
Really? I'm impressed by your knowledge of comparative anatomy. Let's take a close look, shall we?
Dentition:
Hyracotherium
3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3
Equus (modern horse, male)
3.1.3-4.3/3.1.3.3
Hyrax
1.0.4.3/2.0.4.3
Guess which one's more similar?
On toes: As far as it goes, you are correct. Both hyrax and hyracotherium have four toes on the front foot, and three on the back. However, from the actual arrangement of the bones, Hyracotherium was digitigrade (as are modern horses). The location of the pads are at the end of the toes. The hyrax is plantigrade (flat-footed), with a noticeable heel (absent in Hyracotherium). There is an excellent fossil series - a perfect "gradualism" example, btw - showing the change in numbers of toes in the Equus lineage over time. Here's a rough graphic:
Please bear in mind that Hyracotherium IS NOT A HORSE! Rather, it is a stem perissodactyl - fairly undifferentiated - whose sister lineages included rhinos and tapirs.
The legs of Hyracotherium and the hyrax are nowhere near similar. Details of the hind leg/pelvis show that Hyracotherium's femur, for example, is proportionally significantly longer than that of the hyrax. The hyrax resembles a large guinea pig, hyracotherium resembles a small dog.
quote:
It is possible that Hyracotherium is unrelated to the modern day Hyrax, but then, it would then be even more possible that it is not ancestral to the modern day horse. Especially since it coexist in the fossil record with a much more horse like creature that stood 3 to 4 feet high. I can't remind this horses name, but it is on display at AMNH where it is shown to be contemporary to hyracotherium.
Possible? You mean you don't know? Since you're unable to offer any evidence that some other "more horselike animal" lived contemporaneously with Hyracotherium, not even a name, I find your assertion to be (as usual) baseless.
Oh, and as to your quotations... Anyone interested can read
this essay debunking at least the Gaylord Simpson quote mine. Another example of AiG's stellar intellectual honesty.
As to your quibble that I get my info from talkorigins - that's fundamentally incorrect. Only when I need info on debunking specific creationist claims is it even necessary to go to that site. Here's where I got my horse lineage: Groves CP, Ryder OA 2000
Systematics and Phylogeny of the Horse, for example. It often helps to actually look at the evidence rather than relying on long-refuted, spurious claims. It is especially galling when you're dealing with lineages, like the various equiids, which have such GOOD transitionals.
Edited to fix what must have been a Freudian slip: "cretinist" instead of "creationist".
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-22-2003]