typical. creationist website that has the gall to say science vs evolution, and then mischaracterize evolution.
Think about what you just read about the pairs of ribs in each horse (or so called horse Eohippus) If the evolution of the horse is true than why the inconsistent number of ribs in each horse; shouldn't the modern horse have more or at least as many as Philohippus? Why does Merychippus have fewer ribs than Eohippus?
Think about what you just read about the toes on each horse. The more modern horse has no more toes; it has a hoof. I thought in evolution you gained faculties not loose them. I guess then in evolution you have to loose something to gain something?
the first one--what the hell? You know--it's equally valid to ask why doesn't the modern horse have less ribs. it's not a major change--adding a rib or taking one away.
second one--two falseities. the hoof--that's a single toe. and in evolution, you can either lose or gain something, but not lose something to gain something. It can happen, sure, but it's not the case every single time. otherwise, how can changes add up over time to lead to speciation? hmm, me smells a strawman being put up. remember, an argument based on strawmen or incredulity are not valid--and that's what's happening here.
umm, how does revised timescales affect the theory of evolution?
hint--it doesn't. the fact that there were larger mammals (think cat sized) in the cretaceous period doesn't invalidate "natural selection plus mutation".
all it does is effect the history of evolution. and funny thing--that recent discovery--those large mammals don't have any modern day representatives. check out the thread Undermining long held paradigms
its a non-issue. no moving goal posts--they are what they have been--"natural selection plus mutation"