Creationist Horse Manure About Textbook Fraud
This ill-informed diatribe was found at: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm
Use this fraud test on your own text books:
We charge any school textbook with fraud and gross misrepresentation if it:
- Illustrates horse evolution as a straight line pattern of development, which was rejected in 1920, but still pervades textbooks and museums.
(A line of ancestry is not the same thing as a tree of descent. A tree of descent shows all the descendents of one ancestor, going forward in time. A line of ancestry focuses on a single present day species and traces its antecedents.)
- Argues the "branching tree pattern" proves evolution is undirected.
No, what it does is disprove the subjective human construct that everything evolved single-file, in ladder-like fashion until arriving at present day species)
Evolutionists originally argued evolution was directed (citation?) which indicates a director! (God)
This is a semantical construct as well as the subjective interpretation of the author. And it is NOT the business of a science textbook to include religious interpretations - therefore, no "fraud!"
"This doesn't prove directed evolution is true, but only that the branching-tree pattern in the fossil record doesn't refute it." (Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells, p201)
Actually, what this idea really does is challenge our notions of reality, subjectivity and the nature of human perception and assumptions -- e.g. the assumption that Eohippus was "destined" to evolve into Equus, when it had many descendants. Related species may have filled a niche during their time, and went extinct when they could not adapt to competitors or changing conditions.)
The ancestor of the horse is believed to be the size of a cat with four toes on the front and three on the rear. Textbook fraud occurs if the text book argues that the modern horse has the vestigial remnants of the two outer toes on the rear foot but fail to tell you that they find no vestigial remnants of the three outer toes of the front foot. Such basic information is devastating and unexplainable
No, it isn't. The idea that all the toes had to disappear at the same rate is a strawman construct. Extra toes on the forelegs may have been lost more quickly due to the different construction of the foreleg vs. the hind leg, and their relationship to the side ligaments that developed to help stabilize the central hoof during running.)
If horse evolution is true and proves the nubs on the rear foot of the modern horse are not vestigial remnants at all!
Does this author even understand what "vestigial" means? Wiki: "Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species..." The small bones near the horse's fetlock correlate with toe bones yet serve no function as toes, and are therefore vestigial.
- If they fail to tell you that evolutionists believe North American ungulates evolved their rear foot from 3 toes to a single hoof, but that South American ungulates are believed to have evolved a single hoof to four toes at the same time!
(I am unclear as to what the author means here. Was this an editing error, where they really meant, "four toes to a single hoof"? In which case, why the assumption there should be any rules about the number of toes? (There isn't). Otherwise this may be a misunderstanding or misinterpretation on the part of the author, as I have not seen anything like this in the literature. The author was possibly confused over illustrations and descriptions of cousin species. Perhaps they think all they need to do is look at pictures instead of an in-depth understanding of the argument they are trying to debunk.
- That many informed evolutionists who believe the horse evolved, reject all current explanations of the "stacking of the fossils."
The author fails to mention who these "evolutionists" are and what their alternative explanation is.
- They fail to tell you that the three-toed Neohipparion lived beside (same time) the one-toed Pliohippus.
Neohipparion was a "cousin species" to Pliohippus, same as badgers to wolverines Clearly, this author does not truly understand the "branching tree" concept and is still clinging to the naive "evolving in a straight line" notion.
- If they fail to mention the fact that the extinct Hyracotherium (Eohippus) was almost identical in body design, feet, toes and size, to the modern living Hyrax, except for the skull and tail.
No, it wasn't. Compare Hyracotherium (left) to a hyrax skeleton (right).
It's really a sad and sorry state of affairs to reveal that some creationists' "research" consists little more than finding similarities between names. This person apparently could not pass a simple "find the differences" quiz at the level of a 12 year old.
If they fail to tell you that they find all "fossil horses" mixed throughout all the different time layers and that only a person looking to prove "horse evolution" would ever try to arrange them is any kind of orderly sequence.
That the rib count, vertebrae count, tooth count and the size of the animal, varies widely and does not show any direct line of progression.
That the fossils have been arranged in many different ways that contradict each other.
The author fails to provide a citation for these claims; who found the fossils or how they were "arranged" to "contradict" each other. "...Mixed throughtout all the different time layers?" Which ones, specifically? However, it did not take long to Google this topic and find the original 1926 fossil chart from this well researched rebuttal page.
Perhaps the author is implying here that according to evolutionary theory, "more primitive" species should not be found in the same strata as the "more modern" species. By this same "logic", then "evolutionists" would be claiming that fish should not be alive today. Nothing in the ToE states that older and more primitive species of any lineage should die out when new species evolve.
If they fail to tell you that modern Equus and Hyracotherium co-existed at the same time, since they are often found together in the same rock layers.
"Often" is quite an embellishment for a rumor based on a single paragraph of a 1935 book written by an author who knew nothing about geological strata. Full story explained here.
If they fail to tell you that "Moropus" that lived in the Miocene Age, but is not included in the fossil series although it resembles a horse in great deal.
Wrong -- it is classified as a relative - just like tapirs and rhinos; but it is but not in the direct line, and for obvious reasons. Notice how different the leg structure is. It is a heavily built animal with claws and a bear-like posture, not an animal built for running as the horse is. Its skull isn't even that similar, so I don't understand where this creationist would arrive at such an assumption. Maybe from the imagination of the artists who chose to give it a horse-like face?
since Moropus was two metres heigh and is larger than both Meryhippuston "horses" of the same age and the horses of today.
Here's my response to you: Get out your Yellow Pages and consult an optometrist, pronto. You're a danger to other drivers on the road.