To all,
For Gores, specifically, your ad hominem attacks are uncalled for. To respond in kind: when you are dry behind the ears, you may begin to appreciate how little you know.
Quotes involving the 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 some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." —*David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, " in The Field Museum of Natural History. January 1979, p. 25.
"The difference between Eohippus and the modern horse is relatively trivial, yet the two forms are separated by sixty million years and at least ten genera and a great number of species. If ten genera separate Eohippus from the modem horse then think of the uncountable myriads there must have been linking such diverse forms as land mammals and whales or molluscs and arthropods. Yet all these myriads of life forms have vanished mysteriously, without leaving so much as a trace of their existence in the fossil record." —*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), pp. 85-86.
"[Othniel C.] Marsh's classic unilineal (straight-line) development of the horse became enshrined in every biology textbook and in a famous exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History. It showed a sequence of mounted skeletons, each one larger and with a more well-developed hoof than the last. (The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment.)
"Almost a century later, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson reexamined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled. In his book Horses, he showed that there was no simple, gradual unilineal development at all . . It was an easy mistake to make, since only one genus of horse is left today, Equus. Marsh arranged his fossils to 'lead up' to the one surviving species, blithely ignoring many inconsistencies and any contradictory evidence. Ironically, his famous reconstruction of horse evolution was copied by anthropologists. They, too, thought they saw a straight-line lineage 'leading up' to the sole surviving species of a once-varied group: Homo Sapiens." —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 222.
"Traditionally, fossil-hunters had sought magnificent specimens for their museums and exhibited them as a series of individuals, like O.C. Marsh's famous linear 'progression' of individual horse skeletons. Simpson made the evolution of the horse one of his specialties; his detailed quantitative studies, published in his classic book, Horses (1951), exploded Marsh's 'single-line' evolution of the horse from a fox-sized, hoofless ancestor." —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 406.
"The evolution of the horse—both in textbook charts and museum exhibits—has a standard iconography. Marsh began this traditional display in his illustration for Huxley. In doing so, he also initiated an errs that captures pictorially the most common of all misconceptions about the shape and pattern of evolutionary change.
"Each genus is itself a bush of several related species, not a rung on a ladder of progress. These species often lived and interacted in the same area at the same time (as different species of zebra do in Africa today.) One set of strata in Wyoming, for example, has yielded three species of Meeohippus and two of Miohippus, all contemporaries.
"The species of these bushes tend to arise with geological suddenness and then to persist with little change for long periods. Evolutionary change occurs at the branch points themselves, and trends are not continuous marches up ladders, but concatenations of increments achieved at nodes of branching on evolutionary bushes.
"Bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.
"The model of the ladder is much more than merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution as progressive and triumphant, for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages." —*Steven Jay Gould, "Life's Little Joke," in Natural History April 1987, p. 2425.
"We now know that the evolution of the horse did not always take a simple path. In the first place it is not clear that Hyraootherium was the ancestral horse. Thus Simpson (1945) states, 'Matthew has shown and insisted that Hyraootherium (including Eohippus) is so primitive that it is not more definitely squid than taparid, rhinocerotid,' etc., but it is customary to place it at the root of the squid group." —*G. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 149.
"The most famous of all squids trends, 'gradually reduction of the side toes' is flatly fictitious. There was no such trend in any line of Equidae. Eocene horses all had digitigrade padded, doglike feet with tour functional toes in front and three behind. In a rapid transition (not actually represented by fossils), early Oligocene horses lost one functional front toe and concentrated weight a little more on the middle hoot as a step-off point. This type persisted without essential change in all browsing horses." —*George Gaylord Simpson, Major Features of Evolution (1953), p. 263.
"Also the fossils of these horses are widely scattered in Europe and North America. There is no place where they occur in rock layers, one above another. There is no sequence that would indicate that the largest developed from the smallest. Some of the difference in size may be accounted for by the difference in feed. In 1942, a herd of horses was found in a box canyon in Southern California. Three of them were caught and lifted out with ropes and pulleys. Due to poor feed, their backs were no higher than a table. Later a colt was born to these captives, and with good feed it grew much larger than its parents. Since a difference in size due to feed is an acquired characteristic, it is not inherited and does not account for permanent changes in a species." —I. N. Moors and H. E. Slusher, Biology: A Search for Order and Complexity.
_____
But, these quotes are tiring to read. I could mount as many from reputable scientists on many other difficulties with established think about evolution.
A couple:
The Archaeopteryx seems to bear out the Darwinian concept of birds having evolved from small reptiles, specifically the Coelosaur. Coelosaurs, in common with most other dinosaurs, did not posses collar bones. Archaeopteryx had collar bones. Collar bones are a requirement for birds (or bats) to support the pectorals and the wings.
But even this is moot, as the archaeopteryx is considered to have been a fraud. Since 1980, virtually all prominent scientists who have studied the fossils have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with visible feathers are forgeries.
____
Darwinists said that if you analyse the DNA you will find how closely or distantly species are related. Animals closely related, such as two reptiles, would have greater similarity in their DNA than animals that are not so closely related. In 1981, molecular biologists at Ann Arbor University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha hemoglobin DNA of a snake and a crocodile said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the hemoglobin DNA of a farmyard chicken.
They found that the two animals who had the least DNA sequences in common were the snake and the crocodile, only around 5%, one twentieth of their hemoglobin DNA. The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common, nearly one fifth. The DNA similarities were the reverse of that predicted by Darwinists, according to Colin Patterson in a presentation to the American Natural History Museum in November 1981
______
I could go on with this, but since I am not being paid, I will not do your research for you.
| 
