Win a 2016 Answers VBS Giveaway

Horse Non-Sense

by Geoff Chapman on December 1, 1991
Share:

Originally published in Creation 14(1):50, December 1991

In their attempts to prove evolution by the horse series, evolutionists grossly over-simplifiy and ignore some facts.

One of the most commonly presented ‘proofs’ of evolution is the horse series. It is claimed that the evolution of the horse can be traced from the tiny, four-toed Hyracotherium—sometimes called Eohippus, which supposedly lived about 50 million years ago—to Equus, the single-toed horse of today. But this is a gross over-simplification and ignores some facts.

Eohippus (Hyracotherium) was most likely not related to horses at all, but to modern conies (creatures like rabbits). Indeed, the first specimen was named Hyracotherium by its discoverer, Robert Owen, because of its resemblance to the genus Hyrax (cony). Later specimens, found in North America, were named Eohippus (‘dawn horse’), but there is no sound reason for linking it with horses. So the horse family tree has a false origin.

The series is formulated on the assumption of evolutionary progression, and then used to ‘prove’ evolution!
The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world, and nowhere does this succession occur in one location. The series is formulated on the assumption of evolutionary progression, and then used to ‘prove’ evolution!

The number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19, and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six.

There is no consensus on horse ancestry among palaeontologists, and more than a dozen different family trees have been proposed, indicating that the whole thing is only guesswork.

Fossils of the three-toed and one-toed species are preserved in the same rock formation in Nebraska USA1, proving that both lived at the same time, strongly suggesting that one did not evolve into the other.

Modern horses come in a wide variety of sizes. There is a great difference between the Fallabella horse of Argentina—fully grown at 43 centimetres (17 inches) high—and the massive Clydesdale. Both are horses, and the larger has not evolved from the smaller, nor the smaller from the larger.

In view of the above facts, it is amazing that evolutionists continue to present the horse series as one of their ‘best proofs of evolution’.

Reference

  1. National Geographic, January 1981, p. 74.

Recommended Resources

Newsletter

Get the latest answers emailed to you or sign up for our free print newsletter.

See All Lists

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Learn more