Linda, the BOLD type was a cited example of discrimmination, taken from the Creation magazine I receive. They don't just arise out of the top of my head, do yours?

It is from the Creation magazine, you can find it on the web as well and complain to them if you wish www.CreationOnTheWeb.com Vol.30.No.2

Here is the information for the bold type I had cited - Topic - Christian biologist, fired for creationist beliefs Reuters, <www.reuters.com/articlezoddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1034

The next one I cited was - Evolutionist chemistry professor acknowledges 'errors' American Scientist online, <www.americanscientist.org/template/AssertDetail/assetid/56234>, 13 December 2007

Just because it does not come from the sources you approve of (Evolution or Evolution sympathetic) does not mean that it becomes invalid, even if Linda Lou says so. Who died and made you God of information, science and sources? The "origin of species' is basically your evolutionary bible, why would I read yours when I have my own Christian bible which I am more than happy with, and hold as much faith in as you do in yours.



Coming from somebody who only wants the "facts" stemming from her own belief system, I take your statements with a grain of salt. You have told me that websites do not qualify is evidence. Now you are asking for a link. Is that so you can then rubbish the website as well as those I quote/cite? It wouldn't matter what the information or website was, you'd rubbish it immediately because it's of "creation" origin. Understandable, we all have our bias, including yourself.

The horse evolution theory. First of all I must say that I am surprised that you believe this, or in fact any evolutionist still does? It was officially proved wrong in 1951, over 50 years ago, widely admitted by experts but it is still presented as factual in textbooks and museums. Putting animals on a chart that share basic similarities does not make them intermediate/earlier forms and labelling them as such won't turn wishes into fact. If they could, they'd fit any animal resembling the horse in there as well (Donkey?), problem is the donkey is alive and well in modern times, so they can't really add them to the "evolution of the horse" tree. Any animal resembling another, because it may no longer be living, does not make it an earlier transitional form. It just makes it extinct (that we all can agree on). Evolutionists are the ones pinning the labels on and coming to bias conclusions. Simply because it fits in with what they WANT to believe. Problem with that is, what do they do when they discover the apparent earlier form in the same strata as the "modern" form?

Two modern-day horse species, equus nevadenis and equus occidentalis, have been found in the same rock formation in Nebraska USA as Eohippus proving that both lived at the same time. (cf. Wysong, R.L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, Midland, Michigan, 1981, p. 455, see also Hitching)

Pettingrew, a Paleontologist, says that modern horse pre-existed Hyracotherium by 70 million years. According to him, the horse lived in the Mesozoik Age, 120 million years before Hyracotherium appeared in Eocene Age, 50 million years ago.

If the evolution of the horse was true, why do we find an inconsistent number of ribs and vertebrae in those horse evolution examples? Does evolution decide to lose and gain along the way at will? Shouldn't the modern horse have at least the same or MORE than the apparent "earlier forms"? -

The rib numbers first decrease, then increase suddenly, and then decrease again. Hyracotherium had 18 pairs of ribs, Orohippus had 15, Pliohippus had 19, the horse has 18.

The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six.

Why then would toes turn into hoofs? I thought evolution was a gaining of information not a loss? A progression? And what makes you so sure that an animal with a toe formation is an earlier form rather than another variation or even another type of animal altogether? There is enough variation already in every animal in our modern day world with no signs of evolution taking place and still reproducing after their own kind as history has consistently shown us without exception.

Linda's pet hate (quote mines). Linda I don't conform to your "rules" on here. If anybody believes this is taken out of context, let them decide for themselves or look it up. The source is provided. Does one need context to prove that Captain Cook discovered New Zealand in 1769? Do we need context that Columbus discovered America in 1942. The truth of the matter is, nobody likes to have certain quotes catch up with them or their collegues, it's bad for their cause. It is embarrassing. However, with these quotes, sources have also been provided. Linda, if they have lied or been taken them out of context, the "quotees" can take action if they wish.

One of the top evolutionists in the world writes."The uniform continuous transformation of the hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generationsof textbook writers, never happened in nature ,"Simpson, George Gaylord, Life of the Past, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1953, p.119.

"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong ."—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks ."—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)

Dr. Eldredge [curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City] called the textbook characterization of the horse series ‘lamentable.

"When scientists speak in their offices or behind closed doors, they frequently make candid statements that sharply conflict with statements they make for public consumption before the media. For example, after Dr. Eldredge made the statement [in 1979] about the horse series being the best example of a lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it were literal truth, he then contradicted himself.

". . [On February 14, 1981] in California he was on a network television program. The host asked him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the best available example of a transitional sequence."—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.

EOHIPPUS, A "LIVING FOSSIL"—*Hitching has little to say in favor of this foremost model of evolutionary transition:

"Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush ."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.

NOT A HORSE AT ALL—(*#2/11 The Horse Series*) Actually the experts tell us that Eohippus has nothing to do with horses.

"In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1969), p. 149.

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse ."—*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

OUGHT TO DISCARD IT—* David Raup, formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and now Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, is a foremost expert in fossil study. He made this statement:

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. 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. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

"It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal . . [but] the fossil species of Eohippus show little evidence of evolutionary modification . . [The fossil record] fails to document the full history of the horse family."—*The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp. 4, 96.

NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE—A leading 20th-century evolutionist writer, *George Gaylord Simpson, gave this epitaph to the burial of the horse series:
"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature ."—*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119. Earlier, *Simpson said this:

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations ."—*George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

SAME GAPS APPLY TO ALL OTHERS—The same gap problem would apply to all the other species. After stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium (Eohippus) and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, *Simpson then gives the startling admission:

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed ."—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.