It's Easter holidays from school. I've got a bit of time on my hands.
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)
According to
Jon Barber, the original source for this appears to be “The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science” by Rimmer, 1935. In this book he also claims that “Coral is the body of a small insect.” Not the most promising start.
Being a creationist, he also expresses the view that the fossils used by evolutionists to construct the horse family tree all lived at the same time. But such an idea flies in the face of geology and the fossil record.This would appear to be the essence of Rimmer's claim: not that fossils of
Hyracotherium had been found in the same geological layers as
Equus, but simply that there were fossils of
Equus (a general term which also includes zebras and asses).
If you go to the link above, you can follow Barber’s search for these two obscure horse species,
nevadenis and
occidentalis.
Nevadensis was originally identified as a separate species through what would appear to be three citations of minor finds which mostly consisted of teeth, and decades ago the species name was declared inavlid. Rimmer’s comment about these species comes from an assumption that all horse species had to live concurrently. Later writers who used him as a source assumed that
Hyracotherium and
Equus had been found in the same strata, though this is false.
I recommend the link, which gives more details about this.
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.
Then maybe Dr. Pettingrew can explain why no
hyracotherium fossils are found
in situ in rocks that date any later than the Eocene, 55 million years ago, and why no
equus fossils are found in rocks earlier than the Pliocene, 4 million years ago. I Googled his name and came up with nothing but this repeated quote on creationist sites. I’d like to see actual comments from the man himself, in context.
The eminent paleontologist also needs some spelling lessons if he is getting “Mesozoic” wrong.
As for fossil horses and their ribs you must understand something that is very basic in biology, that being the fact that living organisms of any particular species vary in their morphology (shape). For example living horses normally have 18 pairs of ribs, however occasionally horses (who are otherwise healthy) are born with either 17 or 19 pairs of ribs. This sort of thing happens with people as well. So given the fact that living horses vary in the number of pairs of ribs they have how is the fact that different fossil species vary slightly in the number of pairs of ribs they have supposed to be a problem for evolution?
Horse EvolutionMaybe you can answer the questions posed to creationists at the end of the article, which begin with: How else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils?
I thought evolution was a gaining of information not a loss?
Why should it necessarily be? Snakes evolved from species that had legs. Yet snakes do pretty well without them.
Why then would toes turn into hoofs?
Why not, if it means the animal is better adapted to its environment?
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?
Because of the geological record. You don’t find
orohippus, in situ, in strata above
equus. For me, the geological record and the sorting of fossils is some of the most compelling evidence for evolution that there is. This would also explain why the creationist leaders work so hard to try to discredit it.
