Page 796 - Atlas of Creation Volume 4

16. The sequential evolution of the horse is a fraud

In 1879, two well-known evolutionists of the time went even further in their activities intended to
constitute evidence for the fictitious evolution of the horse scenario, and set up the equine series that
Darwinists would maintain on the agenda for many years to come. The American fossil researcher

Othniel Charles Marsh and Thomas Huxley (known as “Darwin’s bulldog”) established a supposed
equine evolutionary series by setting out various hoofed fossils, based on the number of nails on the
front and rear feet and the structure of their teeth. One small mammal fossil, previously named
Hyracotherium by Sir Richard Owen in 1841, was renamed in such a way as to echo so-called evolution,

being given the name Eohippus, meaning “Dawn Horse.” The pair published their claims and diagrams
in the American Journal of Science, thus laying the foundations for the horses' evolutionary sequence laid
out from Eohippus to the present day in museums and text books as supposed evidence of evolution. The
main stages in this fictitious series were Eohippus, Orohippus, Miohippus, Hipparion and the present-day

Equus.
This fictitious sequence was portrayed as the greatest supposed evidence for the evolution of the
horse for the following century. The decrease in the number of toes and the regular increase in size, from
smaller to larger, was enough to convince evolutionists.

Shortly afterwards, inconsistencies within the evolutionary sequence began manifesting themselves.
New fossils were unearthed, and attempts to insert these into the false sequence presented a problem.
The trouble was that characteristics such as the fossils’ location, age and toe number formed inconsis-
tencies and impaired the series, which turned into an inconsistent and meaningless mass of fossils in the

face of these new specimens.
Many Darwinists were gradually forced to admit that the Darwinist horse evolutionary sequence
scenario was not based on any genuine evidence. In November 1980, a 4-day conference was held in the
Chicago Museum of Natural History, which was attended by 150 evolutionists, and considered the prob-

lems facing the theory of evolution. Boyce Rensberger, who spoke at the conference, described how the
horse series had no basis in the fossil record and
that no such gradual process as the evolution of
the horse ever happened:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, sug-
gesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-
toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million
years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has
long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual

change, fossils of each intermediate species appear
fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become
extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. 77

FALSE
FALSE

794 Atlas of Creation Vol. 4