Page 180 - Once Upon a Time There Was Darwinism

Once Upon a Time
There Was Darwinism

The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous
only in the textbooks. In the reality provided by the results of re-
search it is put together from three parts, of which only the last can
be described as including horses. The forms of the first part are just
as much little horses as the present day damans are horses. The con-
struction of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put to-
gether from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a
continuous transformation series. 124
Today, even many evolutionists reject the thesis that horses
went through a gradual evolution. In November, 1980, a four-day
symposium was held at the Field Museum of Natural History in
Chicago attended by 150 evolutionists. It dealt with the problems as-
sociated with the theory of a gradual evolution. A speaker, the evo-
lutionist Boyce Rensberger, told that there was no proof in the fossil
record for the scenario of the gradual evolution of the horse, and that

there never was any such process:
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual
sequence of changes from four-toed, or fox-like creatures, living nearly
50 million years ago, to today's much larger one-toe horse, has long
been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each in-
termediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then
become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. 125

From the statements of Taylor, Nilsson and Rensberger, we can
understand that there is no scientific support for the supposed evo-
lution of horses, and that the sequence is full of contradictions. So, if
there is no proof for the horse series, what is it based on? The an-
swer is evident: As with all other Darwinist scenarios, the
horse series is imaginary; evolutionists assembled

some fossils according to their own preconcep-

178