Page 541 - Atlas of Creation Volume 3

Harun Yahya

have a critical influence on these animals' movement and even their lives. Logically, a species whose vital
structures undergo random variations clearly cannot perpetuate itself.
A final inconsistency in the horse series is the evolutionist assumption that an observed increase in a

creature's size represents evolutionary "progress." Looking at the size of modern-day horses, we can see
that this makes no sense. The largest modern-day horse is the Clydesdale, and the smallest is the Fallabella,
only 43 centimeters high. 134 Despite the large variations in size in today's horses, evolutionists' past at-
tempts to sequence horses according to their size was foolish indeed.
In short, the whole horse series is clearly an evolutionist myth based on prejudice. It has been left to

the evolutionist paleontologists—the silent witnesses of
Darwinism's collapse—to make this known. Since Darwin's
time, they have known that there were no fossil layers of in-
termediate forms. In 2001, Ernst Mayr said, "Nothing has

more impressed the paleontologists than the discontinuous nature
of the fossil record," 135 expressing the longstanding disap-
pointment among paleontologists that the countless inter-
mediate forms that Darwin envisioned have never been

found.
Perhaps for this reason, paleontologists have been speak-
ing for decades about the invalidity of the horse series, even

though other evolutionists continue to defend it avidly. In
1979, for example, David Raup said that the horse series
was totally meaningless and invalid:

The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironi-
cally, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition

than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that the classic cases of Darwinian
change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America,
have had to be modified or discarded 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 less gradualistic. So Darwin's

problem has not been alleviated. 136

About 20 years ago, an evolutionist paleontologist Dr. Niles Eldredge from one
of the world's most famous museums, the American Museum of Natural History,
confessed that evolutionist claims about the horse series diagrams displayed in his
own museum were imaginary. Eldredge criticized assertions that this speculative se-

ries was valid enough to be included in textbooks.

I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For in-
stance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs is the exhibit on horse evolution
prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after text-
book. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these

kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. 137

These comments from experts clearly show that assertions about the horse series are
unsubstantiated. Even today, however, museums around the world exhibit the horse se-
ries and tell visitors the tale that horses are an evolved species. Ironically, one of the
gravest errors in scientific history is displayed in buildings intended to acquaint people
with real science and raise their appreciation of its accuracy. What visitors see there is just

a Darwinist myth that was discredited decades ago.

Adnan Oktar 539