"Horse Evolution"
Kathleen Hunt begins her "FAQ" on Horse
Evolution by apologising for its length, because, she says, 'horse evolution has
been oversimplified too many times already.'
Hunt then proceeds to oversimplify the evidence
in exactly the same way that it has been oversimplified for the past fifty
years, in that she merely asserts that fossil specimens are related while
neglecting to produce the scientific evidence that connects them.
Disappointingly, she also recycles the same distortions of scientific fact and
scientific urban myths that have been practised over the decades too.
The first major popular publication on horse
fossils was the 1951 book entitled simply 'Horses' published by George Simpson,
professor of palaeontology at Harvard. In his book, Simpson presented a chart of
horse evolution, versions of which have been endlessly reproduced in textbooks,
encyclopaedias and museum publications ever since. (You can view Simpson's chart
here).
Simpson and his contemporaries were convinced
that the horse fossils were the 'killer' evidence that biology had been seeking
that would prove Darwinism once and for all. His triumphal tone is evident from
his book where he wrote,
'The history of the horse family is still one
of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have
evolved...'
and
'There really is no point nowadays in
continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or
not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the
affirmative.'
This air of certainty remains today, for Kathleen
Hunt summarises horse evolution in similar words as follows; 'For many people
the horse family remains the classic example of evolution. As more and more
horse fossils have been found, some ideas about horse evolution have changed,
but the horse family remains a good example of evolution. In fact, we now have
enough fossils of enough species in enough genera to examine subtle details of
evolutionary change, such as modes of speciation.'
Hunt, too, gives a chart, similar in essentials
to Simpson's, but updated to take account of more recent discoveries. (Hunt's
chart can be viewed here). In its most important details it presents the same
overall picture as Simpson's.
However, there are also some important facts
about which both Simpson and Hunt neglect to inform their readers -- some 'gaps'
in the story of horse evolution which I shall fill in here.
First, notice that the charts both begin with
Hyracotherium (also known as Eohippus) an animal the size of a dog with four
toes (like a dog) and teeth suited to browsing on trees. There are no horses or
any other animals shown before Hyracotherium. This is no mere convenience or
coincidence. The reason no previous fossils are shown on the chart is because
none has been found. In other words, there is an important gap in the horse
fossil record right at the beginning of the chart. But there are other
gaps that are not shown, too.
As you go up Hunt's chart, it depicts an unbroken
line of descent, through Orohipuus, to Epihippus, (which were physiologically
almost identical) to Mesohippus, the first significantly different creature. Any
reasonable person will assume that, as no gaps are shown, then none exist.
Mesohippus was the size of a sheep, had only
three toes, and had a mouthful of grinding teeth for grazing, rather than
browsing leaves.
Hunt says, 'Mesohippus celer appears suddenly in
the late Eocene approximately 40 million years ago (such sudden speciations can
occur when a population encounters new selective forces and/or becomes isolated
from the parent species . . .)'
demo de forex
However, Hunt does not tell us what it
is, scientifically, that connects Hyracotherium and Mesohippus. It is not an
unbroken line of gradually changing fossils in the intermediate strata as
suggested in the charts; it is not DNA analysis because no DNA remains; so what
is it, exactly? The answer is that the connection is in Kathleen Hunt's mind.
She believes in Darwinian evolution; Mesohippus fossils were found in strata
that are younger than those in which Hyracotherium were found. They have a
general resemblance. Therefore, Hunt says, the later fossils are those of a
creature that must have descended from the earlier one.
What, I wonder would a genuinely objective
scientist have to say about these fossils? I think he or she would say, 'There
is nothing scientifically linking these fossils, apart from some similarities
(and some differences) in their anatomy. Therefore, we are unable to say,
scientifically, what relationship, if any, there is between them. They might be
related. Then again they might not.' To link them merely because you happen to
believe in the theory of Darwinism, is not a scientific action but an act of
faith which has no place in a FAQ that purports to present scientific evidence in
support of Darwinism.
What is true for the gap between Hyracotherium
and Mesohippus applies with equal force to the gap between Mesohippus and
Miohippus and between Miohippus and its claimed descendants.
Once again, there are suggestive anatomical
similarities (but also anatomical differences) which, by themselves, provide no
scientific link. There is no direct, conclusive chain of fossil evidence (indeed
there are major discontinuities in the geological sequence which make such a
chain impossible) and DNA comparisons are not possible. So, once again, the
question for Kathleen Hunt is: what scientifically connects these fossils, apart
from her theory?
Notice also that in her explanation of horse
evolution, Hunt makes frequent references to the phenomenon of 'speciation'.
This is hardy surprising since Darwinist ideas are fundamentally and
inextricably linked with the idea that one species can turn into another.
Unfortunately, however, this is merely another example of Hunt employing an
undefined term that is unsupported by scientific evidence. As shown on the
previous page, the talk-origins "FAQ" on speciation does not contain a
single valid example of any such process and 'speciation' is another empty
Darwinist term with no scientific content.
If Kathleen Hunt wishes to prove that
horses have evolved she must first prove that speciation takes place, not
merely assert it in passing because it happens to be one of Darwinism's articles
of faith.
At the end of her paper, Kathleen Hunt throws
down a challenge. She says 'A question for creationists: creationists who wish
to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful [sic] consider this: how
else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists
insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been
found) again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be
explained?
I am not a creationist so I won’t try to offer
a creationist's answer. But I will offer Kathleen Hunt a scientific answer. I
answer her challenge very simply: I explain the fossils by
recognising that the word 'sequence' which she uses twice is nothing more than a
subjective value judgement on her part and is not supported by any strong direct
evidence.
Once she recognises that simple fact, she will
not have to convert to creationism to realise the error of her conclusion,
merely convert to becoming a scientist.
In one sense, I strongly sympathise with Kathleen
Hunt and all the other scientific rationalists who say, in effect, 'How else can
it have happened? It must have been like this. There's no other
reasonable explanation'.
The trouble with this statement is that it is
emphatically not a scientific statement. It is reminiscent of Antoine Lavoisier
telling the Academie des Sciences, 'Gentlemen, stones cannot fall from the sky,
because there are no stones in the sky.' In other words her anguished
challenge is nothing more than an expression of our current state of ignorance
in evolutionary biology.
I could have forgiven Kathleen Hunt for
preferring what appears to be the rational theory, had it not been for her
casual falsification and misrepresentation of the scientific facts in the name
of compiling a "FAQ". There is NO scientific evidence at all that the
fossils found are connected in a SEQUENCE except a general anatomical
resemblance which, scientifically, is almost trivial. And there are no valid
examples known of SPECIATION, but there is plenty of scientific evidence of
genetic homeostasis -- a natural tendency of species to resist change and to
become sterile when put under pressure to inbreed.
It is important to understand that, from a
strictly scientific standpoint, there is no reason why horses should not have
evolved pretty much as Hunt and her fellow Darwinists believe. the problem is
that -- also from a strictly scientific viewpoint -- there is no strong direct
evidence to support that belief. It is therefore nothing more than an act of
faith, a religious conviction, on the part of Kathleen Hunt and others.
Hunt ends her paper by quoting some distinguished
scientific authorities on horse fossils and their significance for evolution
theory. She quotes MacFadden as saying ' . . . fossil horses do indeed provide
compelling evidence in support of evolutionary theory.'
I agree with every word of MacFadden's -- except
one. The word 'compelling'. Compelling evidence is evidence that you have no
alternative but to accept. I am compelled to accept that there are fish in the
sea. I am not compelled to accept that there is water on Mars -- there might be
and then again there might not be. Only a manned Mars mission can tell for sure.
There is weak circumstantial evidence that horses
may have evolved in the way Hunt describes. But then again they might not have
evolved that way -- and it is quite wrong of Hunt and other Darwinists to
pretend that the evidence is 'compelling' or even that it is strong, simply as a
way of bolstering their floundering theory.
Anyone who wishes to take a genuinely objective
andminded view of the horse fossils should bear in mind that they
represent nothing more than weak circumstantial evidence and that there is no
direct scientific evidence to connect them other than an attractive theory that
its adherents have been trying unsuccessfully to find evidence in support of for
almost a century and a half.
Conclusion
My recommendation to those responsible for
maintaining the talk-origins "FAQ":
This "FAQ" should be handed back to
Kathleen Hunt and she should be asked to eliminate her personal beliefs and
substitute scientific facts instead. For example, she should eliminate undefined
prejudicial terms such as 'sequence' when this is the very matter she has to
prove.
Second she should be asked to replace assertions
with proof. For example, if Miohippus is a descendant of Hyracotherium as Hunt
asserts, then she should present us with the evidence of what it is that
connects them scientifically and how this evidence proves their relationship.
She should explain the strength of this evidence.
For example, morphological resemblance between fossils in a geologically broken
sequence is weak circumstantial evidence.
She should do this for all the other fossils that
she says are related. Whatever is left after this process, that is the sum total
of scientific knowledge on the evolution of horses.
