dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (02/21/85)
This is part 3 of my response to Bill Jefferys' reply to SOR #4.
------------------------------
>> [Ray Miller]
>> The famous horse series is often found in museums as one of the classic
>>cases of evolution. However, the observer is not usually told that: all of the
>>various forms appear suddenly in the fossil record, the presumed reduction in
>>the number of toes has many contradictions in order, Eohippus is almost identi-
>>cal to the living African hyrax, and that modern horses have been found in the
>>same strata with their supposed ancestors. In fact, as more fossil evidence is
>>collected, it becomes clear that all of these various animals did not evolve,
>>but were merely contemporaries of each other.
> [Bill Jefferys]
> Of course, Ray *has* to say this. But saying it doesn't make it true.
> See Futuyama's book, pp. 85-95, for a detailed, step-by-step description
> of the evolution of the horse. Chris McGowan, in *In the Beginning...* devotes
> Chapter 13 to this subject. Ray claims that all these species were
> contemporaries of each other. The facts: Eohippus is found in the Eocene,
> Mesohippus in the Ogliocene, Parahippus in the Miocene, Pliohippus in the
> Pliocene, and Equus (modern horse) does not arise until the late Pliocene.
The facts. As if there were any agreement on the horse, and as if the
consensus were not as ephemeral as for Archaeopteryx.
Here are examples of the two points of view:
i) "For although good examples of slow, progressive change from an
ancestor into its descendants are few and far between, nonetheless the
fossil record is full of examples of progressive change. Horses, to
take but one, got larger, lost the side toes on their feet, and evolved
progressively larger and more complicated teeth (for grazing)".
ii) "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than
others ... the most famous example, still on exhibit [at the American
Museum of Natural History] downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution
prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the
literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is
lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of
stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of
that stuff".
So here we have the two sides of the issue. The interesting thing is
that they are both by the same author, Niles Eldredge [1982, p. 75 ;
Bethell, 1985, p. 60, respectively].
Hitching [1982] comments:
(i) No series of horse fossils is complete anywhere in the world. To
move up in a complete series requires that one bounce from continent to
continent. Even if one accepts this, the number of fossils and the
relative ordering is subject to a good deal of dispute.
(ii) The first horse (Eohippus) didn't look much like one - in fact it
looks a lot more like an animal that lives *today* - the Hyrax (or
daman). Also, Eohippus fossils have been found alongside two modern
horses (Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis) in surface strata.
(iii) Trends are not so pretty as often depicted. The first three horse
fossils (Eohippus, Orohippus, Epihippus) decline (not increase) in size.
The sequence from many toes to one toe is similarly irregular - replete
with regressions and contradictions.
As many authors quote, "[t]he evolution of the horse provides one of the
keystones in the teachings of evolutionary doctrine, though the actual
story depends to a large extent upon who is telling it and when the
story is being told" [Kerkut, p. 144]. Kerkut also reports that studies
of the skulls of early horses show their brains to be smooth.
Davidheiser notes [pp. 325-326]: "The brains of living horses are
highly convoluted. Therefore, evolutionists who believe that only
modern horses (including zebras, etc.) evolved from these 'early horses'
must logically admit that any similarity between the convolutions of the
brains of horses and of other animals is coincidental or a case of
'parallelism'. For example, Sisson and Grossman in their book _The
Anatomy of Domestic Animals_, diagram and describe the brains of the
horse and cow. Of fourteen fissures named, all but two have the same
name in both horse and cow and correspond in location. The other two
also correspond in location but are given different names."
---
References
[1] Tom Bethell, "Agnostic Evolutionists". Harper's, 270(1617),
February 1985, 49-61 (quoting Eldredge).
[2] Bolton Davidheiser, "Evolution and Christian Faith".
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, Phillipsburg, N J, 1969.
[3] Niles Eldredge, "The Monkey Business". Washington Square Press,
New York, 1982.
[4] Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe". New American
Library (Mentor), New York, 1982.
[5] G A Kerkut, "Implications of Evolution". Pergamon Press, New
York, 1960.
--
Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois |
--+--
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but |
the honor of kings is to search out a matter" |
Proverbs 25:2friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/26/85)
In article <733@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >> Chapter 13 to this subject. Ray claims that all these species were >> contemporaries of each other. The facts: Eohippus is found in the Eocene, >> Mesohippus in the Ogliocene, Parahippus in the Miocene, Pliohippus in the >> Pliocene, and Equus (modern horse) does not arise until the late Pliocene. > > >Hitching [1982] comments: > >(ii) The first horse (Eohippus) didn't look much like one - in fact it >looks a lot more like an animal that lives *today* - the Hyrax (or >daman). Also, Eohippus fossils have been found alongside two modern >horses (Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis) in surface strata. > Exactly as expected under evolutionary theory! the first of a series of intermediates will *natuallly* resemble the source group more than the end group! All this says is that the Hyrax is a modern member of the horse ancestral group. It is also perfectly acceptible for an ancestral form to continue along side of its decendants. The only evidence which would contradict the basic series is for a modern horse(Equus) to be found in Eocene sediments. Also has the possibility of "reworked" fossils been ruled out in the "modern" Eohippus specimens. >(iii) Trends are not so pretty as often depicted. The first three horse >fossils (Eohippus, Orohippus, Epihippus) decline (not increase) in size. >The sequence from many toes to one toe is similarly irregular - replete >with regressions and contradictions. > Again, *exactly* as expected!! Evolution is based on direct natural selection, thus at any given time it procedes in the direction appropriate to the immediate environment, there is *no* mechanism for anticipation or long term co-ordination. Trends are nothing more than time averages of succesive short term changes, and mainly indicate consistant environmental change over time. > >Davidheiser notes [pp. 325-326]: "The brains of living horses are >highly convoluted. Therefore, evolutionists who believe that only >modern horses (including zebras, etc.) evolved from these 'early horses' >must logically admit that any similarity between the convolutions of the >brains of horses and of other animals is coincidental or a case of >'parallelism'. For example, Sisson and Grossman in their book _The >Anatomy of Domestic Animals_, diagram and describe the brains of the >horse and cow. Of fourteen fissures named, all but two have the same >name in both horse and cow and correspond in location. The other two >also correspond in location but are given different names." > You forgot an alternative, the convolutions could be inherited from a common ancestor, perhaps the basic pattern of brain convolutions was established *before* the split between horse and cow. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen