Download September 2008 PDF - The Institute for Creation Research

BACK TO GENESISHyracotherium illustration © Joe Tucciarone. Used by permission.The MYTHICALHorse SeriesJ O H N D . M O R R I S , P h.D.Horse evolution prominentlyappears in textbooks as a supremeexample of the evolutionof one body style intoanother. All students remember the “horseseries” sketches, tracing the development of asmall browser named Hyracotherium (formerlyknown as Eohippus) with four toes on thefront feet and three on the rear, into the largeone-toed horse of today. Intermediate steps includedthe three-toed Mesohippus, a modifiedhorse with one toe touching the ground; theone-toed Merychippus; Pliohippus, also withonly one toe; and finally our modern horse,Equus, who along the way had acquired highcrownedmolars and other adaptations.Of course, modern horses exist in greatvariety, with many unusual adaptations thatallow them to cope with widely varied environments.Numerous species are recognized,almost all of which are known to hybridize.Obviously, there is a great deal of latitude inhorse characteristics. Furthermore, variousstrains can be bred to accentuate one trait, suchas the tiny horses about as large as a dog. Horsesdisplay a great deal of adaptability.Early evolutionary theories hypothesizedprogress in a direct line from one type to another,and fossils were displayed within that framework.In recent decades, this view of directedevolution has been generally disavowed, andno particular form is now considered to havebeen the goal of “non-directed” mutation andnatural selection. Once free to examine the datawithout this “directed” overprint, evolutionaryscientists were quick to recognize that changesamong horses had been abundant, extensive,and unpredictable.There are some things to note, however.During the same time period that some of thedescendants of Hyracotherium supposedly developedinto full-blown horses and elephants andother mammals, others persisted unchanged.It seems that evolution does not always changethings—often it leaves them alone. Selectionpressures that acted so strongly to produce majormodifications in some life forms left othersin stasis. Their fossils are found in the same strataintervals, so they must have lived in the same environment.Evolution apparently does not applyacross the board. If a theory can accommodateany possibility, it is a weak concept indeed.It is now acknowledged that horse evolutionas recorded in the fossils follows no recognizablepattern, and that the evolutionary “tree”looks more like a multi-branching “bush.” Thesuccessive forms indicating straight-line evolutionappear only in textbooks; they do not appearin the fossils. Sometimes fossils of differenttypes that supposedly lived at different timesappear together in the same strata layer. In Oregon,the three-toed grazer Neohipparion (verymuch like Merychippus) has been found withPliohippus. In the Great Basin area, Pliohippushas been found with the three-toed Hipparionthroughout the timeframe supposedly represented.Evolutionary scientists freely admit thissituation—and to their credit often attempt tocorrect the misconceptions—but still the horseseries appears in the textbooks.Any three fossils can be placed in a lineand an evolutionary story can be told aboutthe transformation of one into the other. Anda different story could be told if the fossils werearranged in a different order.It is interesting to note that Hyracotheriumwas so named because its specimens lookedsimilar to the hyrax. This little “rock badger” canbe seen alive in many zoos, complete with aninterpretive sign listing its varied evolutionaryantecedents. It looks very, very different froma horse, but most of its reputed predecessorscould possibly be true variants of the horse. Ifyou took the tiny three-toed ones out of the lineup,then the fossils would fit the creation picture,showing variety within a created kind.Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.SEPTEMBER 2008 • ACTS&FACTS13