Until recently, the imaginary sequence showing the supposed evolution of the horse headed the list of fossil chronologies portrayed as evidence for the theory of evolution. However, many evolutionists now openly admit that the horse-evolution scenario is a fabrication.
The equine evolution scenario was proposed on the basis of evolutionists’ imaginations with invented sequences of fossils, set out in order of size, belonging to different life forms that lived at different times in India, North America, South America and Europe. Various researchers have proposed more than 20 different equine evolution sequences. There is absolutely no consensus regarding these completely different alleged lines of descent. The only thing these sequences have in common is the belief that the first ancestor of the horse was a dog-like animal known as Eohippus (Hyracotherium) that lived in the Eocene period some 55 million years ago. In fact, however, Eohippus, which supposedly became extinct millions of years ago, is in fact identical to the animal known as the hyrax, which is still to be found in Africa today, which has nothing to do with the horse and bears no resemblance to it.
The inconsistency of the idea of equine evolution is becoming more and more apparent with every new fossil discovery. It has been established that fossils of horse breeds living today (Equus nevadensis and E. occidentalis) have been found in the same strata as Eohippus. This shows that the modern horse was living at the same time as its supposed ancestor and is therefore obvious proof that no such process as the evolution of the horse ever took place.
Boyce Rensberger, an evolutionist, addressed a conference held at the Chicago Museum of Natural History in November 1980, with the participation of 150 evolutionists at which the problems of the theory of evolution were discussed. He described how the scenario of equine evolution was unsupported by the fossil record and that no gradual equine evolution ever occurred:
The popularly-told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. 233
Some other evolutionists have also made confessions about this fact:
Gordon R. Taylor is an evolutionist author and Chief Science Advisor at BBC:
But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change. . . . The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time. 234
Dr. Colin Patterson is a famous evolutionist professor at the British Museum of Natural History):
There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit 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 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. 235
Prof. N. Heribert-Nilsson, a famous evolutionist botanist at the University of Lund in Sweden:
Prof. Dr. Ali
The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. . . . The construction of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series. 236
Stephen Jay Gould:
Prothero and Shubin conclude: “This is contrary to the widely-held myth about horse species as gradualistically varying parts of a continuum, with no real distinctions between species. Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years. At high resolution, the gradualistic picture of horse evolution becomes a complex bush of overlapping, closely related species. 237
G.G. Simpson is Professor of Zoology at Columbia University:
Perhaps the best known demonstration of an evolutionary scenario is that of the horse series displayed in school and college textbooks and in museums. These charts and displays make the theory of horse evolution very neat, seemingly historical, all cut-and-dried. Actually, there are important problems with the theory and some serious disagreement, even among evolutionary scientists. 238
Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy:
Nowhere have any intermediate forms demonstrating a transition from a five-toed ancestor to Hyracotherium (Eohippus) with four toes on its front feet and three on the back.239
233 Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15.
234 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, p. 230.
235 Colin Patterson, Harper's, February 1984, p. 60.
236 Prof. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWE Gleerup, Sweden, 1954, pp. 551-552.
237 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, “Punctuated Equilibrium Comes of Age,” Nature, Vol. 336 (18 November 1993), p. 226.
238 Simpson, G.G., Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p. 167.
239 Ali Demirsoy, Kalıtım ve Evrim [Inheritance and Evolution], p. 37.
This sites is based on the works of Harun Yahya