The Horse Series is Bad Evolution, of Course, of Course

Out at the Darwin Ranch, Russell Watchtower of the Ministry of Truth and his pal Al Buehterawl were a mite giddy. Word has it that they were all excited about a new report on the horse evolution. Although the horse series has been touted as one of the best examples of evolution, it is full of difficulties.

The flimsy story is something that biblical creationists have been using for many years as an example of interpreting data from a fundamentally-flawed presupposition, ignoring other possibilities for observed data, and just bad logic. But those old boys are thrilled that the mystery of the disappearing toes has been solved.

Horse hoof, Pexels / Barbara Olsen

Darwin's disciples selected candidates for the horse lineage from (among other things) size. They also claim that over time, the toes on the critters reduced until we have the single hoofed animal we see today. That has been a problem. Some evolutionists think that all four toes are still present, but vestigial. Hail Darwin, blessed be! Well, restrain your equines. Some other evolutionists think this idea is nonsense. Also, there are still insurmountable problems for the whole shootin' match.

The ‘horse series’ icon of evolution has been one of the most commonly cited “proofs” of evolution for over 150 years. Its importance is illustrated by the fact that “apart from human evolution, horse evolution represents the only “classic” example [of the evolution of] mammals.” Furthermore, the evidence for the horse’s alleged development through supposed evolutionary time has been primarily based on a reduction in the number of its toes, so. . .

To read the rest, mount up and ride over to "Do Horse Toes Support Evolution?"