Proof of Evolution or Forgery?

Question

1 - THE HORSE SERIES
30 DIFFERENT HORSES—In the 1870s, *Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds of horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged these fossils in an evolutionary series, and they were put on display at Yale University. Copies of this "horse series" are to be found in many museums in the United States and overseas. Visually, it looks convincing.
"Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development."—*World Book Encyclopedia (1982 ed.), p. 333.
"The development of the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the evolution of living things."—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.

FIFTEEN FLAWS IN THE SERIES—When we investigate this so-called "horse series" carefully, we come upon 14 distinct problems that negate the possibility that we have here a genuine series of evolved horses. We discover that the evolutionists have merely selected a variety of different size animals, arranged them from small to large, and then called it all "a horse series."
1 - Different animals in each series. In the horse-series exhibit we see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from museum to museum (according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to portray "early horses"). There are over 20 different fossil horse series exhibits in the museums—with no two exactly alike! The experts select from bones of smaller animals and place them to the left of bones of modern horses, and, presto! another horse series!

2 - Imaginary, not real. The sequence from small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three.
3 - Number of rib bones. The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs; the next creature has 19; there is a jump to 15; and finally back to 18 for Equus, the modern horse.
4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types of teeth between these two basic types. of teeth between these two basic types.
5 - Not from in-order strata. The "horse" creatures do not come from the "proper" lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the smallest "horse" is found in the highest strata.)
6 - Calling a badger a horse. The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium,

The list is long.
Visit this site:
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c17.htm

Answer 1

I agree...preaqch it

Answer 2

Most of the lines died out. This is a big problem in sorting out fossils of extinct creatures. None of the fossils found in the Americas led to the modern horse which was introduced by the Spaniards. Museum displays are based on real fossils, but some are dead end offshoots -- branches not it the direct line. The fossil record shows an ongoing process of development. Trying to pick the order in which features developed is an arduous task since there was so much variation that was eventually selected out. It's a big leap from dilemma to disproof, but Creationists will ignore any facts that get in their way.

Answer 3

I don't care which way people believe, and I agree that there are many forgeries out there. But one thing that just came to mind to consider: during the biblical time of Noah, there were not nearly as many different species of animals on this planet. So if you believe he brought two of everything there was at the time, where did all these other versions come from? Especially the ones we have just discovered, at the bottom of the ocean for example? Did he pick up the microorganisms that now live in grass and plants and put them on the ship? Just something for you to think about.

Answer 4

For a commence do no longer enable them to outline evolution for you, in any different case they'd outline it so loosely it is going to be unable to be refuted. e.g. the definition evolution is a metamorphosis in allele frequency in a inhabitants over the years. This describes a small area of evolution yet even Creationists agree that allele frequencies can replace! choose for definitions via evolutionists at the same time with Kerkut or Coyne. ‘popular concept of Evolution’ is the thought that each and all the residing varieties interior the worldwide have arisen from a single source which itself got here from an inorganic type. (Kerkut) [a million] n essence, the famous concept of evolution is user-friendly to charm to close. that's summarized in one (albeit slightly long) sentence: existence on earth developed progressively beginning with one primitive species—according to risk a self-replicating molecule—that lived greater desirable than 3.5 billion years in the past; it then branched out over the years, throwing off many new and distinctive species; and the mechanism for many (yet no longer all) of evolutionary replace is organic determination. [Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is genuine, 2009, internet site 3] you will come across a great style of scientific arguments against evolution at [2]

Answer 5

Sorry, just because there are some questions, doesn't mean it isn't real. The majority of the scientific community can agree that the horse fossil record does show evoluiton. They disagree with some of the exact species paths, or who evolved into what, but it is showing evolution. This is so well accepted, that Wikipedia assumes it to be fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Answer 6

Your point being?
Oh, right you don't have one.
You DO realize that forensic science, osteology and paleontology have come a long way since the 1870's right?
Science is self correcting, these mistakes have been corrected and won't be made again.
Unlike creationists who make the same mistakes over and over again by pointing them out and refusing to understand how the scientific process works.
But hey, if you're happier mired in ignorance, by all means stay there...

P.S. that website is one of the funniest sites I've read in a LONG time.
It's a shame the people who wrote it don't know thier backsides from a hot rock when it comes to science. But morons like yourself will read and think this drivel is real and nod like brainless sheep.
It's really pathetic...

Answer 7

Correct, the creationists have hit on something, something the secular scientist don't want to see, or are part of a conspiracy and actively covering it up!

The truth is this, we didn't arrive on this planet until august 2, 1886, and everything predating that is a carefully created forgery, in order to give a false sense of history. The mothership left us here!

Answer 8

It's funny how Creationists keep trying to poke holes (unsucessfully) in evolution, instead of putting forward their superior evidence to support their own theory. Oh, but wait. They don't HAVE evidence to support Creationism. Creationism isn't even a theory. It's not well-defined and not testable.

Answer 9

i answered the question you posted earlier with this
buy a MODERN BIOLOGY BOOK AND READ IT
science has made amazing advances in the area of genetics and there is no longer any doubt whatsoever in the scientific community about the existence of evolutionary traits in lifeforms.
but now i see that you are determined to remain stubborn and ignorant. please enjoy your life

Answer 10

Why is this in the religion section?

Answer 11

Yes - no wait, no.

um, I don't want to read all that junk.

FP