Is it true that there is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen?

Answer 1

One site? Like a single riverbank where horses and their ancestors all grazed for 55 million years? Not very likely.

There is nothing in evolutionary theory that says that *any* species must remain in the same location for even a hundred years, much less millions of years.

But a species like a horse (and its ancestors), where its main adaptation for survival is *mobility*? Not very likely.

This page is an excellent outline of the evolution of the horse.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

An important point to note is the diagram in section
"II. Timescale and Horse Family Tree"

Notice that, like any segment of evolutionary history, the diagram is not a linear "succession" but a constantly branching *tree*. This is one reason you would not expect a *single site* to have representatives of *all* these species ... or continuous unbroken line from Hyracotherium to modern Equus ... 55 million years of a continuous line of ancestors living in the same exact location. Anyone who suggests that it should is either lying to you, or has no concept at all of how evolution works.

Answer 2

There is nowhere at all that the alleged evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen - except in evolutionary textbooks.

In fact the popular succession is known to be false, but suits the purposes of those who wish to promote evolution.

It is *bad* science.

For the last century or so, this fine animal has been put to a more unfortunate use. Its alleged ancestry has been used as one of the key ‘proofs’ of evolution. It started in 1879 with the American paleontologist O.C. Marsh and the famous evolutionist T.H. Huxley, known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog.’ Since then, many museums and popular books have presented a neat series starting from the dog-sized, four-toed ‘dawn horse’ or ‘Eohippus,’ which supposedly lived 50 million years ago. The next creature is usually a larger creature like Mesohippus, which had three toes. The next one was larger still, for example Merychippus, which had two of the toes smaller than the third. Finally, there is the large modern horse, Equus, with only one toe, while all that is left of the other two are ‘vestigial’ splint bones.3 Some of the diagrams also show trends in tooth changes, with increasing hypsodonty (high-crowned teeth). This is supposed to demonstrate a change from browsing on bushes to grazing on grass.

As the biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks,’4 and the famous paleontologist Niles Eldredge called the textbook picture ‘lamentable’5 and ‘a classical case of paleontologic museology.’6 As shown in a detailed thesis by Walter Barnhart,7 the horse ‘series’ is an interpretation of the data. He documents how different pictures of horse evolution were drawn by different evolutionists from the same data, as the concept of evolution itself ‘evolved.’

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/308/

Answer 3

It might well be true, and this is entirely what you would expect from the evolutionary process.
If you have an animal suited to a particular environment, then it will not change as long as the environment remains the same.
If the animal moves to a slightly different environment, it may well change.
If the environment itself changes, the animal may adapt.
Migration and movement of animals is a lot more common than wholesale environmental change. It makes sense to imagine migration of parts of populations, which then change gradually.
Wholesale environmental change is also recorded, but this is probably a lot less frequent.

Answer 4

Yes

Answer 5

I take it that you don't mean a museum. Many of them have a good display of fossils or models illustrating the succession.

Answer 6

horses evolved on more than one continent (that is they moved about). So it is true.