Then you wrote: This is, of course, the same fossil record that (unmistakably) shows the mesonychus morphing into Shamu.
Note that you are again refusing to state or to deny the obvious truth that eohippus grew and became more horse-like. Although you no doubt know that eohippus is well documented with a number of intermediate steps in its growth.
post #621
Your questions are ill-formed and my response to them remains, absolutely not. If you rephrase your original question into -- Is there an "unbent" ancestral chain linking the "eohippus" fossil with the modern horse?, I would answer, I doubt it, but I do not reject it.
Looks like English to me.
I answered absolutely not. I said "questions", note the plural, and "them", again note the plural.
Here are your questions.
Yes, I agree that "eohippus was dead long before there was a horse," for the trivial reason that once the animal grew to where it is called the horse it is no longer called eohippus. But the eohippus: 1) got much larger over time in a well-represented series of fossils; and 2)eventually evolved into the horse.
You obviously deny #2 above. Do you also deny #1? (That eohippus grew several-fold?) Or is it that the little eohippi were killed first by the flood?
Clearly, I answered your growth question. Now if you can show me eohippus, and only eohippus, fossils that in a systematic and time dependent manner increase in size, I might accept your assertion. Of course that means that any fossil named other than eohippus(Hyracotherium) is not to be included in this sequence.