Replies

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.

Perhaps I should make my question less ambiguous, avoiding terms like "unbent" "unbranched" "unbroken" and "series" which may be subject to different interpretations and definitions.

Do you believe that there were full-size horses (over, say 50 inches tall) 50 million years ago? If not, then didn't the horse "evolve"? And if so, then are there any 50 million year old full-size horse fossils? Why not? (Perhaps the Earth isn't 50 million years old?)