[DWPittelli]

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?)

[AndrewC]

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?)

Why all these questions? I already answered you on evolution by virtue of my mention of llamas and camels. What I do not believe is the Darwinian explanation.

To end the discussion I will answer your last questions definitively

1. No
2. Yes
3. See 1
4. See 2