No. To imply that is to ignore the huge changes that occurred.
For example, you are not seeing the change from 4 toes on each front foot and 3 on the hind feet, to only one on each foot in modern horses.
[[For example, you are not seeing the change from 4 toes on each front foot and 3 on the hind feet, to only one on each foot in modern horses]]
Lol- the horse ‘evolution’ hypothesis has been already discounted by science
“even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.”
The evolution of hte horse was disproven over 40 years ago, yet sadly, many school texts still display this false account of hte horse-
“The fact geography does not rule out the possibility that the modern horse descended from Hyracotherium provides no support for the claim of universal common ancestry. Assuming that Equus descended from Hyracotherium, that is merely diversification within the family Equidae. The change from Hyracotherium to Equus is trivial compared to the changes required by the theory of universal common ancestry.” http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1c.asp
“We should also consider regulatory genes that switch other genes ‘on’ or ‘off’. That is, they control whether or not the information in a gene will be decoded, so the trait will be expressed in the creature. This would enable very rapid and ‘jumpy’ changes, which are still changes involving already created information, not generation of new information, even if latent (hidden) information was turned on. For example, horses probably have genetic information coding for extra toes, but it is switched off in most modern horses. Sometimes a horse is born today where the genes are switched on, and certainly many fossil horses also had the genes switched on. This phenomenon explains the fossil record of the horse, showing that it is variation within a kind, not evolution. It also explains why there are no transitional forms showing gradually smaller toe size” http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
“Who’s Really Pushing Bad Science?”
“However, this horse ‘series’ is constructed from a rock badger on the bottom, while the rest comprises nothing but different varieties of horses, little different in many respects from the range of sizes, toe number, etc. seen in horses living today” http://www.trueorigin.org/lerner_resp.asp
“I am not a believer in design theory because of I have a problem with humans sharing a common ancestor with chimps. This possibility really does not bother me at all. What bothers me is that I know of various functions in different creatures that are separated by large neutral gaps in function. Such neutral gaps cannot be crossed except via random drift. This drift cannot be guided by the forces of natural selection toward any particular genetic sequence over any other particular genetic sequence - be it beneficially functional or not. Such random drift simply takes too long to produce the various independent functions that we do observe in living things. It is this problem that has convinced me of the truth of design theory and of the implausibility of common decent as an overriding explanation for the huge range in life forms that we see in the natural world. A selection mechanism that is phenotypically based cannot direct neutral genotypic changes. This is my problem with the theory of evolution. I do not have a problem with the idea of the common decent of anything, but I do have a problem with the mechanisms that have been suggested as a driving force for such changes” http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/donkeyshorsesmules.html
To imply what? So you're saying that the difference between the pictured skeletal models are much more varied then all the variations of all the dogs?
For example, you are not seeing the change from 4 toes on each front foot and 3 on the hind feet, to only one on each foot in modern horses.
It is true that I did not notice the number of toe counts. But just what does that prove? Loss of information? We now have special breeds of cows who don't grow horns, and cats who don't grow hair or tails, and dogs that don't grow.
I've even heard of blind lobsters who lost the DNA needed to see because they lived so long in the dark that there was no selective pressure to favor sight.
Why couldn't a toe bone have got lost from the genes after a while? I don't see how the loss of something proves the gain of something. "Yes, boys and girls, that's how we got everything, by very slowly losing it!"
Thanks,
-Jesse