You just posted a detailed desciption of horse evolution from hyracotherium to equus as an intricate, branching tree with numerous local trends in response to situational pressures here, there, and then. That's a good argument, but not for what you were doing with it.
I've noticed that a lot, lately. You guys don't even look at the stuff you grab to throw at us. At any rate, you don't know what it means.
Ok, I'll bite. Just how many 'mutants' have humans 'created' that came about from -- response to situational pressures?
Yeah... sure...
Gee, that would be easily dismissable as another example of ID, wouldn't it? After all, every experiment just proves ID. Then consider that nothing is science unless it's replicable in an experiment. Therefore, we've already got the whole experiment thing Catch-22ed if you're impressed by such semantic monkeyshines.