[donh]

I'd like to see some more current references to this.

First, lets see some current, or non-current references for your claim, which, being outside the realm of history as she is currently taught, requires at least a smidgen of documentation.

The data don't hold up due to the structural dis-similarity of each successive creature

More obvious horse manure. Any child can see the gross morphological continuity between the bone structures and bone relationships of just eohippus and horse--never mind anything in between.

(if you are referring to the old standard chart which has been around since the 60's, which I assume you are).

No. I am referring to the massive corroboration between various fossil finds in the geological layers they were predicted to be found in, from examining the chart in question, and the morphological flow displayed on that chart. You do not give the appearance of someone who is aware that there is some sort of scientific body of knowledge reflecting an ongoing, critical effort underlying the chart to which you refer.

[AmericanAge]

I've seen pictures of horse bones, and I've seen the drawings of Eohippus bones. They don't look at all alike. What these evolutionists do is they point at the bones and go, "you see this little ridge here? This other animal has a little ridge over here, so they must be related!" or "Look, they both have holes in somewhat close parts of their head, so they must have a common ancestor!".

I wish I could get away with that sort of nonsense. "Look at this yellowish rock. Gold is yellowish, so this is probably mostly gold!".