Ever hear of eohippus?
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clear up another evolutionist lie. Eohippus is also known by the name of hyracotherium, and for good reason. Hyrocotherium was the name given to it by its discoverer. Reason he gave it that name is that it most clearly resembled an animal from a totally different genus than the horse - the hyrax:
* Totally unlike modern horses, both morphologically and in habitat. Some scientists believe that Hyracotherium is simply an extinct subspecies of Hyrax. Robert Owen named the first specimen "Hyracotherium" because of its resemblance to the genus Hyra x (cony). When the error margin is taken into account for fleshing out the skeleton of Hyracotherium (left top) into a fleshed out photo (left middle), it becomes almost identical to the modern Hyrax. (Even closer than pictured (left middle). Some evolutionists draw Hyracotherium as looking like a mini horse. This is way outside the error margin of the bone to fur guess.
* Arched back that stood about 16 inches to the soldier about the size of a fox terrier
* Had 18 pairs of ribs with short neck, snout & legs and a long tail.
* Each toe has a pad like dogs. Three toes on hind feet, four on front feet with a shorter leg/longer head to body ratio compared to horses. Tiny stubs (vestiges) of the 1st and 2nd toes.
* Major bones not fused, legs both flexible and rotatable
* Short face, with eye sockets in the middle and a short diastema (the space between front and cheek teeth).
* Low-crowned teeth unlike horses and more teeth than horses. Teeth sets: 1 canine, 3 incisors, 4 premolars, 3 grinding molars in each side of each jaw. Teeth of a typical omnivorous browser.
From: Textbook Fraud where you can see plenty of pictures, bones, and scientific testimony showing that this was not a horse.
Seems that the evolutionists, in their total desperation to give evidence for what there is no evidence committed another one of their paleontological frauds, 'borrowing' bones from one species to use in another to prove their point. One has to wonder what kind of scientists, what kind of scientific theory this evolution is that it needs to perpetrate so many frauds.
Seems that the evolutionists, in their total desperation to give evidence for what there is no evidence committed another one of their paleontological frauds, 'borrowing' bones from one species to use in another to prove their point.
I've heard a lot about eohippus and how it's the best or one of the best examples of evolution. After reading quite a few articles on this topic I can't believe the eohippus is one of the best examples of evolution. The eohippus appears to be just another fraud. Strong words, yet how else can it be described after looking at the available evidence?
What I find so disturbing is that there are some genuine and intelligent folks here that think evolution is a solid interpretation of the evidence; yet when you start looking at the individual cases that support the theory, you have to shake your head in amazement and wonder, why do folks believe in evolution? Some might say you have to connect the dots, yet the dots aren't even dots, they're scattered pieces of unrelated evidence. As usual, I'm sure someone is going to come along and try to change the subject here where objectivity and context are key.
Do the evolutionists have a better example of evolution than the apparent eohippus fraud?