Since I started this website, I have wanted to write an article on the horse as a “perfect example” of evolution. Over the countless years that I have read nonfiction horse books, I’ve yet to come across one that did NOT have the evolutionary timeline of the small, dog-like Eohippus to the big strong horse we have today. For years, as a girl growing up in a Christian home, I thought it was perfectly ridiculous. How could anyone see the similarities between that ugly creature and the glorious horse?
But, as I got older, I began to investigate the theories of this evolution, and the creationist explanations, sort of as a way to have a reason that I believe what I believe. And as I did I came across a LOT of hate in the horse community between evolutionists and creationists.
Which scared me out of writing this article for a while. After all, this website isn’t made to become a hate wagon– it’s supposed to be a community for horseless horse lovers.
But, at the same time, I am still a Christian! And as a Christian and a horse lover, I think it would be wrong to never talk about the facts against the evolution of horses.
PLEASE NOTE: I am not a scientist. I am not trying to be controversial. The point of this article is to round up and summarize my findings in the argument between evolution and creationism, specifically for horses. I will provide links to my source materials at the bottom for you to see for yourself. I’m basing my opinions/observations from a worldview that says that horses were created on the sixth literal day of creation, along with humans and other land animals, and that while yes, they possess the genetic capability to produce many kinds (as in microevolution), they do NOT have the genetic capability to produce entirely different CREATURES (macroevolution). All comments with links are automatically deleted by my anti-spam software, but if you want to name an article or paper that definitely disproves any of my points in this article, I’d love to read it! But any hateful or bullying comments that result will be deleted. I did not create this post to be a hate wagon– I created this for discussion.
With that being said, let’s dive into the article!
#1 The Fossil Layers
One of the most interesting (and I’ll admit, humorous) parts of my findings was the fact that most of the bones found for many of the “early” forms were found in surface levels of rock, not in the lower layers, often right next to modern horse bones. Also many of these fossils are scattered pieces from continents around the globe, never found in the same sequence. Why? According to the evolutionary fossil record, Eohippus wouldn’t be next to Equus. In Nebraska, they found five different species supposedly millions of years apart in the same fossil bed. How?
Some people claim that creationists always argue for “more transitional species”. True, we do. But how can any of these be considered separate species if they break the rules of fossil layers? I’ve yet to find a logical reasoning from an evolutionary standpoint for this.
#2 Toes, Ribs, Chestnuts, and Ergots
Guys. There is so much hate speech around this part of the evolution vs creationism argument, it’s scary.
The claim is that Eohippus had 3 and 4 toes (kind of like the equid’s other taxonomic Family members, the rhinos and elephants), that slowly dwindled down over time to one toe because “they didn’t need it”. Evidence of these leftovers is found in the chestnuts and ergots.
I see no benefit in losing toes. And how can we be one hundred percent sure that those ARE horse fossils? Obviously there is no DNA left to test whether these are even genetically related to the horse. It could be from a different animal entirely.
As for chestnuts and ergots being evidence… I find that flimsy, since some horses don’t have them at all, or they only have a few. And just because we great magnificent humans don’t see a reason for them doesn’t mean that there is no purpose overall. Think about the appendix! A lot of people assumed it was a useless organ, and now there is evidence that it helps with immune function. Maybe there is a purpose for ergots and chestnuts in the horse’s world of communication and locomotion that we will never discover simply because we are not horses.
As for ribs… my mind is not made up about this. The variation of ribs is so odd. Here is a question: most people say that the Mongolian horse is an excellent example of what early ancient modern horses looked like. If that is so, why doesn’t it have less ribs like the Arabian (and earlier evolutionary variants)?
#3 Some Evolutionary Scientists Even Say There Needs to Be More Evidence
The original diagram for this timeline (the one that we see in most textbooks) was rejected by other scientists, calling it inconclusive. Even modern-day scientists agree that there are a lot of gaps in the theories. So why then do people get so entirely defensive about this as truth when it is all just a theory? Why all the heated, debated arguments? What is so wrong with considering, just for a second, that horses were made by a designer?
On the surface, I’ll admit, the horse model seems pretty complete. And I will say, the evidence for/against this model was not my concluding point that evolution couldn’t happen. It’s the fact that at the core of evolution, everything good, wonderful, and beautiful about the horse, down to the cellular level, happened by random chance. It was pure random chance that an animal so large could move so gracefully on four, slender legs, with a hoof structure that works to keep this animal balanced. The hoof alone is a testament to design: how is it random evolutionary chance that such a fragile bone would be cushioned by tissue and muscle that act as a shock absorber so the horse can run without slamming that bone into the ground?
In my findings, I saw one person claim that creation couldn’t exist because, how could a loving creator make a design that could so easily break down? My answer? Well, that’s fallen Eden for you. God never wanted these animals to suffer from the result of a fallen world. It’s a perfect design in an imperfect, fallen body and world. Sickness happens, the laminae deteriorates, a horse goes lame. But in Eden, before the fall, there was no such thing.
“But if God was loving, wouldn’t he change their feet so that they weren’t so fragile?” He could, and some horses do have very tough feet! But we still live in a broken world, and in a broken world… things break. It’s the consequence of the fall.
Overall I don’t think that the horse model is really worth the time debating, as there is so little concise evidence outside of pure assumption that there really isn’t a way, just from looking at it, that we can prove it one way or another.
And really, even if we did, would it make a difference? Evolution is never a science issue– it’s a faith issue. It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution that it does to believe in God. Both have evidence that could be interpreted differently.
And from the evidence I see? I see a creator. A design. Not random chance.
***
Sources
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/horse-find-defies-evolution
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/horse-non-sense
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/whats-happened-to-the-horse
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/museumprogram/28
https://evolutionunderthemicroscope.com/fossils03.html
https://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
These are such neat facts about horses!! It’s so amazing and cool how God creates each of His creatures so intricately and uniquely!