Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,427
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + + + + + + + + + +
→Young Earth Creationist view of origins
Creationists reject that ''Hyracotherium'' is a horse at all (it was named by [[Richard Owen]] as being similar to a [[hyrax]], not a horse,<ref name="NonE">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/308/ The non-evolution of the horse], ''Creation'' 21(3):28–31, June 1999.</ref> and consider the rest of the so-called ''horse series'' as simply variations within the horse baramin, and not evidence of evolution at all.
Creationists reject that ''Hyracotherium'' is a horse at all (it was named by [[Richard Owen]] as being similar to a [[hyrax]], not a horse,<ref name="NonE">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/308/ The non-evolution of the horse], ''Creation'' 21(3):28–31, June 1999.</ref> and consider the rest of the so-called ''horse series'' as simply variations within the horse baramin, and not evidence of evolution at all.
Modern horses have considerable variation, with height varying between four hands and 20 hands, the number of ribs varying between 17 and 19, and some horses having three toes, like some supposed evolutionary ancestors.<ref name="NonE" />
Modern horses have considerable variation, with height varying between four hands and 20 hands, the number of ribs varying between 17 and 19, and some horses having three toes, like some supposed evolutionary ancestors.<ref name="NonE" />
=== Creation Ministries International on the failings of evolutionary arguments ===
[[Creation Ministries International]] indicates:
A study of fossil horses reveals at least three groups of animals within the horse family Equidae, in addition to some unrelated animals such as tapirs. The three equid groups correspond closely to different subfamilies of Equidae, and could be considered three separate created kinds. Most of these different kinds lived (or actually, were buried!) nearly at the same time and do not show much progressive change as far as horse evolution is concerned, just a general increase in size.
No one has explained how new, specialized kinds of teeth could have supposedly evolved, and it appears rather to be a case of [[intelligent design]] instead of “microevolution” (variation within a kind, as suggested by various creationists) or “macroevolution” (new kinds of organisms, as suggested by evolutionists).
The Cavanaugh et al. (2003)14 hypothesis of intrabaraminic variation of all animals that belong to Equidae (or animals that they did put into Equidae, even if the evolutionists put some of them in different families) is not well supported by the available evidence and ought therefore to be abandoned...
According to [[Julian Huxley]] (arguably one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century) at least one million positive mutations were required for the modern horse to evolve. He believed that there is a maximum of one positive mutation in a total of 1,000 mutations. With the help of these values Huxley calculated the probability for the horse to have evolved from one single unicellular organism was 1 in 103,000,000. He believed, however, that natural selection would be able to solve this problem. But this faith did not help him in the end, and will not help any other evolutionist either, as this calculation is based on the origin of positive mutations, even before natural selection would start to work. If all electrons in the universe (about 1080) would have participated in 1012 reactions every second, during the 30 billion years which evolutionists have put as the upper age limit of the universe, there would still not have been more than c. 10110 possibly interactions—still a long way from the Huxley calculation.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-evolution-of-the-horse The Evolution of the Horse] by Mats Molén], Creation.com</ref>}}
==Evolutionary view of origins==
==Evolutionary view of origins==