Horse Evolution Tale Gets Hairier

If you thought the story of horse evolution was well understood as a poster child of Darwinism at work, consider what Weinstock et al. say in a preprint in PLoS Biology:¹

The rich fossil record of horses has made them a classic example of evolutionary processes.  However, while the overall picture of equid evolution is well known [see 03/18/2003 entry], the details are surprisingly poorly understood, especially for the later Pliocene and Pleistocene, c. 3 million to 0.01 million years (Ma) ago, and nowhere more so than in the Americas.  There is no consensus on the number of equid species or even the number of lineages that existed in these continents.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Tackling that challenge, the team rewrote the evolutionary history books.  Now, they put all North American horses into two species, claim they are distinct from their European look-alikes, and came earlier than the South American Hippiodon genus, which was supposed to be ancient.  This is all summarized on EurekAlert, which claims the conclusions made by comparing mitochondrial DNA “helps clarify the origins of two extinct New World horse species.” 

¹Weinstock et al., “Evolution, Systematics, and Phylogeography of Pleistocene Horses in the New World: A Molecular Perspective,” Public Library of Science: Biology, Volume 3 | Issue 8 | AUGUST 2005.

Are you tired of the hype?  Every new Darwinian study overthrows the propaganda that was taught to the world for 100 years or more, but then they spin the bad news with the line, “this helps clarify the picture of evolution.”  It’s no picture; it’s a kaleidoscope of constantly shifting random bits of broken colored glass.
    These guys have no handle on what really happened to horses.  Remember?  They’re the same ones that want us to believe that our human ancestors, who were fully modern in every way, even capable of producing art that rivals Picasso, couldn’t figure out how to ride a horse for half a million years (see 01/19/2002 entry).  Now they want to tell us that all the fossil horses in North America, long thought to represent multiple branches on the Darwinian tree, are all just two species, and that “North American caballines—traditionally classified as multiple species based on their diverse size—belong to the same species.”  Any horse breeder could have told them that.  You can breed a Morgan and a quarter horse, even a Clydesdale and a Shetland (with a little help….)
    The lab work is irrelevant, because the evolutionary timeline is already a given (imagine trying to measure time with a broken clock: see 04/20/2004 entry and links in the commentary).  No amount of data is going to falsify their evolutionary belief, because this is just a game for them.  Their methodology assumes evolution, so no wonder they “prove” it!  They don’t know how fast DNA mutates, they don’t know how to classify fossils into species, and they weren’t there watching these animals move around the world.  It’s all made up to keep the Darwin Storytelling Empire in business.  Why do we trust them?  If they knew the true history of the world they would be dumbfounded, more than they already are.
    Darwinian storytellers ought to do some sweaty work on a ranch, ride a real horse (see 03/18/2005 commentary and 01/02/2003 entries), watch a sunset on our privileged planet, and learn about the real world.  Maybe it would open their eyes to consider some credible options, ones that coincide with the observations for a change.