Perissodactyls (Talk.Origins)

Response to Perissodactyls (horses, tapirs, rhinos)

CreationWiki response:

Loxolophus serves as a starting point with no reference to a proposed ancestor. Also there is no information on much of the skeleton has been found.

Tetraclaenodon is difficult to classify do to insufficient information. No real comparison is made with Loxolophus other than reference to the the first and fifth toes being shorter on Tetraclaenodon. The comment that Tetraclaenodon is "almost certainly ancestral to all the perissodactyls" is a result of their Evolutionary mind set and it assume that the rest of the evidence holds up.

While this Gap may be small for the alleged Evolutionary time scale, it is significant in questioning the alleged lineage since the gap falls right between 5 toes; and  4 front / 3 hind toes.

Note the following qoute: So Radinskya is known only from its skull. It is considered ancestral to horses based only on its teeth.

Hyracotherium Orohippus, and Epihippus are varieties of the same kind of animal, much like the variety among cat and dogs. They all the a 4 toes one their front feet and 3 toes on the back as well as many other similarities that show them to be the same kind of animal.
 * Reference: TEXTBOOK FRAUD: Hyracotherium "dawn horse" eohippus, mesohippus, meryhippus

Here we a distinct kind as opposed to Orohippus, Epihippus, and Hyracotherium. They had 4 toes in front and 3 toes in the rear. Mesohippus Miohippus, Kalobatippus, Parahippus, and Merychippus 3 toes on all 4 feet. There is no real evidence of a gradual shift as well as other features in common.

Mesohippus Miohippus, Kalobatippus, Parahippus, and Merychippus are varieties of the same kind of animal, much like the variety among cat and dogs.

Reference: TEXTBOOK FRAUD: Hyracotherium "dawn horse" eohippus, mesohippus, meryhippus

That is be cause the answer is that non of them gave rise to Dinohippus. This cap is right were Merychippus' 3 toes would theoretically become Dinohippus' one toe.

Pliohippus, Dinohippus and Equus are varieties of the horse kind, much like the variety among cat and dogs. There a clear jump from 3 to 1 toe, hardly evidence for evolution.

Hardly, they are just a result of a horse's normal side plints growing more than they should. This is suposed to be proof of Evolution?

Actually Equus and Hyracotherium are two distinct kinds with a third placed between them. They have no real evidence of a relationship. This whole scenario is based comparing teeth and legs between several distinct kinds of animals while ignoring other greater body differences.

The following links give more information on this topic.

Creationist

TEXTBOOK FRAUD: Hyracotherium "dawn horse" eohippus, mesohippus, meryhippus

Horse Evolution evolve eohippus hyracotherium mesohippus merychippus pliohippus equus

Creation Bits Number 24

About the Horse Series?

Non-creationist

Fossil horses and evolution

Tapirs and rhinos:
First off Loxolophus is classified as early Paleocene and Tetraclaenodon is classified as mid-Paleocene with no mention of the late Paleocene gap mentioned above.

All the available information on Homagalax is found on Talk Origins and it clones. If as indicated above Loxolophus and Homagalax differ only in their teeth then Homagalax and Hyracotherium were probably the same kind of animal.

While there is not enough information to be certain, but the information available suggests that Heptodon was a small short snout variety of tapirs. The differences between Heptodon and Homagalax are too great to suggest a relationship, particularly given how close they would be in time by evolutionary dating methods.

Reference: The Age of Mammals: Eocene:

Reference: Family Tapiridae (tapirs)

Helaletes
 * Helaletes is clearly a variety of the Tapir kind.

Prototapir
 * The vary name Prototapir has evolutionary assumptions written all over it, but the above description suggests that Prototapir was simply a variety of the tapir kind.

Miotapirus
 * Based on the above description Miotapirus is clearly a variety of the Tapir kind.

Tapirus
 * Tapirus are the living varietiesof the tapir kind.

Basicaly what Talk Origins is doing here is presenting several varieties of Tapir and then claiming a connetction to another kind for which the evidence is questionable.

Hyrachyus
 * [ Hyrachyus] would seem to be a variety of the Tapir kind.

Hyracodon
 * The fossil remains of Hyracodon seem to be fragmented with no evidence or post cranial bones. One again there is insufficient evidence on which to draw a reasonable conclusion.  It's description as a "rhino-tapiroids" is an Evolutionary interpretation and no help in drawing  an objective conclusion. Hyracodon is the lynch pin of the alleged connection between Rhinos and Tapir and the presented evidence is sketchy at best and loaded with purely Evolutionary interpretation.
 * Reference: White River Badlands:
 * Reference: American Rhinocerids:
 * Reference: Denver Gem, Mineral, Fossil Show - Sept 2004:
 * Reference: Hyracodon nebraskensis
 * Reference: Hyracodon Teeth
 * Reference: NPS Paleontology Research Abstract Volume:

Caenopus
 * Caenopus is most likly a hornless variety of rino rhino.

Living genera of Rhino

So it turns out that the main lynch pin in their claim seems to be incomplete and poorly described, there by preventing an objective analysis.

No problem these are the same genus.

This is quite vague, as we have seen Evolutionists don't need much to claim a link between two types. It is likely that this claim is based on fragmented fossils and a lot of Evolutionary assumptions. Actually since no details are given by which this claim can be objectively checked this statement is nothing but an Appeal to Authority. Talk Origins is presenting perceived authority's interpretation as fact, without presenting any real evidence.

Even if it is legitimate all it would show is a loss of a toe, which would be a loss of information not new information. Yes it would show that what is currently considered two seperate kinds of animals are actualy one kind, but this has happened before as more information is gathered about similar animals.

These have already been identified as the same kinede of animal so it is not a problem.

While more information is needed to evaluate this claim, however it not a problem since Dinohippus and Equus have aready been identified as the same kind. The partern could represent post Flood changes in the horse.

First of all even Talk Origins admits that the source of this claim is outdated. Once again rather the presenting checkable evidence Talk Origins is resorting to an Appeal to Authority. Besides Pliohippus is not even in the above list of alleged horse ancestors. Furthermore, Pliohippus was a horse with only hoofed toe. What Simpson is referring to are varieties in the length of the side splits not a loss of toes. This just shows how evolutionary interpretations muck up the waters in this area.

All that is being presented here are variations with two genera, not a big deal. The reference to "extreme gradualism" assumes the accuracy of Evolutionary dating methods.

This is just a comparison of specific parts of difference kinds of animals while ignoring other differences. The main horse series consist of three distinct kinds of animals with far more differences than depicted above, Talk Origins has added two additional one or two additional kinds of animals; insufficient data is available to tell if it is one or two kinds; with a convenient gap.

When it comes to fossil evidence given is support of evolution this is as good as it gets. Even still munch of it is pure Evolutionary interpretation. Further more as is so often the case there is a gap or questionable fossil at critical links in the chain.