the short story:

Equidae ... the family of horses including the zebra

mid long story:
+Hyracotherium... a terapod creature, 55million years b.c. about 50cm height. 4 toes front, 3 toes back legs. Bent back, small neck. small parts of scarf-skin at the toe tips.
+Mesohippus: second stage of development of the horse. 40million y. b.c.
+Anchitherium: 22m.y.b.c .... only 3 toes front and 3 in the back legs
+Hipparios: 11m.y.b.c, strong deformed toes
+Equus: the "modern" horse 2-3 m.y.b.c, one toe

a couple of thousand years ago the common horse died out in america and was "reimported" 400 years ago. The funny thing is that the main source for horses and the main evolution (fossils aso) has taken place in north america.


Using horses as an argument against evolution is redicilous in the first place.


now the collecting of evidence starts:
1.) timeline: radiation messurements fit to the development time line of the horse. Fossils found have the age they need to have.

2.) transitions: the line from a 4 toes animal to a one toe horse has all needed development stages. Adding all of those "so nothing saying bones or skeletal systems" (as you would state) into a small thumbnail cinema would make a perfect morphing from A to B

3.) obserable facts: horses have degenerated thumbs. Atavismus also shows from time to time extra thumbs.
(whales with back legs, Hypertrichose are other examples).
Those fit into the fossil sheme we know.

4.) localisation: if the world scenery is changing from forrest to tundra like sceneries animals have to addapt to survive (longer legs for faster running, better teeth aso).
The found transitions fit perfectly into the climatic changes. (as well as continental drift as far as genesis is concerned )

The bottom line is simple: if it look like a donkey and smells like a donkey, its most likely a donkey.


I wont address any of the other points from above but this one because it reduces all you have said to the simple fact that you dont understand evolution.

-->..What matters is if there's a mechanism for making a fin turn into a hand. We have not seen this mechanism....

For the last time, evolution is not a force or mechanism for creating anything. Do you understand that?!
You agree on mutation and the fact the human body can change thru time.
You agree on "rewritten" dna.
You agree on natural selection.
You agree on dna data passed from one genereation to the next.
You dont doubt the fossils found, you dont doubt the adaption of species into different environments.

Its simple: you believe in the theory of evolution, you just dont want to admit it

The only missing thing is that you cant understand that those changes can be radical as well... arms getting fins or the other way round.
Though its a medical fact that our current fingers are thinner and longer then 50.000 years ago.

Now you will argue again something about: "Common ancestry is not evolution"

Then you ignore the fact that the whale fin is a simply degenerated human like arm. You will then say "oh, all animals have bones...thats an evidence for evolutions".


you wouldnt see any form of evidence even if its a big fat train heading right at you. Not because you cant but because you dont like to.