attacking dating methods is quite puny because its not the radiation method alone that determines age.

One way more simple is the geological one.
short: the earth "hull" itself is a large time line.


though i still didnt get any answer to my qustion at all.


another big mistake when talking about evolution is to think its a line with a target at the end. Its nonesense to think that our current horse is the best result of evolution. as a matter of fact its the only one that survived for a couple of reasons. This is also why there is nothing like good or bad mutation in general or good or bad evolution.

you can not answer the questions "are gills a good or bad mutation" because the terminus good or bad is not related to the result at all (gills in this case).
Its like asking if 1 is a good or bad number.

timeline of the horses (sorry just german):

Taking me back to my statement that only 1% of new species survive on the long run (something you found uninteresting as far as i can remeber. Though combined with everything said so far just another brick that fits into the smooth sheme)


the argument for "familiar" animals or horse like creatures is far more an argument for evolution then against it.