The Evolution of the Horse

Well As we know, neo-darwinists have totally rejected non-randomness as the major feature of variation. Ironically they decided to differ with Darwin on this point. But see, the neo-darwinists motivation for this was because they wanted a way to explain how the world got started in a purely random way. But the funny thing is, many in that community have done away with this notion because it has been reasoned that natural selection had nothing to do with life's origins.….so they simply dismiss "chance" as being a cause for life's beginnings -- instead letting God take care of that one... But, humorously, they’re still letting the chance charade continue regardless of its glorious absurdity.

But there is a different -- more common sense explanation. I say that all life has changed over the years through a process of non-randomness. And this has been proven to be a legitimate premise through the validity of phenotypic plasticity….which is basically an individual animal’s built-in capability of adapting to their local environment.

Another example of non-random change is a process where the environment throws an internal genetic switch which ultimately changes the phenotype. It is difficult, evidently to tell which process is actually occurring, but the fact is, non-random variations do occur. So my question is this for evolutionists:

And since Science evidently accepts phenotypic plasticity as fact, what makes them think this does not totally and completely invalidate their neo-Darwinist theory? A non-random change in the phenotype, is by definition, a directed change that can only be a result of the internal environment interacting with an external cue. And for this to be possible, the organism would HAVE to have intelligence residing and pre-existing in the genome. And if an animal has intelligence pre-existing in the genome, then the Great Debate is officially over.

My other question is this: what makes you think that plasticity is not responsible for a large number of the cases of phenotypic change in the fossil record? For instance, according to Darwinists, the evolution of the horse evolved from the Mesohippus to the Merychippus through random mutation via natural selection….. They say horses developed harder, high-crown teeth as a result of changing from a browswer to a grazer over millions of years. (They made this conclusion by looking mostly at the teeth)

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolut...eEvolution.htm

But what I’m saying is that the changing surface of the teeth and the high crown of the Merrychippus tooth may have been just the simple result of horses eating a new diet – possibly a more abrasive grass. Heck, we’ve seen fish change in 1 generation….we’ve seen snails do it as well. Heck, humans do it everyday! Personally I would not be surprised if the horse did it also….or maybe in just a few generations – certainly not the millions of years described by “science.” I would suspect that the horses' local environment acted on the developing embryo....or it was possibly just a simple case of plasticity. There was certainly no need to wait millions of years for RM + NS to do its goofy, gradual, unproven, unseen, undocumented magic.

Either way this would totally invalidate neo-Darwinism and every biology book ever written. Not only that, but it would stay true to what’s going on around us today. Surely things didn't evolved differently back then than today! Surely plasticity was a phenomenon then like it is now! – and if this is true, then where are all the paleontogists' examples of fossils that evolved through suspected plasticity? I would like to study those particular cases! Maybe someone could point me to those!

LOL!!! Of course this is blasphemy in the scientific community! S

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------