Giant Zebra defies Horse Evolution Chart
You were misled about that. It's just a large species of zebra, a member of the genus Equus, modern horses.
A study of fossil horses reveals at least three groups of animals within the horse family Equidae, in addition to some unrelated animals such as tapirs. The three equid groups correspond closely to different subfamilies of Equidae, and could be considered three separate created kinds.
The existence of numerous transitionals and genetic data show common descent for all equids. Would you like to learn more about that?
Most of these different kinds lived (or actually, were buried!) nearly at the same time and do not show much progressive change as far as horse evolution is concerned, just a general increase in size.
No, that's wrong, too...
If you'd like some detail on specific transitions, let me know. There are a lot of them.
No one has explained how new, specialized kinds of teeth could have supposedly evolved,
That's wrong, too. The transition was rather slow for a long time, with a lot of transitional teeth. Would you like to talk about those?From the Horse's Mouth: Teeth Reveal Evolution
he first horses in North America emerged about 55.5 million years ago. They were small, fox-size animals with four toes and low-crowned teeth. They lived in a warm, moist, forested environment, and the wear on their rounded cusps matches those of fruit-eaters, Mihlbachler said.
Around 33 million years ago, the horses' teeth changed noticeably, with the cusps of a fruit-eater being replaced by the sharper points associated with a diet of leaves. By this time, the rain forests had disappeared and the climate went through a cool spell.
"The signal we are getting in the change in horses' diet is very consistent with what we understand about how the climate was changing," Mihlbachler said.
About 18 million years ago, the teeth of some ancient horses, those most closely related to modern horses, changed markedly. The surface of their molars became more complex and better suited for chewing tough plants, particularly grasses, which contain particles of silica that can wear down teeth. The teeth also began growing taller. [Mystery of Tooth Strength Cracked]
These changes appear to be related to the spread of grasslands, which prompted some horses to add grass to their diets.
"The changes in the teeth are just slightly behind the environment and dietary trends, which is very consistent with the hypothesis of adaptation," Mihlbachler said.
After this, tooth height continued to increase, likely in response to harsher, particularly colder, climate conditionsand the continued spread of grasslands. Horses with less abrasive, leafy diets stayed in the picture for a while, then disappeared about 10 million years ago.
Intermediate diets later disappeared, and the highly abrasive, grassy diets of modern horses have been the norm for the last 4 million to 5 million years, roughly the amount of the time the modern horse has been in existence.
According to Julian Huxley (arguably one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century) at least one million positive mutations were required for the modern horse to evolve. He believed that there is a maximum of one positive mutation in a total of 1,000 mutations. With the help of these values Huxley calculated the probability for the horse to have evolved from one single unicellular organism was 1 in 103,000,000.
Nope. You're assuming horses evolved from a unicellular organism, but they evolved from primitive ungulate. Let's take a look at your assumptions:
1. Assume 10,000 individuals in each horse species. (most have had millions, but let's err on the side of small numbers.
2. There are usually dozens of mutations in each individual. But let's just say there was an average of 10.
3. So that means 100,000 mutations in one generation, or about 100 per generation
4. If we assume a new generation every 10 years, that means in 55,000,000 years, there have been about 5,500,000 generations,which means 550,000,000 favorable mutations, far more than needed.
He believed, however, that natural selection would be able to solve this problem.
That's how favorable mutations work. They tend to be preserved, because they increase the likelihood of an individual living long enough to reproduce. The neutral ones don't do much, and may or may not be preserved, and the bad ones tend to disappear.
This is one reason why the probablility argument is such a loser for creationists. Here's the other; given the genes of your great, great great grandparents, the likelihood of you having any particular allele is 0.25 to the 6th power or about 0.00002. The chance having all your alleles is: 6.6073302758056549920833976291965e-1807, basically 6, with 1807 zeros in front of it.
So now you've "proven" that you're impossible. You think something might be wrong here?