Are there any unexplained branches of evolution?

Well, you don't recall correctly. You are 100% wrong.

Fossils. Lots and lots and lots of fossils. Horse Evolution

You call that a paper? What a waste of time.80% of it is dishonest quote-mines, especially the last one, which is a rather well known out-of-context quote. No references. The first original words on the page:

quote:

---

Traditional (Darwinian) view:

​

Moving up the stratigraphic column, fossils reveal a main line of evolution progressing continuously from Eohippus [hyracotherium] to Equus

---

is exactly what Hunt is not saying. There are some flat-out lies:

quote:

---

Bones of the supposed earliest horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils.

---

(perhaps referring to the silly claim that Hyracotherium and Equus lived at the same time, debunked in Did Hyracotherium and Equus Live at the Same Time?)The conclusions:

quote:

---

The series is made up of a probable non-horse and multiple varieties of true horses.

​

The many different types of horses are static and coexistent in the fossil record.

​

There is no macroevolutionary transition! The varieties come about by microevolutionary mechanisms.

​

There is no gradual phyletic transformation of horses in the fossil record!

---

are laughable. They have almost nothing to do with the rest of the page, and they derive only from the unsupported assertions of the page's author. Ah, Sarfati. What a marooon.Again heavy on the dishonest quote-mining, but at least with some references. Unfortunately, his major claims, such as:

quote:

---

Previous evolutionary theories would have asserted that because they all had high-crowned teeth, they must have been grazers. But the amounts of stable carbon isotopes 12C and 13C impregnated into the teeth indicated that the horses were browsers, not grazers.

​

The researchers also claimed that once hypsodonty evolved, it was impossible to return to having short-crowned teeth again. In a creationist model, this suggests that hypsodonty is a highly specialized condition, which has lost genetic information for any other sort of teeth.

---

are not referenced, they're just .. wait for it .. here it comes ... unsupported assertions!!He makes the classic old "evolutionists think vestigial organs are non-functional" error, and builds a major portion of his argument on it.His "discussion" of morphological similarities of legs is classic Sarfati; pure unsupported assertions, arrogant, and wrong.Sylas requested that you post more of your own thoughts; I request that you think about what you are posting.Is that enough of my own thoughts, Sylas?