However, are these models based on factual information?

As the biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks’, and the famous paleontologist Niles Eldredge called the textbook picture ‘lamentable and ‘a classical case of paleontologic museology'. As shown in a detailed thesis by Walter Barnhart, the horse ‘series’ is an interpretation of the data. He documents how different pictures of horse evolution were drawn by different evolutionists from the same data, as the concept of evolution itself ‘evolved’.

By the 1920's it was becoming clear that the evolution of the horse was much more complicated than Marsh presented in his model.

When we investigate this model carefully, we come upon several  problems that negate the possibility that we have here a genuine series of evolved horses. We discover that the evolutionists have merely selected a variety of different size animals, arranged them from small to large, and then called it all "a horse series."

1 - Different animals in each series. In the horse-series exhibit we see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from museum to museum (according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to portray "early horses"). There are over 20 different fossil horse series exhibits in the museums—with no two exactly alike. The experts select from bones of smaller animals and place them to the left of bones of modern horses, and, presto! another horse series!

2 - Imaginary, not real. The sequence from small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three.

 a. Orohippus (Eocene); b. Miohippus (Miocene); c. Hipparion (Pliocene); d. Equus (Quaternary). This model of evolution, from small-toed to one-toed horses, is fiction. Intermediate forms which indicate gradual transition have never been found in the right order. The trend toward larger size was not at all seen.

3 - Number of rib bones. The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs; the next creature has 19; there is a jump to 15; and finally back to 18 for Equus, the modern horse.

4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types of teeth between these two basic types. 

5 - Not from in-order strata. The "horse" creatures do not come from the "proper" lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the smallest "horse" is found in the highest strata.)

6 - Calling a badger a horse. The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern hyrax, or rock badger. Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts who cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse. (The hyrax foot looks like a hoof, because it is a suction cup so the little animal can walk right up vertical trees! Horses do not have suction cups on their feet!)
"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."—H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.

7 - Horse series exists only in museums. A complete series of horse fossils in the correct evolutionary order has not been found anywhere in the world. The fossil-bone horse series starts in North America (or Africa; there is dispute about this), jumps to Europe, and then back again to North America. When they are found on the same continent (as at the John Day formation in Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are found in the same geological horizon (stratum). Yet, according to evolutionary theory, it required millions of years for one species to make the change to another.

8 - Each one distinct from others. There are no transitional forms between each of these "horses." As with all the other fossils, each suddenly appears in the fossil record.

9 - Bottom found at the top. Fossils of Eohippus have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensis and Equus accidentalis.

10 - Gaps below as well as above. Eohippus, the earliest of these "horses," is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its presumed ancestors, the condylarths.

11 - Recent ones below earlier ones. In South America, the one-toed ("more recent") is even found below the three-toed ("more ancient") creature.

12 - Never found in consecutive strata. Nowhere in the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive strata.

13 - Heavily keyed to size. The series shown in museum displays generally depict an increase in size; and yet the range in size of living horses today, from the tiny American miniature ponies to the enormous shires of England, is as great as that found in the fossil record. However, the modern ones are all solidly horses:

14 - Bones an inadequate basis. In reality, one cannot go by skeletal remains. Living horses and donkeys are obviously different species, but a collection of their bones would place them all together.

Clearly we come upon a classic example of evolutionistic 'wishful thinking'. Instead of interpreting the theory into the fossil record and test it as regards to its reliability, in many cases the fossil record is interpreted into the theory, thus giving a twisted view upon the facts, that are buried in a thick layer of 'prejudiced' presumptions.

 Marsh's 'Horse Evolution' is still presented as fact to students today.  A fossil exhibition was staged at the American Museum of Natural History. 'The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment. Almost a century later, palaeontologist George Gaylord Simpson re-examined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled.'
(Encyclopedia of Evolution- Richard Milner)

An increasing number of scientists speaks out against the theories of horse-evolution.

What scientists say

"Eohippus [Hyracotherium], supposedly the first horse, doesn’t look in the least like one—and indeed, when first found was not classified as such.  It is remarkably like the present-day Hyrax (or daman), both in its skeletal structure and the way of life that it is supposed to have lived…”

“Museum displays and textbook evolutionary ladders illustrate only a partial and favorable selection of reconstructed horses.  While the general trend seems to have been toward larger horses, the first three supposed horse fossils actually decline in size.  In any case, the range in size of horses alive today, from the tiny American miniatures to the great shire horses of northern Britain, is the same as found in the fossil record…”

“The sequence from many-toed to one-toed animals is equally erratic, with numerous contradictions and regressions to the theoretically ideal order.”

“Even when all possible fossils are included, there appear to be major jumps in size of horses from one genus to the next, without transitional examples” (Evolutionist, Francis Hitching, “The Neck of the Giraffe—Where Darwin Went Wrong,” NY: Ticknor and Fields, 1982, p. 16-17, 19, 28-30).  Emphasis added.

“At present, however, it is a matter of faith that the textbook pictures are true or even that they are the best representations of the truth that are available to us at the present time.  ...It makes quite a difference whether a name on a diagram represents a whole skeleton or just a tooth,…” (Evolutionist, G. A. Kerkut, “The Implications of Evolution,” New York: Pergamon Press, 1960, p. 141ff).  Emphasis added.  

“When all is said and done, however, a row of look-alike fossils cannot be proof that one species changed into another; we cannot be sure that the little rock badger of long ago changed into Orohippus, since it is just as likely that they have always been separate species, one still living, one extinct.  ...To put the argument another way, if horses and donkeys were only known by their fossils, they might well be classified as variants within a single species, but the experience of breeders shows that, in fact, they are separate species.  Acknowledging all the enormous amount of work that men such as Henry F. Osborn and G. G. Simpson have put into the horse series, the sad fact remains that what has actually been done is to select the fossil data to fit the theory, and this cannot be considered scientific proof” (Ian Taylor, “In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order,” Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1987, p. 152-153).  Emphasis added.

“[Yale paleontologist Othniel C.] March’s classic (straight-line) development of the horse became enshrined in every biology textbook and in a famous exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History.  It showed a sequence of mounted skeletons, each one larger and with a more well-developed hoof than the last.  (The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment.)”

“Almost a century later, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson reexamined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled.  In his book Horses (1951), he showed that there was no simple, gradual unilineal development all.”  

“...Marsh arranged his fossils to ‘lead up’ to the one surviving species, blithely ignoring many inconsistencies and any contradictory evidence” (Milner, The Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1993, p. 222, Ev+).  Emphasis added.

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.  We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much.  The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky, and ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time.  By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information…” (David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 25).  Emphasis added.

When asked about the horse series, Paleontologist Niles Eldredge commented, “There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is.  The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago.  That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook.  Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff” (Harper’s Magazine, 1985, p. 60).  Emphasis added.

“From a purely scientific standpoint, however, there are...problems with this sequences.  The first is that although the fossil record has been bountiful enough to provide these intermittent remains, it has been consistently reluctant to yield up any remains that are actually transitional between them.  The similarities between Eohippus and Mesohippus are great.  But their differences are greater still.  Bones of Eohippus and bones of Mesohippus have been found in a number of places.  But bones of the animals that are said to connect them in lineal descent are not merely rare—they are nonexistent.”  

The second problem is that, given the continued existence of gaps in the fossil record, and the continued failure to find fossils of the hypothetical intermediate species, then to call the Eohippus sequence an evolutionary series is not a scientific theory—it is an act of faith, a matter of belief.  It is perfectly true that an intelligent rational person can examine the remains and be convinced that they represent an evolutionary sequence, but not by virtue of any evidence that has been adduced, since the Eohippus sequence is not evidence for evolution.  It is evidence for the former existence of difference species of quadruped with a striking similarity, not evidence of a relationship between them.  And it is this, the relationship—if any—that is the very matter in question” (Richard Milton, “Horses?,” Fossil Horses and Evolution, http://www.alternativescience.com/fossil-horses.htm).  Emphasis added.

“The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong.  Instead of gradual changes, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct.  Transitional forms are unknown (Evolutionist, Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, 5 November, 1980, sec. 4, p. 15) Emphasis added.

"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem."
(Dr Niles Eldredge, Palaeontologist and Evolutionist) Emphasis added.

"The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."
(George Simpson, palaeontologist and Evolutionist, made in reference to the commonly discussed evolution of the horse) Emphasis added.

"The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. In the reality provided by the results of research it is put together from three parts, of which only the last can be described as including horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses as the present day damans are horses. The construction of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series"
(Prof. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWE Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1954, p. 551-552) Emphasis added.

"The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. Afterwards, a slow evolution follows; this frequently has the appearance of a gradual change, step by step, though down to the generic level abrupt major steps without transitions occur. At the end of such a series, a kind of evolutionary running- wild frequently is observed. Giant forms appear, and odd or pathological types of different kinds precede the extinction of such a line. Moreover, within the slowly evolving series, like the famous horse series, the decisive steps are abrupt, without transition: for example, the choice of the middle finger for further transformation, as opposed to the two middle fingers, in the evolution of the artiodactyls; or the sudden transition from the four-toed to the three-toed foot with predominance of the third ray."
(Goldschmidt, Richard B., [late Professor of Genetics, University of California, Berkeley], "Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p.97) Emphasis added.

Clearly, the evidence of horse-evolution is not as accurate as presented. Biology students are being taught philosophy in the guise of empirical science. Pressing the facts into the theory can lead to blunt misinterpretation of the facts.