[conservative_crusader]

"-If proto-horses and modern horses are not related, then where did modern horses come from and where did proto-horses go?
It it far to convenient that protohorses disappeared and then suddenly a similar looking beast appears. It makes far more sense that the proto-horses became the modern horses."

This is a fallacy called post hoc ergo proctor hoc. It would simply be more logical to say that rather than becoming something else, that the design merely repeated itself because it is a more resilient design, and leave whether or not one actually did become the other to actual scientific evidence, which has, up to date, failed to provide anything supporting that argument.

[shubi]

Creationists think in terms of individual changes, rather than changes in populations. This is where your problem lies in understanding the point.

[bobdsmith]

"This is a fallacy called post hoc ergo proctor hoc. It would simply be more logical to say that rather than becoming something else, that the design merely repeated itself because it is a more resilient design, and leave whether or not one actually did become the other to actual scientific evidence, which has, up to date, failed to provide anything supporting that argument."

Not at all. The design obviously repeated itself, but leaving it at that does not explain where it came from and is scientifically useless as an explaination. Common descent however does explain it, and is able to predict what sort of fossil forms we should expect to find in the future.