SPECIATION

Variation, information and the created kind ... 4

Refuting EvolutionChapter 2 7
Refuting Evolution 2Chapter 4 . 9
Ligers and wholphins? What next? 14
Speedy species surprise

.. 16

Eat your Brussels sprouts! 18

WHAT DO CREATIONISTS MEAN BY CREATED KINDS

Parade of MutantsPedigree Dogs and Artificial Selection 20

The Australian dingoa wolf in dogs clothing

...22

Zenkey, zonkey, zebra donkey! ..24

Comparative cytogenetics and chromosomal rearrangements .25
Fast mouse evolution claims .26
Resurrecting a prehistoric horse ...27

HAS CREATIONIST RESEARCH FOUND ANY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF ANIMALS THAT ARE IN THE SAME BARAMIN

A baraminology tutorial with examples from the grasses (Poaceae) 28

Identification of species within the sheep-goat kind (Tsoan monobaramin) .31
Identification of species within the cattle monobaramin (kind) 34
Karyotypic and allelic diversity within the canid baramin (Canidae) ..35
Identification of a large sparrow-finch monobaramin in perching birds (Aves: Passeriformes) . 39

WHAT IS SPECIATION.DOES IT TAKE MILLIONS OF YEARS TO OCCUR

Brisk biters 41
Darwins finches .42
Dogs breeding dogs? .42
Genetic engineers unwind species barrier 44
The Heliconius hybrid butterfly: speciation yes, evolution no ..45

DAILY ARTICLES

Comparative cytogenetics and chromosomal rearrangements ..45

Inheritance of biological informationpart I: the nature of inheritance and of information .46
Inheritance of biological informationpart II: redefining the information challenge ... 51
Inheritance of biological informationpart III: control of information transfer and change .. 54
The 3 Rs of Evolution: Rearrange, Remove, Ruinin other words, no evolution!

58

The Island rulerecipe for evolution or extinction? . . 60

Molecular limits to natural variation .. 61
Galpagos with David Attenborough: Evolution .67
Galpagos with David Attenborough: Adaptation ...70
Post-Flood mutation of the KIT gene and the rise of white coloration patterns ..72
The paradoxical urinary concentrating mechanism ...76
Vampire moth discovered 79
Lizards moving from eggs to live birth: evolution in action? ..79
The evolution of the horse . 80
Karyotypic and allelic diversity within the canid baramin (Canidae) ... 83
Climbing Mt Improbable evo devo style 86
Facilitated variation: a new paradigm emerges in biology 88
Creative frogamandering 93
Colourful creature coats . 93

MIGRATION

Migration after the Flood . 95

ABiogeography* .99

How did animals get to places such as Australia? 102

Natural rafts carried animals around the globe 104

Plants and animals around the world 105

Genetics and geographical distribution .106
How did unique fish appear in particular areas? ..109
Birds of a feather dont breed together ...111
No evidence of evolution and deep time ..112

NATURAL SELECTION

Refuting Evolution -Variation and natural selection versus evolution 114

Refuting Evolution 2 Argument: Natural selection leads to speciation .116
Muddy Waters .120
Refutation of New Scientists Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions .. 122

DOES NATURAL SELECTION SUPPORT EVOLUTION

Too dry for a fly .129

Bighorn horns not so big ...129

Defining terms .130

The evolution trains a-comin ..131

A review of Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford ...133

Islands weeds dont support evolution .136

Well-armed water fleas and radishes . 137

What! no potatoes? .137

Dawkins playing bait and switch with guppy selection .139

Molecular limits to natural variation . 140

DO MUTATIONS THAT CONFER RESISTANCE TO ANTIBIOTICS,POISONS, ETC PROVE EVOLUTION

Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant? .... 145

Poison-resistant tomcods and the meaning of evolution ..146

Superbugs not super after all 148

Patterns of change over time: organophosphorus resistance in the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina ....150

Creationist article saved my favourite cow 152

Has AIDS evolved? ..154

HOW DOES NATURAL SELECTION FIT INTO A CREATIONISTS PARADIGM

Natural selection evolution .155

Darwins finches 156

DOES IT TAKE LONG PERIODS OF TIME FOR NATURAL SELECTION TO OCCURE

Brisk biters 157

Book review: The Beak of the Finch 157

Do toads goad snake evolution? ..159

Rapid tomcod evolution by pollution? Yeah, right and wrong ... 160
DOES SEXUAL SELECTION EXPLAIN HOW FEATUERS LIKE PEACOCK`S TAIL DEVELOPED

The beauty of the peacock tail and the problems with the theory of sexual selection ..161
WHAT ABOUT PEPPERED MOTHS?WHY ARE THEY FREQUENTLY USED TO SUPPORT EVOLUTION.

Goodbye, peppered moths ..167

The Moth Files .. 167

More about moths .167

WHAT ABOUT COMPTER SIMULATIONS ALLEGEDLY PROVING EVOLUTION BY CUMULATIVE SELECTION

Weasel, a flexible program for investigating deterministic computer demonstrations of evolution 170

HOMOLOGY AND EMBRYOLOGY

Homology made simple ... 173

Refuting Evolution 2Chapter 6 Argument: Common design points to common ancestry .176
Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism? ..177
Fraud rediscovered ...181

ARE THERE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN LIVING THINGS EVIDENCE FOR COMMON ANSESTRY OR COMMON DESIGN

Saddle up the horse, its off to the bat cave . 182

Are look-alikes related? ....183

A serious problem for homology .185

Could the mammalian middle ear have evolved twice? ..189

Did eyes evolve by Darwinian mechanisms? 190

Problems with the evolutionary interpretation of limb design . 195

Morphology and molecules in conflict yet again ..195

Tiktaalik roseaea fishy missing link ..196

Mammal-like reptiles: major trait reversals and discontinuities . 198

Walking whales, nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist? ..204

ARE EARLY EMBRYOS VERY SIMILAR?DO THEY RECAPITATULATE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY?

The fish gills girl ...209

Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit ...209
A fishy story .211
The human umbilical vesicle (yolk sac) and pronephrosAre they vestigial? .212

Variation, information and the created kind

by Dr Carl Wieland
Summary
All observed biological changes involve only conservation or decay of the underlying genetic information. Thus we do not
observe any sort of evolution in the sense in which the word is generally understood. For reasons of logic, practicality and
strategy, it is suggested that we:
Avoid the use of the term microevolution.
Rethink our use of the whole concept of variation within kind.
Avoid taxonomic definitions of the created kind in favour of one which is overtly axiomatic.
Most popular literature on evolution more or less implies that since we see small changes going on today in successive
generations of living things, we only have to extend this in time and we will see the types of changes which have caused
single-cell-to-man evolution. Creationists are thus seen as drawing some sort of imaginary Maginot line, and saying in
effect this much variation we will allow but no morecall it microevolution or variation within kind. When a creationist says
that, after all, mosquitoes are not seen turning into elephants or moths, this is regarded as a simplistic retreat. Such a
criticism is not without some justification, because the neo-Darwinist can rightly say that he would not expect to see that sort
of change in his lifetime either. The post-neo-Darwinist may say that our sample of geologic time is too small to be sure of
seeing a hopeful monster or any sort of significant saltational change.Another reason why the creationist position often
appears as one of weakness is that we are perceived as admitting variation only because of being forced to do so by
observation, then simply escaping the implications of variation by saying it does not go far enough. And we appear to redraw
our Maginot line depending on how much variation is demonstrated. It will be shown shortly, though, that this is a caricature
of the creationist position, and that the limits to variation arise from basic informational considerations at the genetic level.
The created kinds
Observed variation does appear to have limits. It is tempting to use this fact to show that there are created kinds, and that
variation is only within the limits of such kinds.However, the argument is circular and thus vulnerable. Since creationists by
definition regard all variation as within the limits of the created kind (see for example the statement of belief of the Creation
Research Society of the USA), how can we then use observations to prove that variation is within the limits of the kind? To
put it another wayof course we have never observed variation across the kind, since whatever two varieties descend
from a common source, they are regarded as the same kind. It is no wonder that evolutionists are keen to press us for an
exact definition of the created kind, since only then does our claim of variation is only within the kind become nontautologous and scientifically falsifiable.Circular reasoning does not invalidate the concept of created kinds, however. In the
same way, natural selection is also only capable of a circular definition (those who survive are the fittest, and the fittest are
the ones who survive), but it is nevertheless a logical, easily observable concept. All we are saying is that arguments which
are inherently circular cannot be invoked as independent proof of the kinds.When I claim that such independent proof may
not be possible by the very nature of things, this statement is in no way a cop out. For instance, let us say we happened
upon the remnants of an island which had exploded, leaving behind the debris of rocks, trees, sand, etc. It may be
impossible in principle to reconstruct the original positions of the pieces in relation to each other before the explosion. This
does not, however, mean that it is not possible to deduce with a great degree of confidence that the current state of the
debris is consistent with that sort of an explosion which was recorded for us by eyewitness testimony, rather than arising by
some other mechanism.In like manner, we can show that the observations of the living world are highly consistent with the
described concept of original created kinds, and inconsistent with the idea of evolution. This is best done by focusing on the
underlying genetic/informational basis of all biological change. This is more realistic and more revealing than focusing on the
degree or extent of morphological change.The issue is qualitative, not quantitative. It is not that the train has had insufficient
time to go far enoughit is heading in the wrong direction. The limits to variationobserved or unobservedwill come
about inevitably because gene pools run out of functionally efficient genetic information (or teleonomic information). A full
understanding of this eliminates the image of the desperately backpedalling creationist, redrawing his line of last resistance
depending on what new observations are made on the appearance of new varieties.It also defuses the whole issue of
micro and macro evolution. I believe it is better for creationists to avoid these confusing and misleading terms altogether.
The word evolution generally conveys the meaning of the sort of change which will ultimately be able to convert a
protozoon into a man or a reptile into a bird, and so on. I hope to show that in terms of that sort of meaning, we do not see

any evolution at all. By saying we accept micro but not macroevolution we risk reinforcing the perception that the issue is
about the amount of change, which it is not. It is about the type of change.This is not merely petty semantics, but of real
psychological and tactical significance. Of course one can say that microevolution occurs when this word is defined in a
certain fashion, but the impact of the word, the meaning it conveys, is such as to make it unwise to persevere with this
unnecessary concessional statement. Microevolution, that is, a change, no matter how small, which is unequivocally the
right sort of change to ultimately cause real, informationally uphill change, has never been observed.In any case, leading
biologists are themselves now coming to the conclusion that macroevolution is not just microevolution [using their
terminology] extended over time. In November 1980 a conference of some of the worlds leading evolutionary biologists,
billed as historic, was held at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History on the topic of macroevolution. Reporting on
the conference in the journal Science, Roger Lewin wrote:The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the
mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of
doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. 1Francisco
Ayala (Associate Professor of Genetics, University of California), was quoted as saying: but I am now convinced from
what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.2The fact that this article reaches essentially the same
conclusion in the following pages can thus hardly cause it to be regarded as radical. Nevertheless, the vast majority of even
well-educated people still persist in ignorance of this. That is, they believe that Big Change = Small Change x Millions of
Years.
The concept of information
The letters on this [printed] pagethat is, the matter making up the ink and paperall obey the laws of physics and
chemistry, but these laws are not responsible for the information they carry. Information may depend on matter for its
storage, transmission and retrieval, but is not a property of it. The ideas expressed in this article, for instance, originated in
mind and were imposed on the matter. Living things also carry tremendous volumes of information on their biological
moleculesagain, this information is not a property of their chemistry, not a part of matter and the physical laws per se. It
results from the orderfrom the way in which the letters of the cells genetic alphabet are arranged. This order has to be
imposed on these molecules from outside their own properties. Living things pass this information on from generation to
generation. The base sequences of the DNA molecule effectively spell out a genetic blue-print which determines the
ultimate properties of the organism. In the final analysis, inherited biological variations are expressions of the variations in
this information. Genes can be regarded as sentences of hereditary information written in the DNA language.Imagine now
the first population of living things on the evolutionists primitive earth. This so-called simple cell would, of course, have a
lot of genetic information, but vastly less than the information in only one of its present-day descendant gene pools, e.g.,
man. The evolutionist proposes that this telegram has given rise to encyclopedias of meaningful, useful genetic sentences.
(See later for discussion of meaning and usefulness in a biological sense.) Thus he must account for the origin with time of
these new and meaningful sentences. His only ultimate source for these is mutation.3Going back to the analogy of the
printed page, the information in a living creatures genes is copied during reproduction, analogous to the way in which an
automatic typewriter reproduces information over and over. A mutation is an accident, a mistake, a typing error. Although
most such changes are acknowledged to be harmful or meaningless, evolutionists propose that occasionally one is useful in
a particular environmental context and hence its possessor has a better chance of survival/reproduction. By looking now at
the informational basis for other mechanisms of biological variation, it will be seen why these are not the source of new
sentences and therefore why the evolutionist generally relies on mutation of one sort or another in his scheme of things.
1. Mendelian variation
This is the mechanism responsible for most of the new varieties which we see from breeding experiments and from
reasonable inferences in nature. Sexual reproduction allows packets of information to be combined in many different ways,
but will not produce any new packets or sentences. For example, when the many varieties of dog were bred from a
mongrel stock, this was achieved by selecting desired traits in successive generations, such that the genes or sentences
for these traits became isolated into certain lines. Although some of these sentences may have been hidden from view in
the original stock, they were already present in that population. (We are disregarding mutation for the moment, since such
new varieties may arise independently of any new mutations in the gene pool. Some dogs undoubtedly have mutant
characteristics.)This sort of variation can only occur if there is a storehouse of such sentences available to choose from.
Natural (or artificial) selection can explain the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest, which is the real question.
These Mendelian variations tell us nothing about how the genetic information in the present stock arose. Hence, it is not the
sort of change required to demonstrate upward evolutionthere has been no addition of new and useful sentences. And
this is in spite of the fact that it is possible to observe many new varieties in this wayeven new species. If you define a
species as a freely interbreeding natural unit, it is easy to see how new species could arise without any uphill change. That
is, without the addition of any new information coding for any new functional complexity. For example, mutation could
introduce a defect which served as a genetic barrier, or simple physical differences, such as the sizes of Great Dane and
Chihuahua, could make interbreeding impossible in nature.It is a little surprising to still see the occasional creationist
literature clinging to the concept that no new species have ever been observed. Even if this were true, and there is some
suggestion that it has actually been observed, there are instances of clines in field observations which make it virtually
certain that two now-isolated (reproductively) species have arisen from the same ancestral gene pool. Yet the very same
creationists who seem reluctant to make that sort of admission would be quite happy to agree with the rest of us that the
various species within what may be regarded as the dog kind, including perhaps wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes and the
domestic dog, have arisen from a single ancestral kind. So why may this no longer be permitted to be happening under
present-day observations? It sets up a straw man in the sense that any definite observation of a new species arising is
used as a further lever with which to criticize creationists.What we see in the process of artificial selection or breeding giving
rise to new varieties, is a thinning-out of the information in the parent stock, a reduction in the genetic potential for further
variation. If you try and breed a Chihuahua from a Great Dane population or vice versa, you will find that your population
lacks the necessary sentences. This is because, as each variety was selected out, the genes it carried were not
representative of the entire gene pool.What appeared to be a dramatic example of change with the appearance of
apparently new traits thus turns out, when its genetic basis is understood, to be an overall downward movement in
informational terms. The number of sentences carried by each subgroup is reduced thus making it less likely to survive
future environmental changes. Extrapolating that sort of process forward in time does not lead to upwards evolution, but
ultimately to extinction with the appearance of evermore-informationally-depleted populations.
2. Polyploidy
Again, no sentences appear which did not previously exist. This is the multiplication (photocopying) of information already
present.
3. Hybridizatlon
Again, no new sentences. This is the mingling of two sets of information already present.

4. Mutation
Since mutations are basically accidents, it is not surprising that they are observed to be largely harmful, lethal or
meaningless to the function or survival of an organism. Random changes in a highly ordered code introduce noise and
chaos, not meaning, function and complexity, which tend to be lost. However, it is conceivable that in a complex world,
occasionally a destructive change will have a limited usefulness. For example, if we knock out a sentence such that there is
a decrease in leg length in sheep (and there is such a mutation), this is useful to stop them jumping over the farmers fence.
A beetle on a lonely, wind-swept island may have a mutation which causes it to lose or corrupt the information coding for
wing manufacture; hence its wingless successors will not be so easily blown out to sea and will thus have a selective
advantage. Eyeless fish in caves, some cases of antibiotic resistancethe handful of cases of mutations which are quite
beneficialdo notinvolve the sort of increase in functional complexity which evolutionary theory demands. Nor would one
expect this to be possible from a random change.At this point some will argue that the terms useful, meaningful,
functional, etc. are misused. They claim that if some change gives survival value then by definition it has biological
meaning and usefulness. But this assumes that living systems do nothing but survivewhen in fact they and their
subsystems carry out projects and have specific functions. That is, they carry teleonomic information. This is one of the
essential differences between living objects and non-living ones (apart from machines). These projects do not always give
rise to survival/reproductive advantagesin fact, they may have very little to do with survival, but are carried out very
efficiently. The Darwinian assumption is always made, of course, that at some time in the organisms evolutionary history,
the project had survival/reproductive value. (For example, the archer-fish with its highly-skilled hobby of shooting down
bugs which it does not require for survival at the present time.) However, since these are nontestable assumptions, it is
legitimate to talk about genetic information in a teleonomic sense, in isolation from any possible survival value.The gene
pools of today carry vast quantities of information coding for the performance of projects and functions which do not exist in
the theoretical primeval cell. Hence, in order to support protozoon-to-man evolution, one must be able to point to instances
where mutation has added a new sentence or gene coding for a new project or function. This is so regardless of ones
assumptions on the survival value of any project or function.We do not know of a single mutation giving such an increase in
functional complexity. Probabilistic considerations would seem to preclude this in any case, or at least make it an
exceedingly rare event, far too rare to salvage evolution even over the assumed multibillion year time span.To illustrate
furtherthe molecule haemoglobin in man carries out its project of transporting and delivering oxygen in red cells in a
functionally efficient manner. A gene or sentence exists which codes for the production of haemoglobin. There is a known
mutation (actually three separate ones, giving the same result) in which only one letter in the sentence has been
accidentally replaced by another. If you inherit this change from both parents, you will be seriously ill with a disease called
sickle cell anaemia and will not survive for very long. Yet evolutionists frequently use this as an example of a beneficial
mutation. This is because if you inherit it from only one parent, your red cells will be affected, but not seriously enough to
affect your survivaljust enough to prevent the malaria parasite from using them as an effective host. Hence, you will be
more immune to malaria and better able to survive in malaria-infested areas. This shows us how a functionally
efficienthaemoglobin molecule became a functionally crippled haemoglobin molecule. The mutation-caused gene for this
disease is maintained at high levels in malaria-endemic regions by this incidental phenomenon of heterozygote superiority.
Its damaging effect in a proportion of offspring is balanced by the protection it gives against malaria. It is decidedly not an
upward change. We have not seen a new, efficient oxygen transport mechanism or its beginnings evolve. We have not
seen the haemoglobin transport mechanism improved.One more loose but possibly useful analogy. Let us say an
undercover agent is engaged in sending a daily reassuring telegram from enemy territory. The text says the enemy is not
attacking today. One day an accident occurs in transmission and the word not is lost. This is very likely going to be a
harmful change, perhaps even triggering a nuclear war by mistake. But perhaps, in a freak situation, it could turn out to be
useful (for example, by testing the fail-safe mechanisms involved). But this does not mean that it is the sort of change
required to begin to convert the telegram into an encyclopedia.The very small number of beneficial mutations actually
observed are simply the wrong kind of change for evolutionwe do not see the addition of new sentences which carry
meaning and information. Again surprisingly, one often reads creationist works which insist that there is no such thing as a
beneficial mutation. If benefit is defined purely in survival terms, then we would not expect this to be true in all instances,
and in fact it is notthat is, there are indeed beneficial mutations in that sense only.Information depends on order, and
since all of our observations and our understanding of entropy tells us that in a natural, spontaneous, unguided and
unprogrammed process order will decrease, the same will be true of information. The physicist and communications
engineer should not be surprised at the realisation that biological processes involve no increases in useful or functional
(teleonomic) information and complexity. In fact, the net result of any biological process involving transmission of information
(i.e., all hereditary variation) is conservation or loss of that genetic information.This is the reason why there are inevitable
limits to variation, why the creationist does not have to worry about how many new species the future may bringbecause
there is a limit to the amount of functionally efficient genetic information present, and natural processes such as mutation
cannot add to this original storehouse.Notice that since organisms were created to migrate out from a central point at least
once and fill empty ecological niches, as well as having to cope with a decaying and changing environment, they would
require considerable variation potential. Without this built-in genetic flexibility, most populations would not be present today.
Hence the concept of biological change is in a sense predicted by the young age model, not something forced upon it only
because such change has occurred.
The created kind
The originally created information was not in the form of one super species from which all of todays populations have split
off by this thinning out process, but was created as a number of distinct gene pools. Each group of sexually reproducing
organisms had at least two members. Thus,
Each original group began with a built-in amount of genetic information which is the raw material for virtually all subsequent
useful variation.
Each original group was presumably genetically and reproductively isolated from other such groups, yet was able to
interbreed within its own group. Hence the original kinds would truly have earned the modern biological definition of
species.4 We saw in our dog example that such species can split into two or more distinct subgroups which can then
diverge (without adding anything new) and can end up with the characteristics of species themselvesthat is,
reproductively isolated from each other but freely interbreeding among themselves. The more variability in the original gene
pool, the more easily can such new groups arise. However, each splitting reduces the potential for further change and
hence even this is limited. All the descendants of such an original kind which was once a species, may then end up being
classified together in a much higher taxonomic categorye.g., family.

Take a hypothetical created kind Atruly a biological

species with perhaps a tremendous genetic potential. See
Figure 1. (For the sake of simplicity, the diagram avoids the
issue of what is meant by two of each kindhowever, the
basic point is not affected.) Note that A may even continue
as an unchanged group, as may any of the subgroups.
Splitting off of daughter populations does not necessarily
mean extinction of the parent population. In the case of
man, the original group has not diverged sufficiently to
produce new species.Hence, D1, D2, D3, E1, E2, E3, P1,
P2, Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 are all different species,
reproductively isolated. But all the functionally efficient
genetic information they contain was present in A. (They
presumably carry some mutational defects as well).Let us
assume that the original kind A has become extinct, and
also the populations X, B, C, D, E, P and Q. (But not D1,
Figure 1. The splitting off of daughter populations from
D2, etc.) If X carried some of the original information in A,
an original created kind.
which is not represented in B or C, then that information is
Click here for larger image.
lost forever. Hence, in spite of the fact that there are many
new species which were not originally present, we would
have witnessed conservation of most of the information, loss of some, and nothing new added apart from mutations (harmful
defects or just meaningless noise in the genetic information). All of which is the wrong sort of informational change if one is
trying to demonstrate protozoon-to-man evolution.Classifications above species are more or less arbitrary groupings of
convenience, based generally on similarities and differences of structure. It is conceivable that today, D1, D2 and D3 could
be classified as species belonging to one genus, and E1, E2 and E3 as species in another genus, for example. It could also
be that the groups B and C were sufficiently different such that their descendants would today be in different families. We
begin to see some of the problems facing a creationist who tries to delineate todays representatives of the created
kinds.Creatures may be classified in the same family, for example, on the basis of similarities due to common design while
in fact they belong to two totally different created kinds. This should sound a note of caution against using morphology
alone, as well as pointing out the potential folly of saying in this case, the baramin is the family; in this case, it is the genus,
etc. (Baramin is an accepted creationist term for created kind.)
There is no easy solution as yet to the problem of establishing each of these genetic relationshipsin fact, we will probably
never be able to know them all with certainty. Interbreeding, in vitro fertilization experiments, etc. may suggest membership
of the same baramin but lack of such genetic compatibility does not prove that two groups are not in the same kind. (See
earlier discussiongenetic barriers could arise via mutational deterioration.) However, newer insights, enabling us to make
direct comparisons between species via DNA sequencing, open up an entirely new research horizon. (Although the question
of where the funding for such extensive research will come from in an evolution-dominated society remains enigmatic.)
What then do we say to an evolutionist who understandably presses us for a definition of a created kind or identification of
same today? I suggest the following for consideration:Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they
have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.To talk of fixity of kinds in relation to any present-day variants thus also
becomes redundantno new kinds can appear by definition.Besides being a simple and obvious definition, it is axiomatic.
Thus it is as unashamedly circular as a rolled-up armadillo and just as impregnable, deflecting attention, quite properly, to
the real issue of genetic change.The question is notwhat is a baramin, is it a species, a family or a genus? Rather, the
question iswhich of todays populations are related to each other by this form of common descent, and are thus of the
same created kind? Notice that this is vastly removed from the evolutionists notion of common descent. As the creationist
looks back in time along a line of descent, he sees an expansion of the gene pool. As the evolutionist does likewise, he sees
a contraction.As with all taxonomic questions, common sense will probably continue to play the greatest part. The yong
model, the fossil record and common sense unite to prevent creationists doing too much lumping together as we go back in
time. For instance, it is conceivable (though not necessarily so) that crocodiles and alligators both descended from the same
ancestral gene pool which contained all their functionally efficient genes, but not really conceivable that crocodiles, alligators
and ostriches had a common ancestral pool which carried the genes for all three!
Refuting EvolutionChapter 2
A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution
by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
First published in Refuting Evolution, Chapter 2
Variation and natural selection versus evolution
This chapter contrasts the evolution and creation models, and refutes faulty understandings of both. A major point is the
common practice of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science to call all change in organisms evolution. This
enables Teaching about Evolution to claim that evolution is happening today. However, creationists have never disputed that
organisms change; the difference is the type of change. A key difference between the two models is whether observed
changes are the type to turn particles into people.
Evolution
Evolution, of the fish-to-philosopher type, requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing
organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this simple life form. For this
to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today. Chapter 9 on
Design shows how encyclopedic this information is.So how do evolutionists propose that this information arose? The first
self-reproducing organism would have made copies of itself. Evolution also requires that the copying is not always
completely accurateerrors (mutations) occur. Any mutations which enable an organism to leave more self-reproducing
offspring will be passed on through the generations. This differential reproduction is called natural selection. In summary,
evolutionists believe that the source of new genetic information is mutations sorted by natural selectionthe neo-Darwinian
theory.
Young age model
The different kinds of organisms, reproduced after their kinds . Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of
information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide
variety of environments.All (sexually reproducing) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring

inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two genes at a given position (locus,
plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, meaning it carries
different forms (alleles) of this gene. For example, one allele can code for blue eyes, while the other one can code for brown
eyes; or one can code for the A blood type and the other for the B type. Sometimes two alleles have a combined effect,
while at other times only one allele (called dominant) has any effect on the organism, while the other does not
(recessive). With humans, both the mothers and fathers halves have 20,687 protein-coding genes, while 97% of the rest of
the DNA has an important role in coding for RNA, for control of gene expression. Overall, the information equivalent to a
thousand 500-page books (3 billion base pairs, asTeaching about Evolution correctly states on page 42). The ardent neoDarwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent. 1 This means that
for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles. If we consider only the proteincoding genes, this would mean 1,340 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of
different possible sperm or egg cells 2 1,340 or 2.4 10403. The number of atoms in the whole known universe is only 10 80,
extremely tiny by comparison. So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each
give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their
modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder Ayala pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from
reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden
recessive alleles coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not
creation. His belief is contrary to information theory, as shown in chapter 9 on Design.
Deterioration from perfection
As the previous chapter showed, all scientists interpret facts according to their assumptions. From this premise of perfection
followed by deterioration, it follows that mutations, as would be expected from copying errors, destroyed some of the original
genetic information. Many evolutionists point to allegedly imperfect structures as proof of evolution, although this is really
an argument against perfect design rather than for evolution. But many allegedly imperfect structures can also be
interpreted as a deterioration of once-perfect structures, for example, eyes of blind creatures in caves. However, this fails to
explain how sight could have arisen in the first place.2
Adaptation and natural selection
Also, the once-perfect environments have deteriorated into harsher ones. Creatures adapted to these new environments,
and this adaptation took the form of weeding out some genetic information. This is certainly natural selectionevolutionists
dont have a monopoly on this. In fact, a creationist, Edward Blyth, thought of the concept 25 years before Darwins Origin of
Species was published. But unlike evolutionists, Blyth regarded it as a conservative process that would remove defective
organisms, thus conserving the health of the population as a whole. Only when coupled with hypothetical informationgaining mutations could natural selection be creative.For example, the original dog/wolf kind probably had the information
for a wide variety of fur lengths. The first animals probably had medium-length fur. In the simplified example illustrated
below,3 a single gene pair is shown under each dog as coming in two possible forms. One form of the gene (L) carries
instructions for long fur, the other (S) for short fur.In row 1, we start with medium-furred animals (LS) interbreeding. Each of
the offspring of these dogs can get one of
either gene from each parent to make up
their two genes.
In row 2, we see that the resultant offspring
can have either short (SS), medium (LS) or
long (LL) fur. Now imagine the climate
cooling drastically (as in the Ice Age). Only
those with long fur survive to give rise to
the next generation (line 3). So from then
on, all the dogs will be a new, long-furred
variety. Note that:
They
are
now adapted to
their
environment.
They are now more specialized than their
ancestors on row 1.
Figure 1: The evolutionary tree which postulates that all todays species are
This
has
occurred
through natural
descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from nonselection.
living chemicals). This is what evolution is really all about.
There have been no new genes added.
In fact, genes have been lost from the
populationi.e., there has been a loss of
genetic information, the opposite of what
microbe-to-man evolution needs in order to
be credible.Now the population is less able
to adapt to future environmental changes
were the climate to become hot, there is no
genetic information for short fur, so the
dogs would probably overheat.Another
Figure 2: The alleged creationist lawn this represents the caricature of
information-losing process occurs in
creationism presented by Teaching about Evolution the kinds were the
sexually
reproducing
organisms
same as todays species.
remember, each organism inherits only half
the information carried by each parent. For
example, consider a human couple with
only one child, where the mother had the
AB blood group (meaning that she has
both A and B alleles) and the father had the
O blood group (both alleles are O and
recessive). So the child would have either
AO or BO alleles, so either the A or the B
Figure 3: The true creationist orchard diversity has occurred with time
allele must be missing from the childs
within the original kinds (creationists often call them baramin, from
genetic information. Thus, the child could
Hebrewbara = create, and min = kind). Much of the evidence of variation
not have the AB blood group, but would
presented by Teaching about Evolutionrefutes only the straw-man version of
have either the A or the B blood group
creationism in Figure 2, but fits the true creationist orchard model perfectly
well.

respectively.4A large population as a whole is less likely to lose established genes because there are usually many copies of
the genes of both parents (for example, in their siblings and cousins). But in a small, isolated population, there is a good
chance that information can be lost by random sampling. This is called genetic drift. Since new mutant genes would start off
in small numbers, they are quite likely to be eliminated by genetic drift, even if they were beneficial. 5In an extreme case,
where a single pregnant animal or a single pair is isolated, e.g., by being blown or washed onto a desert island, it may lack a
number of genes of the original population. So when its descendants fill the island, this new population would be different
from the old one, with less information. This is called the founder effect.Loss of information through mutations, natural
selection, and genetic drift can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that they will
no longer interbreed. For example, changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognizing a mate, so they no
longer interbreed. Thus a new species is formed.
The Flood
Another aspect of the young age model is that the whole world was flooded. Creationists scientists conclude that these
kinds multiplied and their descendants spread out over the earth. Founder effects would have been common, so many
kinds would each have given rise to several of todays species.
Contrasting the Models
Once the young age is properly understood, it is possible to analyze the evidence for evolution as a contemporary process
presented byTeaching about Evolution on pages 1619. The three diagrams below should help:

The alleged evidence for evolution in action

This section will deal with some of the examples used by Teaching about Evolution, and show that they fit the creationist
model better.
Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
Teaching about Evolution claims on pages 1617:
The continual evolution of human pathogens has come to pose one of the most serious health problems facing human
societies. Many strains of bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics as natural selection has amplified
resistant strains that arose through naturally occurring genetic variation.Similar episodes of rapid evolution are occurring in
many different organisms. Rats have developed resistance to the poison warfarin. Many hundreds of insect species and
other agricultural pests have evolved resistance to the pesticides used to combat themeven to chemical defenses
genetically engineered into plants.However, what has this to do with the evolution of new kinds with new genetic
information? Precisely nothing. What has happened in many cases is that some bacteria already had the genes for
resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria obtained by thawing sources which had been frozen before man
developed antibiotics have shown to be antibiotic-resistant. When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those
lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information, but
they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects evolving resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance
was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated.In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a
mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information. It may seem surprising that destruction of
information can sometimes help. But one example is resistance to the antibiotic penicillin. Bacteria normally produce an
enzyme, penicillinase, which destroys penicillin. The amount of penicillinase is controlled by a gene. There is normally
enough produced to handle any penicillin encountered in the wild, but the bacterium is overwhelmed by the amount given to
patients. A mutation disabling this controlling gene results in much more penicillinase being produced. This enables the
bacterium to resist the antibiotic. But normally, this mutant would be less fit, as it wastes resources by producing
unnecessary penicillinase.Another example of acquired antibiotic resistance is the transfer of pieces of genetic material
(called plasmids) between bacteria, even between those of different species. But this is still using pre-existing information,
and doesnt explain its origin.
More information on antibiotic resistance can be found in the article Superbugs Not Super after All.6
Lacewing species
Another example of evolution is given on page 17, where Teaching about Evolution states:
The North American lacewing species Chrysoperla carnea and Chrysoperla downesi separated from a common ancestor
species recently in evolutionary time and are very similar. But they are different in color, reflecting their different habitats,
and they breed at different times of year.This statement is basically correct, but an evolutionary interpretation of this
statement is not the only one possible. A creationist interpretation is that an original Chrysoperla kind was created with
genes for a wide variety of colors and mating behavior. This has given rise to more specialized descendants. The
specialization means that each has lost the information for certain colors and behaviors. The formation of new species
(speciation) without information gain is no problem for creationists.7 Adaptation/variation within Chrysoperla, which involves
no addition of complex new genetic information, says nothing about the origin of lacewings themselves, which is what
evolution is supposed to explain.
Darwins finches
On page 19, Teaching about Evolution claims:
A particularly interesting example of contemporary evolution involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the
Galpagos Islands, now known as Darwins finches . Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the
survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Drought thus favors birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these
tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. [Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University] have
estimated that if droughts occur about every 10 years on the islands, then a new species of finch might arise in only about
200 years.However, again, an original population of finches had a wide variety of beak sizes. When a drought occurs, the
birds with insufficiently strong and wide beaks cant crack the nuts, so they are eliminated, along with their genetic
information. Again, no new information has arisen, so this does not support molecules-to-man evolution.
Also, the rapid speciation (200 years) is good evidence for the young age model. Darwins finches show that it need not take
very long for new species to arise.9
Breeding versus evolution
On pages 3738, Teaching about Evolution compares the artificial breeding of pigeons and dogs with evolution. However, all
the breeders do is select from the information already present. For example, Chihuahuas were bred by selecting the
smallest dogs to breed from over many generations. But this process eliminates the genes for large size.The opposite
process would have bred Great Danes from the same ancestral dog population, by eliminating the genes for small size. So
the breeding has sorted out the information mixture into separate lines. All the breeds have less information than the original

dog/wolf kind.Many breeds are also the victims of hereditary conditions due to mutations, for example the squashed snout
of the bulldog and pug. But their loss of genetic information and their inherited defects mean that purebred dogs are less fit
in the wild than mongrels, and veterinarians can confirm that purebreds suffer from more diseases.Actually, breeds of dogs
are interfertile, even Great Danes and Chihuahuas, so they are still the same species. Not that speciation is a problem for
creationistssee the section on lacewings above. But if Great Danes and Chihuahuas were only known from the fossil
record, they would probably have been classified as different species or even different genera. Indeed, without human
intervention, Great Danes and Chihuahuas could probably not breed together (hybridize), so they could be considered
different species in the wild.
Refuting Evolution 2Chapter 4
A sequel to Refuting Evolution that refutes the latest arguments to support evolution (as presented by PBS and Scientific
American).
by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. with Michael Matthews
Argument: Natural selection leads to speciation
Galpagos finchesevolution in action?
The opening episode of the PBS Evolution series makes much of the Galpagos finchesconsidered one of the classic
evidences of evolution in action. But PBS admits that Darwin didnt even realize that the birds were finches and he failed to
label which island they came from. All the same, he managed to acquire this information, and he eventually concluded that
they had descended from mainland finches with modification just as the young model would predict! He correctly realized
that finch beak size was the result of adaptation to different food sources.
The problem is that Darwin and the PBS series taught that this adaptation could explain the general theory of evolution
(GTE). But the finch beak variation is merely the result of selection of existing genetic information, while the GTE
requires new information. Also, an 18-year study by zoologist Peter Grant showed that a new species could arise in only 200
years,1 which is inadvertent support for the young age
model of rapid
speciation.2 However, another problem with using these finches is that the variation
seems to be cyclicwhile a drought resulted in a slight increase in beak size, the
change was reversed when the rains returned. So it looks more like builtin
adaptability to various climatic conditions than anything to do with the GTE.PBS also
discusses the change in beak length of hummingbirds, to adapt to changes in the
lengths of flowers where they obtain nectar. But the same points applyno evidence
was produced that any new information is required for these changes, as opposed to
selection of already-existing information.
What is the young age model?
Perhaps the most frequently repeated mistake that evolutionists make in their attacks
on
creation is to assert that natural selection and speciation prove evolution and
disprove the young age account of origins. Their bait-and-switch arguments imply that
creationists believe in fixity of species. The glossary for the PBS Evolution series Online Course for Teachers: Teaching
Evolution explicitly makes this empty allegation:In creationism, species are described as fixed in the sense that they are
believed not to change their form, or appearance, through time.But no reputable creationist denies speciationin fact, it is
an important part of creationist biology. In the previous chapter, I showed that the real issue is whether evolution can explain
the increase of genetic information contentenough changes to turn microbes into men, not simple change through time.
Before laying to rest the evolutionists pointless arguments on this issue, it might be helpful to review the creationist model in
detail.
Pre-flood kinds are not modern species
The different kinds of organisms reproduced after their kinds.Thus the kinds would have originallybeen distinct biological
species, i.e., a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring but that cannot so breed with a
different biological species.But creationists point out that the kind is larger than one of todays species. Each of the original
kinds was created with a vast amount of information. The original creatures had enough variety in their genetic information
so that their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.Based on the young age criterion for kinds,
creationists have made several deductions about the modern descendants of the original living organisms. They deduce, for
example, that as long as two modern creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are descended from
the same kind.3Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same
kind.4 The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the
kinds. The implication is one-wayhybridization is evidence that two creatures are the same kind, but it
does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to
hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who cant have children, and we dont classify
them as a different species, let alone a different kind.The boundaries of the kind do not always correspond to any given
man-made classification such as species, genus, family, etc. But this is not the fault of the term kind; it is actually due to
inconsistencies in the man-made classification system. That is, several organisms classified as different species, and even
different genera or higher groupings, can produce fertile offspring. This means that they are really the same species that has
several varieties, hence a polytypic (many type) species. A good example is Kekaimalu the wholphin, a fertile hybrid
between a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), i.e.,
between two different so-calledgenera.5 There are more examples in reference 3.Biologists have identified several ways that
a loss of genetic information through mutations (copying mistakes) can lead to new speciese.g., the loss of a proteins
ability to recognize imprinting marks, jumping genes, natural selection, and genetic drift. When these mutations take place
in small populations, they can sometimes result in sterile or nonviable offspring. Or changes in song or color might result in
birds that no longer recognize a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Either way, a new species is formed. Thus, each
created kind may have been the ancestor of several present-day species.But again, its important to stress that speciation
has nothing to do with real evolution (GTE), because it involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather
than new information.
The young age model predicts rapid speciation
The young age model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species. This is because all the modern
varieties of land vertebrates must have descended from comparatively few animals that surivived the flood only around
4,500 years ago. In contrast, Darwin thought that this process would normally take eons. It turns out that the very evidence
claimed by evolutionists to support their theory supports the young age model.Biologists have identified several instances of
rapid adaptation, including guppies on Trinidad, lizards in the Bahamas, daisies on the islands of British Columbia, and

house mice on Madeira.6 Another good example is a new species of mosquito that cant interbreed with the parent
population, arising in the London Underground train system (the Tube) in only 100 years. The rapid change has
astonished evolutionists, but should delight creationists.7 Scientific American admits as much.These days even most
creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and
fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grants studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). [SA 80]And why
should creationists deny such things? All of this so-called microevolution has never been observed to add new genetic
information. In fact, the sorts of changes which are observed are the wrong type to drive the evolutionary story. 8 Scientific
American is forced to make a pointless claim about evidence of profound changes:Natural selection and other mechanisms
such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis, and hybridizationcan drive profound changes in populations over time.
[SA 80]Again, do these profound changes increase information? No populations are seen losing information, and adapting
within the constraints of the information they already have. In contrast, goo-to-you evolution requires something quite
differentthe progressive addition of massive amounts of genetic information that is novel not only to that population, but to
the entire biosphere.
Straw man 1: Natural selection cant explain new species
Scientific American falls for the same straw-man argument as PBS, failing to recognize that creationists accept new species
arising within the kind. Creationists recognize how reproductive isolation can result from information loss. (See discussion
above.)
11. Natural selection might explain micro-evolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher
orders of life.
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the
model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the
rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would
accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely
would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward
becoming a new species. [SA 82]Indeed, creationists point out that Mayrs allopatric model would explain the origin of the
different people groups (races) after the confusion of languages at Babel induced small population groups to spread out all
over the earth.9 Of course, the modern people groups are notreproductively isolated and are still a single biological species.
Note that the reproductive isolation is an informationally negative change, even if beneficial, because it blocks the
interchange of genetic information between populations.Evolutionists brag that natural selection is the best studied of the
evolutionary mechanisms, but these studies show that it has nothing to do with evolution of more complex life forms! All we
observe it doing is removing information, not adding it. Scientific American suggests that there are other feasible
mechanisms to explain evolution, but they do not hold up, either.Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary
mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of
unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the
energy-generating
mitochondria,
evolved
through
the
symbiotic
merger
of
ancient
organisms.
[SA 82]The endosymbiosis theory has many problems, such as the lack of evidence that prokaryotes are capable of
ingesting another cell and keeping it alive, and the large differences in genes between mitochondria and
prokaryotes.10 Scientific American admits that its open to any other mechanism to explain natureas long as it excludes a
designer!Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces
must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific
terms, is unproved. [SA 82]We have already cited more honest admissions by evolutionists Lewontin and Todd about their a
priori rejection of a Designer before even examining the evidence. But evolutionary propaganda for public consumption
persists in claiming that evolution is accepted purely on scientific grounds.
Straw man 2: Evolutionists have seen species evolve
Scientific American tries to make hay with this straw man, devoting two points to proving natural selection and speciation.
Informed creationists dont teach against these biological processeseven though some day-age advocates, like Hugh
Ross, do.11
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. [SA 82]It might take centuries, but it need not. In
fact, speciation can happen much faster than most evolutionists (and day-age advocates) realize. Furthermore, recognizing
a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a
species. The most widely used definition, Mayrs Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community
of reproductively isolated populationssets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In
practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course,
fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species
membership. [SA 82]We agree. Its important to note this difficulty in defining species whenever evolutionists claim that
creationists dont have a consistent definition of kinds (which we do, as discussed before). We also agree with Scientific
Americans recognition of recent experiments that have caused artificial speciation.Nevertheless, the scientific literature
does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects, and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers
subjected organisms to various types of selection for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences, and
other traits and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William
R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they
sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations,
the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment. [ SA 8283]None of this is news to
informed creationists. Once again, there is no new information, but sorting and loss of already existing information.
Ecology proves evolution?
While evolutionists claim that natural selection is the best-studied mechanism for evolution, they also must explain the reallife processes behind natural selection. Their discussion of ecology is very interesting (and factual), but it tells us nothing
about GTE.
Changing populations within healthy forest ecosystems
For example, PBS 3 devotes a whole segment to show how a healthy forest ecosystem has a large carnivore at the top of
the food chain, which can cause drastic changes in the population of the forest. It takes 100 pounds of plant to feed 10
pounds of herbivore, which in turn feed 1 pound of carnivore. So the existence of carnivores indicates the health of the
supporting animals and plants. Later on in the program, Wildlife Conservation Society biologist Alan Rabinowitz claims that
this healthy forest exhibits evolution going on around us, but all he means is the replacement of one species with another.
Of course, already-existing species replacing other already-existing species has nothing to do with the origin of new species

with new genetic information. Once again, evolution is a vacuous catch-all term, with any change in population numbers
tossed out to the unwary listener as evidence of the goo-to-you theory.
Founder effect
Then the PBS program moves on to isolated habitats and the founder effect. This is where a single breeding pair or
pregnant female colonizes a new niche, and carries only a fraction of the gene pool. Therefore its descendants also contain
a small fraction of the original gene pool, so the new population can be very different from the old. This also offers no
comfort or support to the notion of evolution because the new population has less information than the old.
Invasionthe leafy spurge
Another ecological topic is biological invaders, the bane of all countries that depend on agriculture and livestock to feed their
people and earn export dollars. The invaders are often more mobile and adaptive, so they out-compete native species.
Modern technology has vastly increased the rate of hostile invasions, as animals stow away on ships and in the
undercarriage of airplanes, although some species have been introduced deliberately. Fordham University paleoecologist
David Burney investigated what happened in Hawaii when Polynesians and then Europeans introduced new species. He
claimed:Evolution has now entered a new mode. Something altogether new is happening, and it has to do with what
humans do to the evolutionary process. [PBS 3]Ho hum, this is just another example of replacement of one species with
another, which again has nothing to do with showing how particles could have turned into people.Pioneers introduced a
weed called leafy spurge into North Dakota from Russia, and it threatens to kill off all native grasses. A cattle rancher
claimed on PBS that it is a cancer to the land it makes the land just totally useless. Actually, the first claim is an
exaggeration, and the second is a matter of perspectivesheep and goat farmers would have no problems.
But the rancher said that herbicides were very expensive, so the narrator asks: whats left? The solution may be
another invaderdiscovered when scientists learned what kept leafy spurge in check in its native Russia. Its the flea beetle
a case of fighting evolutionary fire with fire. [PBS 3]
Canisters of flea beetles are dropped from airplanes, then the narrator says:
So now were in a race most of us dont even know were runningto learn as much as possible about evolution before its
too late. [PBS 3]Huh? Using already-existing enemies of the leafy spurge requires evolution? This must be the nadir of the
contentless nature of this word, even by the pathetic standards of the PBS series. Farmers have used such common-sense
biological controls for centuries, well before Darwin. Interestingly, one of the classic cases of successful biological control
was the defeat of Australias cactus invader, the prickly pear, through the introduction of the Cactoblastis organism. John
Mann, the scientist responsible for saving Australia from ecological and economic ruin in this way, was heaped with
accolades and honors for his feat. Mann was a convinced creationist, who was interviewed byCreation before his death.12
Symbiosis
PBS 3 also describes the leaf-cutting ants of Brazil. They form colonies containing eight million insects, and they cut leaves
into pieces and bring them to the nest, but they dont eat them. Rather, other leafcutter ants mulch them and use the mulch
to grow a fungus garden. This fungus is used as food for the young leafcutters, which thus depend on the fungus for
survival, but the fungus depends on the ants to provide the mulch.But this fungus garden has a weed, a virulent mold that
badly hinders the fungal growth. To combat this, some ants have a white waxy coating that is now known to be tangled mats
of bacteria that produce antibiotics that kill the mold.Presumably, by this stage in the series, the producers hope that viewers
are so indoctrinated in evolution that they dont even need to try to produce evidence. To the diehard evolutionist, any
phenomenon at all can be adduced as evidence for evolution. In this case, they dont bother to explain how such a complex
symbiosis could have evolved, but merely assert that the bacteria and mold are products of an arms race lasting 50 million
years.
Predatorprey, driving force of evolution?
While evolutionists discuss natural selection and speciation, they like to emphasize the bloodshed and violence that drives
these biological changes. They see Nature, red in tooth and claw, in the memorable phrase from the very long 1850
poem In Memoriam, A.H.H. by Alfred Lord Tennyson (18091892). In debates they love to pull out this as knock-down
evidence against people, believing it disproves the possibility of intelligent designerfollowing Darwin. The fact that
Tennysons poem predated Darwins Origin indicates that Darwin was greatly influenced by philosophical ideas of his day.
Episode 4 of the PBS Evolution series aims to show that these violent biological forces, rather than the environmental ones,
drive evolution most strongly, based largely on extensive interviews with the atheistic sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson. The
title of PBS 4, The Evolutionary Arms Race! reflects the struggle between predator and prey: as a prey evolves stronger
defense mechanisms, an attacker must evolve stronger mechanisms to survive, and vice versa. Of course, evolutionary
biologists think there is no design behind this: the only prey that survive have chance copying mistakes in their genes that
confer a strong defense, and they pass on these genes to their offspring. Faced with these stronger defense mechanisms,
only those predators that happen to have mutations conferring better attacking power will be able to eat the prey, while the
others starve and fail to pass on their genes.But as explained earlier, real evolution requires changes that increase genetic
information, while non-information-increasing changes are part of the young age model. None of the examples presented in
episode 4 prove that information has increased, so they provide no support for evolution or against the young age model .
Poison newt
PBS takes viewers to Oregon, where there were mysterious deaths of campers, but it turned out that newts were found
boiled in the coffee pot. These rough-skinned newts (Taricha granulosa) secrete a deadly toxin from their skin glands so
powerful that even a pinhead-sized amount can kill an adult human. They are the deadliest salamanders on earth. So
scientists investigated why this newt should have such a deadly toxin.They theorized that a predator was driving this
evolution, and they found that the common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) was the newts only predator. Most snakes
will be killed by the newts toxin, but the common garter snake just loses muscle control for a few hours, which could of
course have serious consequences. But the newts were also driving the evolution of the snakesthey also had various
degrees of resistance to the newt toxin.Are these conclusions correct? Yes, it is probably correct that the predators and prey
are driving each others changes, and that they are the result of mutations and natural selection. Although it might surprise
the ill-informed anti-creationist that creationists accept mutations and selection, it shouldnt be so surprising to anyone who
understands the young age model .So is this proof of particles-to-people evolution? Not at all. There is no proof that the
changes increase genetic information. In fact, the reverse seems to be true.The snakes with greater resistance have a cost
they move more slowly. Since PBS provided no explanation of the poisons activity, its fair to propose possible scenarios
to explain the phenomenon under a young age framework (it would be hypocritical for evolutionists to object, since they
often produce hypothetical just-so stories to explain what they cannot see).Suppose the newts poison normally reacts with
a particular neurotransmitter in its victims to produce something that halts all nerve impulses, resulting in death. But if the
snake had a mutation which reduced the production of this neurotransmitter, then the newts poison would have fewer
targets to act upon. Another possibility is a mutation in the snake altering the neurotransmitters precise structure so that its
shape no longer matches the protein. Either way, the poison would be less effective. But at the same time, either mutation

would slow nerve impulses, making the snakes muscle movement slower.So either of these would be an information loss in
the snake that happens to confer an advantage. This is far from the only example. The best known is sickle-cell anemia, a
common blood disorder in which a mutation causes the sufferers hemoglobin to form the wrong shape and fail to carry
oxygen. People who carry two copies of the sickle-cell gene (homozygous) often develop fatal anemia. But this misshapen
hemoglobin also resists the malaria parasite (Plasmodium). So humans who are heterozygous (have both a normal and
abnormal gene) have some advantage in areas where malaria is prevalent, even though half their hemoglobin is less
effective at its job of carrying oxygen. Another example is wingless beetles, which survive on windy islands because they
wont fly and be blown into the sea. 14As for the newt, likewise, increased secretion of poison can result without any new
information. One possibility is an information-losingmutation that disables a gene controlling the production of the poison.
Then it would be over-produced, which would be an advantage in defending against the snake, but a wasteful use of
resources otherwise.There are other related examples, e.g., one way that the Staphylococcus bacteria becomes resistant to
penicillin is via a mutation that disables a control gene for production of penicillinase, an enzyme that destroys penicillin.
When it has this mutation, the bacterium over-produces this enzyme, which means it is resistant to huge amounts of
penicillin. But in the wild, this mutant bacterium is less fit, because it squanders resources by producing unnecessary
penicillinase.Another example is a cattle breed called the Belgian Blue. This is very valuable to beef farmers because it has
2030% more muscle than average cattle, and its meat is lower in fat and very tender. Normally, muscle growth is regulated
by a number of proteins, such as myostatin.However, Belgian Blues have a mutation that deactivates the myostatin gene, so
the muscles grow uncontrolled and become very large. This mutation has a cost, in reduced fertility.15 A different mutation of
the same gene is also responsible for the very muscular Piedmontese cattle. Genetic engineers have bred muscular mice
by the same principle.In all these cases, a mutation causes information loss, even though it might be considered beneficial.
Therefore it is in the opposite direction required for particles-to-people evolution, which requires the generation
of new information.
Evolution of pathogens
If evolutionists hope to find evidence of modern-day evolution, they have a perfect opportunity with pathogens. In just a few
months, bacteria can go through hundreds of thousands of generations, equivalent to millions of years in vertebrates. Yet in
spite of this rapid change, the bacteria that we see today are essentially the same as the bacteria retrieved from the tombs
of the pharaohs, and even with those discovered in salt crystals dated millions of years old.21
HIV resistance to drugs
PBS 1 claims that Darwin didnt really see evolution in action, but now we do. Supposedly HIV, the cause of AIDS, evolves
resistance to drugs faster than we can make them. Because the virus can produce billions of copies per day, it can evolve
in minutes to hours. One researcher said that this rapid change would be a surprise if we didnt have the concept of
evolution. PBS also attempted to tug heartstrings, by portraying AIDS patients as victims of evolution.First, we see the
equivocationHIV producing HIV is supposed to show that particles could turn into people; but theyre still HIVthey
havent changed into something else.Second, in PBS 4, its made clear that the related phenomenon of antibiotic resistance
in bacteria took the medical community by surprisethis means that it wasnt a prediction of evolution, except after the fact.
Third, they fail to demonstrate that new information is involved, and in fact the next segment of the program showed that the
opposite is true. Veronica Miller of Goethe University in Germany experimented by ceasing all antiviral drug treatments to a
patient. Without the drugs, the few surviving original (wild) types that had infected the patient could grow more easily. It
turned out that they easily out-competed the vast numbers of resistant forms that had developed in the hospital. She said
this was a risk because the wild types were also more dangerousmore efficient than the new strains that had survived the
earlier drug treatments. The superior efficiency and reproductive success of the wild type implies that the other evolved
strains acquired resistance due to a loss of information somewhere.This should not be surprising, because the same is true
of many examples of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. For example, some bacteria (seePoison newt, above) have an
enzyme that usually has a useful purpose, but it also turns an antibiotic into a poison. That is, its not the antibiotic per
se thats damaging, but its chemical byproduct from the bacteriums metabolism. So a mutation disabling this enzyme would
render the antibiotic harmless. But this bacterium is still disabled, because the enzyme is now hindered, so the bacterium
would be unable to compete in the wild with non-resistant ones. The information loss in both HIV and the bacterium is
the opposite of what evolution requires.22
Tuberculosis and antibiotic resistance
PBS describes the microbe as a predator of humans, although parasite would be more accurate. Mummies show that the
tuberculosis bacillus (TB) affected Egyptians 4,000 years ago. The Black Death wiped out one-third of Europes population
in 13471351, and the influenza pandemic of 19181919 killed 20 million peoplemore than World War 1 that had just
ended.After the world wars, antibiotics were considered the magic bullet, and there were optimistic claims even as late as
1969 that infectious diseases were a thing of the past. But they failed to anticipate the development of resistance. This
shows that bacterial resistance was hardly a prediction of evolution, but is really a phenomenon they try to explain after the
fact as due to evolution. As will be shown, there is nothing to support molecules-to-man evolution; rather, a properly
understood creation model makes good sense of the evidence.PBS 4 discussed a new strain of TB that had arisen in the
overcrowded Russian prison system, containing malnourished prisoners with weakened immune systems. One inmate,
Sasha (Alexandr), had failed to complete his course of antibiotics. This meant that a few bacteria survived because they
had some resistance to the antibiotic, and then proliferated once the treatment stopped. But the program itself makes it clear
that the resistance was already present, so this is not evolution, although it is natural selection.These resistant bacteria are
not confined to the prison, but have spread because of travel. One 19-year-old Russian student, Anna, has a strain
resistant to five antibiotics. Immunologists predict that TB could soon claim 23 million lives per year.But as shown, there is
no proof that any antibiotic resistance is due to increased genetic information. The above example shows that the
information was already present, and I previously explained how a loss of information could confer resistance. Sometimes
bacteria can pass genes to each other by exchanging plasmids, and sometimes these genes confer resistance. But of
course, these examples involve no new information produced in the biosphere.
Evolution of less harmful bacteria?
Paul Ewald of Amherst College claimed on PBS 4 that evolution may not only be a problem, but could also be harnessed to
evolve less harmful bacteria. If a pathogen spreads by close contact between people, then its in its best interest not to
make people so sick that they cant move around. But those pathogens spread by water and insects tend to be deadly.In the
1991 cholera epidemic in South America, a million people were infected, and 10,000 died. The bacterium (Vibrio cholerae)
was spread by contaminated water, so evolved high levels of toxicity. The solution was to clean the water supply, so that
only healthier people could spread the germ. So the germ evolved mildness, and many infected people didnt even develop
symptoms.But here again, there is indeed natural selection, but the result is that Vibrio cholerae turn into Vibrio
cholerae! There is no proof that any new information was produced, but rather, selection of existing genetic variation.
PBS 4 compared this phenomenon to breeding domestic dogs from wolves, but again this involved loss of information.

Pathogens and young age model

The phenomenon described in the previous section can provide some insights. It clearly shows that even something usually
known as a deadly germ can have a mild variant that causes no illness. Presumably something like this was createdeven
today, Vibrio cholerae has a role in the ecosystems of brackish waters and estuaries, and the original may have had a role
living symbiotically with some people. Even its toxin probably has a beneficial function in small amounts, like most poisons.
The virulence arose, by natural selection of varieties producing more and more toxin as contaminated water became more
plentiful. No new information would be needed for this process. Recent evidence shows that the loss of chemotaxisthe
ability to move in response to changes in chemical concentrationswill markedly increase infectivity in an infant mouse
model of cholera.23Another likely example of virulence arising by information loss is the mycoplasmas, the smallest known
self-reproducing organisms (parasitic bacteria with no cell walls and fewer than 1,000 genes, found in the respiratory system
and urogenital tracts of humans). Loss of genetic information, e.g., for amino acid synthesis, could have resulted in the
mycoplasmas becoming increasingly dependent on their hosts for survival. 24 Some clues to possible benign roles for viruses
can be gleaned from functions they have even today. Viruses are non-living entities, which function like seeds and spores,
transporting genes among plants and animals. They also help keep soil fertile, keep water clean, and regulate gases in the
atmosphere.25 So once again, some alleged evidence for evolution actually provides support for the young age model.
Has immunity evolved?
In PBS 4, Stephen OBrien of the National Cancer Institute wondered why the big cats have evolved resistance to a
disease deadly to humans. There is a Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV) that should cause AIDS-like symptoms.
Supposedly the cats ancestors were almost wiped out by the virus, but some had resistant genes. Supposedly, the FIV
evolved to mildness.More interesting was the claim that about 10 percent of humans have a whopping mutation that
confers resistance to HIV. This turns out to be the loss of certain receptors on the immune cells preventing the HIV from
docking on them. Again, this change is in the opposite directionrequired to change particles into people.From mycoplasmas
to big cats, from TB to poison newts, theres not a shred of evidence that might explain the evolution of new genetic
information, but the loss that we see fits nicely with the young model.
Ligers and wholphins? What next?
by Don Batten
If we can cross-breed a zebra and a horse (to
produce a zorse), a lion and a tiger (a liger or
tigon), or a false killer whale and a dolphin (a
wholphin), what does this tell us about the
original kinds of animals that created?
When we plant a tomato seed, we dont expect to
see a geranium pop up out of the ground. Nor do
we expect that our dog will give birth to kittens or
that Aunt Betty, who is expecting, will bring home
a chimpanzee baby from the hospital! Our
everyday experience that things produce
offspring true to their kind.But what is a created
kind? The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus
(17071778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a species as a
group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the young age concept.
(See aside below.)
Finding the created kinds
The ability to produce offspring, i.e. to breed with one another, defines the original created kinds. Linnaeus recognised this,
but named many species2 without any breeding experiments, on the basis of such things as flower characteristics. In his
mature years he did extensive hybridization (cross-breeding) experiments and realised that his species concept was too
narrow for the species to be considered as created kinds; he thought that the genus perhaps corresponded better with the
created kind.3,4
The Cat Kind
Speciation (based on pre-existing created genetic information) probably occurred faster after the Flood due to greater
environmental pressures, isolation due to migration of small populations, and many unoccupied ecological niches.Even
today, creationists are often misrepresented as believing that all the species we have today were created , just like they are
today, in the beginning. This is called fixity of species. Nevertheless, university professors often show students that a new
species has arisen in ferment flies, for example, and then claim that this disproves the young age account. Darwin made
this very mistake when he studied the finches and tortoises on the Galapagos islands. (He also erred in assuming that
creation implied that each organism was made where it is now found; but from the young model it is clear that todays landdwelling vertebrates migrated to their present locations after the Flood.)If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least
enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created
kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from
the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have
derived from the original created kind.On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that
they are not originally from the same kind. We all know of couples who cannot have children, but this does not mean they
are separate species!In the case of three species, A, B and C, if A and B can each hybridize with C, then it suggests that all
three are of the same created kindwhether or not A and B can hybridize with each other. Breeding barriers can arise
through such things as mutations. For example, two forms of ferment flies (Drosophila) produced offspring that could not
breed with the parent species.5 That is, they were a new biological species. This was due to a slight chromosomal
rearrangement, not any new genetic information. The new species was indistinguishable from the parents and obviously
the same kind as the parents, since it came from them.Following are some examples of hybrids that show that the created
kind is often at a higher level than the species, or even the genus, named by taxonomists.
Images courtesy Camilla Maluotoga

Zonkeys result from a cross between

a zebra and a donkey (left). Tigger
(right),
belongs
to
Camilla
Maluotoga, from New Mexico in the
USA, and is the name she gave to
this cross between a horse and a
zebra, known as a zorse.
Mules, zeedonks and zorses
Crossing a male ass (donkey
Equus asinus) and a horse (Equus
caballus) produces a mule (the
reverse is called a hinny). Hybrids
between zebras and horses (zorse)
and zebras and donkeys (zedonk,
zonkey, zebrass) also readily occur.
Some creationists have reasoned
that because these hybrids are
sterile, the horse, ass and zebra must be separate created kinds. However It is overwhelmingly likely that horses, asses and
zebras (six species ofEquus) are the descendants of the one kind. Hybridization itself suggests this, not whether the
offspring are fertile or not. Infertility in offspring can be due to rearrangements of chromosomes in the different species
changes such that the various species have the same DNA information but the chromosomes of the different species no
longer match up properly to allow the offspring to be fertile. Such (non-evolutionary) changes within a kind can cause sterility
in hybrids.
Ligers
A male African lion (Panthera leo) and a female tiger (Panthera tigris) can mate to produce a liger. The reverse cross
produces a tigon. Such crossing does not normally happen in the wild because most lions live in Africa and most tigers live
in Asia. Also, lions and tigers just dont mix; they are enemies in the wild. However, the Institute of Greatly Endangered and
Rare Species, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (USA), raised a lion and a tigress together. Arthur, the lion, and Ayla, the
tigress, became good friends and bred to produce Samson and Sudan, two huge male ligers. Samson stands 3.7 m (12
feet) tall on his hind legs, weighs 500 kg (1,100 lbs) and can run at 80 km/hr (50 mph).
Lions and tigers belong to the same
genus, Panthera, along with the jaguar, leopard and
snow leopard, in the subfamily Felinae. This
subfamily also contains the genus Felis, which
includes the mountain lion and numerous species
of smaller cats, including the domestic cat. The
cheetah, genus Acinonyx, belongs to a different
subfamily.6 Thus
the
genera Panthera, Felis and Acinonyx may
represent descendants of three original created cat
kinds, or maybe two: Panthera-Felis andAcinonyx,
or even one cat kind. The extinct sabre-tooth tiger
may have been a different created kind (see
diagram above).The Panthera cats lack a hyoid
bone at the back of the tongue, compared to Felis.
Acinonyx has the hyoid, but lacks the ability to
retract its claws. So the differences between the
cats could have arisen through loss of genetic
information due to mutations (loss of the bone; loss
of claw retraction). Note that this has nothing to do
with molecules-to-man evolution, which requires the addition of new information, not loss of information (which is to be
expected as things tend to fall apart).
Kekaimalu the wholphin
In 1985, Hawaiis Sea Life Park reported the birth of a baby from the mating of a male false killer whale (Pseudorca
crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus).7 The birth surprised the park staff, as the parents are
rather different in appearance. Here we have a hybrid between different genera in the same family, Delphinidae (dolphins
and killer whales).8 Since the offspring in this case are fertile (Kekaimalu has since given birth to a baby wholphin), these
two genera are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species. 2 Other genera in the group are much more alike
than the two that produced the offspring in Hawaii, which suggests that the 12 living genera might have all descended from
the original created kind.
Rama the cama
Veterinarians in the United Arab Emirates successfully cross-bred a camel and a llama. The cama, named Rama, has the
cloven hooves of a llama and the short ears and tail of a camel. The scientists hope to combine the best qualities of both
into the one animalthe superior fleece and calmer
temperament of the llama with the larger size of the camel.
Photo by Dave and Lynn Jolly
Genae the snakethe live, healthy offspring of snakes from
two different genera (see main text).
Genae the hybrid snake
Genae (pictured right) resulted from a cross between an
albino corn snake (Elaphe guttata) and an albino king snake
(Lampropeltis
triangulum)
in
a
reptile
park
in
California.9Apparently, this particular intergeneric hybrid is
fertile. Genae is almost four years old and already 1.4 m (4
ft) long. The parent snakes belong to the same snake family,

Colubridae; the success of this hybrid suggests that the many species and genera of snakes in this family today could have
all originally come from the same created kind.
Other hybrids
With the cattle kind, seven species of the genus Bos hybridize, but so also does the North American buffalo, Bison bison,
with Bos, to produce a cattalo. Here the whole family of cattle-type creatures, Bovidae, probably came from an original
created cattle kind.10Plant breeders have bred some agriculturally important plants by hybridizing different species and even
genera. For example, triticale, a grain crop, came from a cross of wheat (Triticum) and rye (Secale), another fertile hybrid
between genera.
During my years as a
research scientist for
the government in
Australia, I helped
create a hybrid of the
delicious fruit species
lychee
(Litchi
chinensis) and longan
(Dimocarpus longana),
which both belong to
11
The delicious fruit species, lychee (left) and longan (right) hybridize, despite being different genera. the same family. I
also
studied
the
hybrids of six species of the custard apple family, Annonaceae. Each of these two family groupings, recognised by botanists
today, probably represents the original created kinds.All kinds, or basic types of creatures and plants were creatded with the
ability to produce variety in their offspring. These varieties come from recombinations of the existing genetic information
created in the beginning. The variations allow for the descendants of the created kinds to adapt to different environments
and fill the earth. If genera represent the created kinds,after the flood,thekinds occasionally gave rise to families. From
these kinds came many daughter species, which generally each have less information (and are thus more specialized)
than the parent population from the pre-flood period. Properly understood, adaptation by natural selection (which gets rid of
information) does not involve the addition of new complex DNA information. Thus, students should not be taught that it
demonstrates evolution happening, as if it showed the process by which fish could eventually turn into people.
A geep? Noa chimera
Despite the fact that the geep has both sheep and goat in its parentage, and shares the characteristics of both species, it is
not a hybrid. It is a chimera, formed by mixing the (fertilized) embryo cells of two different species.The DNA in each adult
cell (including sex cells) is thus either fully sheep or fully goathence there are patches of either thin white goat fur or thick
sheeps wool. Thus also, any offspring will be either all sheep or all goat. This artificial manipulation is very different from the
situation where two animals of the same kind (but different species) mate producing live offspring.
Linnaeus and the classification system
Linnaeus established the two-part naming system of genus and species. For example,
he called wheat Triticum aestivum, which means in Latin, summer wheat. Such
scientific names are normally italicised, with the genus beginning with a capital.
When used in scientific works, the names are followed by the abbreviated name of the
scientist responsible for the name. When L. follows a name, this shows that Linnaeus
first applied the name. For example, the name for maize or corn is Zea mays L.
Linnaeus named many plants and animals.There can be one or many species in a
genus, so genus is a higher level of classification. Linnaeus also developed the idea of
grouping genera (plural of genus) within higher groupings he called orders, and the
orders within classes. Linnaeus opposed the pre-Darwin evolutionary ideas of his day,
pointing out that life was not a continuum, or a great chain of being, an ancient pagan
Greek idea. He could classify things, usually into neat groups, because of the lack of
transitional forms.Later, other levels of classification were added so that today we
have species, genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom. Sometimes other
levels are added, such as subfamily and subphylum.

Kekaimalu the wholphin, a 19-year-old offspring of a false killer whale and an Atlantic bottlenose dolphinwhale-dolphin,
mated with a dolphin to produce a girl, Kawili Kai (above).
The worlds only Wholphin false killer whale/dolphin cross
False killer whales (pseudorcas) and bottlenose dolphins are each from a different genus. Man-made classification systems
were thrown into confusion when these two creatures mated and produced a live offspring (see main text).
This suggests that all killer whales and dolphins, which are all in the same family, are the one created kind.
This wholphins size, shape and colour are right in between those of her parents. She has 66 teethan average between
pseudorcas (44 teeth) and bottlenose dolphins (88).
Kekaimalu has since mated with a dolphin to produce a live baby.
Speedy species surprise

by David Catchpoole and Carl Wieland

Researchers in Trinidad relocated guppies (Poecilia reticulata) from a
waterfall pool teeming with predators to previously guppy-free pools above
the falls where there was only one known possible predator (of small
guppies only, therefore large guppies would be safe).1 The descendants of
the transplanted guppies adjusted to their new circumstances by growing
bigger, maturing later, and having fewer and bigger offspring.The speed of
these changes bewildered evolutionists, because their standard millionsof-years view is that the guppies would require long periods of time to
adapt. One evolutionist said, The guppies adapted to their new
environment in a mere four yearsa rate of change some 10,000 to 10
million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil
record.2
Leggy lizards
The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four yearsa
rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record.Morell,
V.,Science, 275:1880, 1997.And its not just guppies. In the Bahamas, small numbers of anole lizards (Anolis sagrei) were
transplanted from an island with tall trees to nearby islands where there were previously no lizards and only smaller bushy
vegetation. Body form rapidly changed in succeeding generations. 3 In particular, the relative length of hindlimbs was greatly
decreasedthought to be an adaptation for life amongst the twigs of the scrubby vegetation in the lizards new habitat.
(Lizards that live on tree trunks have longer legs than those that live on twigsan apparent trade-off between the agility
necessary for twig-to-twig jumping and the speed that longer limbs provide on the broad surface of tree trunks.)4,5
But again it was the speed of adaptation, many thousands of times higher than (their interpretation of) the fossil record that
surprised evolutionists.6
Daisy diaspora
On small islands off British Columbia, the seeds of wind-dispersed weedy plants in the daisy family (Asteraceae) are rapidly
losing their ability to fly. Specifically, the embryo part of the seed is becoming fatter while the parachute-like pappus that
keeps each seed aloft is becoming smaller. These changes are advantageous because they reduce dispersalotherwise,
on such tiny islands, lightweight windblown seeds would be lost in the ocean (which is why they have left fewer
descendants). Note that these changes involve the loss of the capacity for long-range airborne dispersal.7
Flies, fish and finches
Other examples of rapid adaptation, even to the extent of producing
new speciesspeciationabound. (If a population arises from
another which cannot interbreed anymore with its parent
population,
it
is
generally
defined
as
a
new
species.) Creation magazine recently reported how evolutionists
described as alarming the rate of change in the wingspan of
European fruit flies introduced accidentally to America.8,9,10 Similarly,
rapid changes have been reported recently for Drosophila fruit flies
and sockeye salmonwithin just nine and thirteen generations
respectively.11In the case of Darwins famous finches, it had been
estimated that from one million to five million years would have
been necessary for todays Galapagos Island species to radiate
from their parent populations. But actual observations of rapid finch
adaptation have forced evolutionists to scale that back to a
timeframe of just a few centuries.12
Mosquitoes and mice
Not long ago, evolutionists were astonished to find
that bird-biting mosquitoes, which moved into the
London Underground train network (and are now
biting humans and rats instead), have already
become a separate species.13 And now a study of
house mice in Madeira (thought to have been
introduced to the island following 15th century
Portuguese settlement) has found that several
reproductively isolated chromosomal races (in
effect, new species) have appeared in less than
500 years.14In all of these instances, the speedy
changes have nothing to do with the production of
any new genes by mutation (the imagined
mechanism of molecules-to-man evolution), but
result mostly from selection of genes that already
exist. Here we have real, observed evidence that
(downhill) adaptive formation of new forms and species from the one created kind can take place rapidly. It doesnt need
millions of years.Shouldnt evolutionists rejoice, and creationists despair, at all this observed change? Hardly. Informed
creationists have long stressed that natural selection can easily cause major variation in short time periods, by acting on the
created genetic information already present. But this does not support the idea of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense,
because no new information has been added.Anole lizards have been observed to change rapidly under the right conditions
observable evidence in favour of the young history.Selection by itself gets rid of information, and of all observed
mutations which have some effect on survival or function,15 so far even the rare beneficial ones are also losses of
information. The late-maturing, larger guppies resulted simply from a re-shuffling of existing genetic material. 16 Such
variation can even be sufficient to prevent two groups from interbreeding with each other any more, thus forming new
species by definition, without involving any new information.The young account of history is not only accommodates such
rapid changes in body form, but actually requires that it would have happened much faster than evolutionists would expect.
As the animals multiplying to fill the Earth and all those empty ecological niches, natural selection could easily have caused
an original dog kind (e.g.) to split into wolves, coyotes, dingoes, etc. Because there are historical records showing some of

these subtypes in existence only a few hundred years after the Flood, this means that there had to have been some very
rapid (non-evolutionary) speciation. So it is encouragingly supportive of the young history when some such rapid changes
are seen still occurring today.17 And this is being repeatedly confirmed.But since evolutionists mistakenly interpret all such
adaptation/speciation as evolution happening, they are left stunned when it happensmuch faster than their traditional
interpretations of the fossil record would allow. (This is, of course, easy to understand when it is realized that the standard
idea about the fossil recordthat it is a tape-recording of millions of yearsis in fact a misinterpretation. The record
reflects the way in which a global Flood and some of its after-effects buried a world of plants and animals, in a time
sequence which did not involve millions of years.)Because such fast changes challenge traditional evolutionary ideas, the
findings are often disputed, but with little success.2 Rapid evolution (a misnomer, as we have seen) is welcomed by some
fossil experts who support the idea of punctuated equilibrium. 18 This is the notion that the evolutionary history of life is one
of mostly no change, punctuated by short, sharp bursts of evolution (which, conveniently, happen too briefly to be recorded
in the fossils). However, not only is this still a minority view among evolutionists, it begs the question of why, if fast change is
everywhere, has not a vastly greater number of new species been generated over geologic time? I.e. the observed
changes are still too fast for comfort.Not only is this rapid change not adding information, even some evolutionists point out
that evolution in the molecules-to-man sense was not observed in any of these studies. The finches are still finches, the
mosquitoes stay mosquitoes, and the mice remain mice. One evolutionary geneticist, referring to the guppy data, said, As
far as I know, these are still guppies.2
Setting the record straight
If we start with the Word of the One who knows all, the evidence of todays world makes a great deal of sense. Creatures
were to reproduce after their kind, so mice come from mice, lizards from lizards, daisies from daisies. Evolution has never
occurred, nor does it occur today. But organisms have a wonderful built-in genetic capacity for rapid change in response to
environmental pressuresmost easily observed today in isolated island environments.Such examples of rapid adaptation
give us an insight into how the Earths many vacant ecological niches were recolonized after the Flooda global event in
real history.
Eat your Brussels sprouts!
by Don Batten
Many parents have had trouble convincing their children to eat one of
the members of the cabbage group of vegetables. This group
includes cabbage, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, kohlrabi and
kale. Most children do not rate these vegetables as their favourite
flavour!But these vegetables, some of the most nutritious of all,
contain lots of minerals and vitamins, and antioxidants that greatly
surpass the power of vitamins A, C and Ethe antioxidants
commonly available in vitamin pills. They also have substances that
inhibit cancer cells.1Clearly, vitamin pills cannot make up for the
benefits of eating the real food. Furthermore, you can eat boatloads
of these vegetables without getting fatit sounds like many of us
should be eating a lot more of them.Sauerkraut, a German delicacy, is
produced by alternating layers of cabbage and salt; acid fermentation
quickly sets in, preserving the cabbage along with the vitamin C.
Koreans have a similar food called kimchi. In the past, with the lack of
fresh fruit and vegetables during the long European winters,
sauerkraut helped people avoid scurvy.Captain James Cook, who
mapped the east coast of Australia in 1770, carried sauerkraut on his
voyages to prevent scurvy in his crew.2
Were Brussels sprouts created?
Interestingly, the extreme variety of types has arisen in the last two thousand years or so, by people selecting the various
forms. They all belong to one species, Brassica oleracea. The original created type of cabbage was probably similar to kale
or collards. Records of its use go back to the Greeks about 600 BC. Undoubtedly, its use goes back earlier; the first people
may well have eaten it.We cannot know for sure how the various forms arose (see table below). They probably arose
spontaneously, either by recombination of
existing genetic information or with mutations
giving rise to the various forms.Diagram
shows how three species (red/brown boxes)
naturally hybridize (cross) to produce three
other named species (green boxes). Thus,
cabbage X black mustard gives Ethiopian
mustard. The number of chromosome pairs
is in parentheses for each species.For
example, in the common heading cabbage,
only one bud at the top of the stemthe
terminal budproduces leaves. There are
other buds, one at the base of each leaf, but
they do not develop unless the terminal bud
suffers damagesay, by an insect eating it.
Then one or more of these axillary buds
develops.In Brussels sprouts, the plant fails to suppress the growth of the other buds, and so each one becomes a little
cabbage. It also has an elongated stem compared to the cabbage. It is easy to see how a mutation that damaged the
mechanism in the cabbage that suppresses extra bud development could produce a Brussels sprouts plant. 3Such mutations
would not increase the complexity of an organism; rather they mess up some part of its functionality. Other mutations could
have created the deformed flowers of the cauliflower or broccoli. Such downhill mutations occur in plant and animals, but
these will not change a cabbage into a banana plantthat requires the sorts of gross information-adding changes that
evolutionists need to find to justify their claim that microbes changed into mangoes.
Its all in the family

These plants belong to the family Brassicaceae. This family is also still widely known as Cruciferae, due to the crucifix
appearance of the flower petals when viewed from above. The creationist founder of the science of classifying organ isms,
Carolus Linnaeus, gave names to many members of the cabbage family in the 1700s. Other well-known members include
turnip and Chinese cabbages (forms of Brassica rapa), brown mustard (Brassica juncea) and radish (Raphanus sativus).We
get canola oil from the seeds of one form of Brassica napus. Unlike most plant oils, canola oil has a useful amount of a type
of oil similar to that found in fish such as salmon and sardines. Eating fish-oil has healthy effects, reducing the risk of heart
disease and symptoms of arthritis, for example. 4 However, the health value of the canola form of the oil is unclear at this
stage.5 We know another form of B. napus as swede, or rutabaga, which has an edible globe-shaped fleshy root.Thale cress
(Arabidopsis thaliana) is a favourite plant for laboratory experiments. It was the first plant to have its DNA decoded.Farmers
regard a number of this family as weeds. A weed is a plant growing where you do not want it to; like black mustard growing
in a wheat crop. However, people around the world used this plant to produce mustard before the modern use of brown
mustard for this purposethe latter suits mechanical harvesting better.The presence of black mustard seeds as
contaminants in wheat, for example, probably contributed to its distribution around the world in the dispersion following the
Tower of Babel.Since todays mustard is an annual herb, some have proposed that the mustard must have been a different
plant. However, the Greek word used in the Gospels issinapi, from which we get Sinapsis, one of the genera in
Brassicaceae, and known as white mustard. It germinates rapidly and grows very quickly into the largest of garden plants
to the extent that birds can perch in its branches.6
Table. Various forms of Brassica oleracea; their origins and characteristics.1
Name

Origin

Characteristics

Kale, collards

5th C BC, likely earlier

Closest to the original, or wild, cabbage. Open leaves, no head.

Collards is similar, but has broader, non-frilly leaves cf. kale.

Cabbage

By the 1st C BC

Single large terminal head

Kohlrabi

In the area of Germany about Edible thickened stem

the time of the cabbage.

Brussels sprouts

As the name implies,

Belgium; by the 13th C.

Cauliflower

Southern France
15thCentury.

Broccoli

In Italy, as the name implies, Enlarged flower heads of deformed flowers, without covering
soon after the cauliflower.
leaves so that sunlight turns the flowers green due to chlorophyll
production.

Tronchuda
or
Portuguese cabbage

Portugal?

Smaller, cabbage-like plants, loose (not compact) heads.

Savoy cabbage

Not known?

Hardy green, loose heads, very crinkly leaves.

by

in Elongated main stem with each axillary leaf bud developing into a
mini-cabbage.
the Enlarged clusters of deformed flowers, covered by leaves such
that flowers do not turn green.

1. Grouping from Gmez-Campo, C. (Editor), Biology of Brassica Coenospecies, Elsevier Science B.V., p. 316, 1999, with
the addition of kohlrabi. Other plant scientists divide B. oleracea into up to 12 varieties or subspecies, by splitting kale and
collards, for example.
One created kind?
Certainly, the vegetables listed in the table have all come from an
original cabbage type. The scientific name reflects this, all
belonging to the same genus and species, Brassica oleracea.
That cabbage type itself may have been part of an original
broader kind, encompassing all members of the Brassica
family.The degree of variation within this family could be partly
due to a tendency to undergo spontaneous chromosomal
rearrangements. Such rearrangements in animals usually result
in death, but many plants can tolerate them.
Many of the different Brassica species readily form natural
hybrids when planted together, the pollen being transferred by
insects or wind. Plant breeders have recreated some of the
species of Brassica by hybridizing other species (see diagram
above).For example, planting cabbage together with turnip
produces some seeds of rutabaga. Planting cabbage and black
mustard together gives some seeds of Ethiopian mustard.
Planting turnip and black mustard together produces some seeds
of brown mustard. These examples show that we should not view
modern day species as the kinds. At the very least, these three species of (the genus) Brassica arose by hybridizing
existing species. These hybrids involve the crossing of plants with different chromosome numbers (see Chromosome
gymnastics below for details of how this happens).Now many plants can do this, but it is rare among animals. Animals seem
to be a lot less tolerant of having extra chromosomesin humans an extra chromosome 21 results in Downs
syndrome.Different numbers of chromosomes is a major barrier to hybridizing different kinds, especially animals. This is one
way that the created kinds reproduced after their kind .We can also see the unity of the brassicas in the way that people
have used different species to produce mustard (B. nigra, B. juncea or B. carinata, B. rapa) or oil (B. rapa, B. napus) or
various forms of cabbage (B. oleracea: cabbage, kale, etc.; B. rapa: Chinese cabbage and pak choi, etc.).

Dangers for farmers

The ability of brassicas to hybridize means that scientists have to take great care to prevent genetically modified plants from
pollinating weedy species of the family. If black mustard gained genes for herbicide resistance, from genetically modified
canola, farmers would have greater problems controlling the weed.Even different genera within the family often produce a
small number of hybrid seeds. Plant breeders crossed a radish (Raphanus) with a cabbage (Brassica), hoping to get a plant
that produced an edible radish-like root with a cabbage top. They did create this hybrid, dubbedRaphanobrassica,7 but
unfortunately it had a cabbage-like root and a radish-like top! Research often results in disappointmentsa good scientist
needs patience.
Brassicas to brassicasnot evolution!
Plant breeders have hybridized many other members of the Brassicaceaedifferent genera to Brassica.8(See box below.)
This suggests that the whole family might derive from an original
created brassica-kind. Note this is not evolution as it is not
an uphill bog slime to Brussels sprouts process, but
a downhill brassica to broccoli and Brussels sprouts process. For
example Brussels sprouts, being much more selected and
specialized than black mustard, is more prone to disease and is
less fit to survive (black mustard is a common weed). Note that all
the brassicas are still brassicasreproducing after their kind, just
as they were programmed to do .
Chromosome gymnastics
Interestingly, many of these hybrids involve the addition of whole
sets of chromosomes.1 Normally when plants reproduce, the pairs
of chromosomes split to form the pollen and egg with half the full
number of chromosomes each. Joining them together at fertilization
restores the chromosome pairs. When chromosome numbers differ,
the hybrids do not end up with proper pairs of chromosomes; one
or more chromosomes do not have a pair. Such hybrids cannot then produce viable pollen or eggs because the unpaired
chromosomes cannot split into two and so the hybrid cannot produce any seed. For example, cabbage has nine pairs of
chromosomes and black mustard has eight pairs. The joining of a pollen grain from cabbage (9 single chromosomes) with
an ovum from black mustard (8 chromosomes) results in 9+8, which means that we have one cabbage chromosome without
a pair. However, occasionally plants produce a few pollen grains and eggs with the full set of chromosome pairs. Now when
nine cabbagepairs join with eight black mustard pairs, we have 17 complete pairs, 34 in total. This hybrid can produce viable
pollen and eggs, with 17 single chromosomes each, and we have Ethiopian mustard (diagram above).
WHAT DO CREATIONISTS MEAN BY CREATED KINDS
Parade of MutantsPedigree Dogs and Artificial Selection
by Lita Cosner
When choosing a pet, many people opt for purebred
pedigree dogs. Though they come at a price, it is easier to
predict the eventual size, temperament, and needs of a
purebred dog breed than for a mutt. But as a new BBC
documentary, Pedigree Dogs Exposed,1 shows, the cost
of breeding purebred dogs is genetic as well as
economic.All dogs are descendants of a wolf-like ancestor.
This ancestor had the genetic diversity that allowed people
to breed dogs as different in size as the Chihuahua and
the Great Dane. Other traits such as colour, temperament,
and exercise needs are just as diverse among the breeds.
This great variability is an example of just how much
genetic variation is built into the various created animal
kinds.2 Other breeds, as will be shown, are the result of
downhill mutations.
Genetic specialization
Over many hundreds of years, humans have produced the various breeds by specifically selecting different traits to breed
for; there are currently over 200 distinct varieties of dog, but all belong to the same species, and could theoretically breed
with each other, though size difference between larger and smaller breeds renders some combinations unlikely.3Over time,
breeding only for certain traits allows great predictability in what a dogs offspring will look likea Dalmatian mated with a
Dalmatian will produce Dalmatian puppies, and so on. When this occurs regularly, the type of dog becomes an official breed.
But this predictability comes at a genetic cost. The breeders have drastically reduced the amount of genetic information in
the population of dogssuch as for other coat colours and lengths, or different sizes or temperaments. This sort of selection
is done on purpose, but there are other traits that are inadvertently selected for as well.The bigger dog breeds become
susceptible to hip dysplasia, others are plagued by heart problems. The King Charles Spaniel is prone to an extremely nasty
condition, syringomyelia (SM), in which the skull is too small to house the brain. In the documentary, veterinary neurologist
Clare Rusbridge described the condition: A burning pain, a piston-type headache, abnormal sensations to even light touch,
even items of clothing, a collar, for example, can induce discomfort for these animals. She believes up to one-third of the
breed could be affected by this condition.Overall, there are 500 genetic diseases which are known to occur in dogs. This is
fewer than those documented in humans, but in dogs they occur at a much higher rate. The problem is that when the gene
pool has been so depleted, it is not possible to avoid breeding diseased dogs, because that would be impoverishing the
gene pool even more, and could lead to new diseases and disorders in a breed. Rusbridge acknowledged this to be
true.4Mutts, or even crossbred dogs, have a much lower chance of having these diseases, because many are genetically
recessivea healthy copy of the gene will override a diseased gene. Because the diseases are also often breed-specific,
even breeding two purebred dogs of different breeds will normally produce much healthier offspring than a purebred mating.
The mutts will have lower instances of disease as well as being slightly longer-lived on average.
A Perfect AnimalDog Shows

Early dog breeding mimicked natural selection, in that dogs were bred to workthe dogs that could herd sheep or cattle, or
that could defend against intruders, etc., were the ones that were bred to produce the next generation. This process over
time produced the modern breeds. However, with the advent of dog showing in the middle of the nineteenth century, the
focus shifted away from function to aesthetics.Competitive dog-showing, in its pursuit of perfection, has driven the various
breeds to ever more drastic extremes in body proportion and shape. The Dachshunds legs have become much shorter over
the last century, but their long back often gives them spinal problems, and they often suffer epilepsy and eye problems as
well. The Bull Terriers head has been deformed, as has that of the Pit Bullthe documentarys computer rendering of how
breeders have contorted the skull shapes showed how drastically these breeds have changed in less than a century.
Bulldogs have slower relative growth of the nasal bones, and this causes breathing difficulties and the need to be born by
Caesarian section.The German Shepherd shows that these changes are carried out for purely cosmetic reasons. There are
actually two varieties of German Shepherd: the working variety, which is often used in police forces and as guard dogs, and
the show variety. The former looks very much like the original German Shepherd, but the show variety has a very different
shape, with their back ends slouching. Orthopedic surgeon Graham Oliver described the gait of the show dogs as ataxic,
lacking full coordination and control. This is the case for most of the show German Shepherds in the dog shows that were
covered in the documentary.
Extreme artificial selection
In Britain, an already bad situation has been compounded in many ways by the Kennel Clubs breeding and show dog
practices. First, the gene pool of the breeds is artificially restricted to the descendants of the originally-registered dogs from
the mid-nineteenth centuryin some cases, only a handful of dogs. This means that genetic diversity cannot be reintroduced into a breed, even if this means making the population healthier.Second, there is extreme selection for absolute
perfection in appearancebreeders seek to produce dogs which adhere to the breed standard as closely as possible. This
causes them to remove dogs that fall short of that standard, such as Dalmatians with non-standard markings, albino dogs,
or Rhodesian Ridgebacks with no ridge, from the gene pool of the species, either by simply not mating them, or by culling
them as puppies. This renders the overall population even more genetically impoverished.Third, extreme inbreeding has
been the normit is common to mate littermates, or to mate a female dog with her grandfather, or mother to son.
Evolutionary geneticist Steve Jones criticized the practice: People are carrying out breeding which would be, first of all, its
illegal in humans, and second of all, its absolutely insane from the point of view of the health of the animals. Such close
interbreeding is done to fix certain desirable traits in the line, but it also makes the dogs more disease-prone. The Kennel
Club website, www.thekennelclub.org.uk, currently states that the Kennel Club will not accept an application to register
offspring of any mating between father and daughter, mother and son, and or brother and sister, save in exceptional
circumstances, for scientifically-proven welfare reasons. Even so, the average dog is much more inbred than any human is
likely to be.Because there is no regulation against breeding dogs which are known to carry a genetic disease like
syringomyelia, dogs with conditions like this, if they are popular studs, can go on to sire dozens of litters. This spreads the
genetic disease throughout the breed.
The Eugenics connection
The Eugenics movement, founded by Darwins cousin Francis Galton, 5 held that the key to human improvement was in
controlling who could reproduce with whomthe idea was to improve the race by eliminating undesirable traits, and in
disallowing mixing between races. While we know today that the eugenicists ideas about purity make no scientific sense,
the documentary argues that The Kennel Club is one of the few organizations that still operate under the fundamental
assumptions of eugenics. Every dog registered with the Kennel Club has an ancestry that goes back to the original
registered dogsno new registrations are allowed, and any litters resulting from breeding with non-registered dogs or
breeding between two registered dogs of different breeds cannot be registered.Because of the eugenicist principles in
breeding, puppies that do not conform to the strict requirements of the breed standards are sometimes culled. This is
particularly the case with Rhodesian Ridgebacks that lack ridges. While the Kennel Club, both through its spokespeople in
the documentary and in the Ethics Code on its site, condemns the practice, the documentary contains statements from
breeders saying that they routinely cull puppies without ridges. One even lamented the young veterinarians who refused to
cull the healthy puppies! (It should be noted that although the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club code of ethics 6 prescribed the
culling of ridgeless puppies before the documentary aired, the page has since been modified to prohibit such acts.) The
ridge is actually a mild form of spina bifida, so a slightly diseased dog is actually preferred to the healthy animal in this
breed.
Genetic impoverishment
All these factors together have made modern breeds very genetically impoverishedin some breeds, only 10% of the
genetic variety that was in the breed 40 years ago has been passed down to the current descendants of the breed. For
instance, the Pug breed in the UK, although it has 10,000 dogs, has the genetic information equivalent to that of 50 distinct
individuals. In 2004, Dr Jeff Sampson wrote:Unfortunately, the restrictive breeding patterns that have been developed as
part and parcel of the purebred dog scene have not been without collateral damage to all breeds Increasingly, inherited
diseases are imposing a serious disease burden on many, if not all, breeds of dog.The Kennel Club, to its credit, has
responded to the issues raised by the documentary. It has banned close inbreeding, along with banning the practice of
culling healthy puppies for breed points. They have also revised the breed standards to discourage the extreme
exaggeration of features to the point that it affects the dogs health. It also encourages its accredited breeders to make use
of any health tests to screen for genetic diseases.

The dangers of inbreeding:

These dogs inherited one stretch of DNA from each parent. We see
the good genes and mutations. The dog on the left is the offspring of
two distantly related parents, so the mothers DNA has different
defects from the fathers. Every one of her defective genes is masked
by the backup copy from the father, and vice versa. But the
unfortunate dog on the right is the offspring of close relatives; here, the
father and mother have many of the same mutations. So in a number
of spots, the dog inherited a pair of mutant genes.

How artificial selection depletes information.

In the example on the right (simplified for illustration), a single gene pair is shown under each dog as coming in two possible
forms. One form of the gene (S) carries instructions for large size, the other (s) for small size.
In row 1, we start with medium-sized animals (Ss) interbreeding. Each of the offspring of these dogs can get one of either
gene from each parent to make up their two genes.
In row 2, we see that the resultant offspring can have either large (SS), medium (Ss) or small (ss) size. But lets suppose that
breeders want large dogs. They would select the largest dogs in the next generation to breed. Thus only the big dogs pass
on genes to the next generation (line 3). So from then on, all the dogs will be a new, large variety. This is artificial selection,
but natural selection would work on the same principle, if large dogs would do better in their environment. Note that:
They are now adapted to their environment, in this case breeders who want big dogs.
They are now more specialized than their ancestors on row 1.
This has occurred through artificial selection, and could have occurred through natural selection.
There have been no new genes added
In fact, genes have been lost from the populationi.e. there has been a loss of genetic information, the opposite of what
microbe-to-man evolution needs in order to be credible.
Not only genes for smallness were lost, but any other genes these small dogs carried. They may have had genes for
endurance, strong sense of smell, and other things, but they are lost from the population. Genes on their own are not
selected; its the whole creature and all the genes they carried.
Now the population is less able to adapt to future environmental changesif small dogs became fashionable, or would
perform better in some environment, they could not be bred from this population. They are also genetically impoverished
since they lack the good genes that happened to be carried by the small dogs.
Conclusion
The current state of many of the dog breeds shows what happens when selection is taken too far. These dogs, far from
being more perfect, evolved, animals, were described as a parade of mutants by one critic in the documentary. Because
they are over-specialized, they are more prone to disease and shorter-lived than their mongrel relatives. It is clear that both
artificial and natural selection work by decreasingthe amount of genetic information in a population, which is the exact
opposite of what evolution would require.
The Australian dingoa wolf in dogs clothing

by David Catchpoole
Heres an animal that sure could use an image make-over
and public relations campaign.For many years, the dingo was
best known as the wild dog of Australiathe largest carnivore
on the Australian mainlandand for being the scourge of the
sheep industry. A single dingo can maul up to 50 sheep in one
night, killing far more than it needs for food. 1 (See box Dingoes
and sheep dont mix)No wonder many pastoralists would often
mutter, The only good dingo is a dead dingo.Then, as if the
dingos reputation was not already bad enough, in 1980, a
baby named Azaria Chamberlain disappeared from a tent at
Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Australias Northern Territory, amid cries
that a wild dingo had taken the infant. (This was famously
portrayed in the 1988 movie A Cry In the Dark, a.k.a. Evil
Angels,starring Meryl Streep and Sam Neill). Then, in 2001,
the dingo again made headlines when a nine-year-old boy was
tragically attacked and killed by two dingoes on Queenslands
Fraser Island. His seven-year-old brother was also attacked, but survived.2,3 (See box Would you trust a dingo?.)
Many pastoralists mutter, The only good dingo is a dead dingo
Yet, when European settlers first arrived in Australia, 4 they found that many of these wild dogs were not truly wild, but
instead lived, ate and hunted with their human keepers. Aboriginal people highly prized the dingo, also known as the
warrigal, as a domestic animal. Dingoes were bed warmers, camp cleaners, hunting companions and guard dogs.5
Originally wild or domestic?
The dingo is unmistakably canineas was evident to the early European settlers, who eagerly crossed their imported
herding dogs with the dingo in order to obtain breeds better adapted to the harsh Australian climate. The Australian cattle
doga.k.a. the Queensland (blue) heelerand the Australian kelpie are recognized dingo hybrid breeds. 6 Like all other
canines (jackals, coyotes, and all domestic dogs), the dingo is closely related to the wolfDNA studies point to all dogs
being descended from some wolf-like ancestor.79
Aboriginal people highly prized the dingo, also known as the warrigal
But are dingoes domestic dogs gone wild, or wild animals of which, like wolves, some were domesticated? The dingos
close resemblance to domestic dogs in Asia, its association with Aboriginal people and the fact that it was the only large
placental mammal (except humans) on the continent led many to say its ancestors were domestic dogs. But others
disagreedhence the lack of agreement on a scientific name for the animal. For years the dingo was categorized as a
subspecies of the domestic dog: Canis familiaris dingo. But in 1982, some taxonomists recommended it instead be
classified as a subspecies of the wolf: Canis lupus dingo.10 Others decreed it a species in its own right: Canis dingo.11
Gone feral
However, genetics seems to have resolved the debate, with a
convincing demonstration that dingoes are descended from only
a few domestic dogs introduced to Australia from South-east
Asia, as few as a single pregnant female, and only turning
feral later.12-14
But when? And who brought the dingo to Australia?
Heres where it gets hazy. According to evolutionary dating, the
dingo would have arrived some time between 3,500 and 12,000
years ago. This is because evolutionists date the oldest dingo
fossil to about 3,500 years agoand dingoes never reached
Tasmania, which is supposed to have become separated from
the Australian mainland 12,000 years ago.So, given the
widespread view that Aboriginal people have been in Australia for
at least 40,000 years,15 the dingo could not have arrived with
them.16 Therefore, the researchers conclude that the first
dingo(es) must instead have been brought from the islands of South-east Asia by people of the Austronesian culture. 17 Later,
Aboriginal people adopted the dingo as a companion animal.
The young age timeframe
A key event is the Flood around 4,500 years ago. Australias human and fauna population all arrived after that time. And
when was Tasmania isolated from mainland Australia by rising sea levels? Most creation scientists researchers believe that
the Ice Age (generated by warm seas and cold land masses in the aftermath of the Flood) ended roughly 3,800 years
ago.18 Thats when water from melting ice poured into the oceans, inundating the land bridges which had allowed animals
such as the kangaroo to spread out beyond Asia all the way to Tasmania.With Tasmania isolated from mainland Australia,
and the mainland itself cut off from Asia, the scene was set for the arrival of people by boat, raft or canoe.
Dingo data
Both male and female dingoes take part in raising their pups (litters average five). When the youngsters are 14 days old, the
mother regurgitates food for them. By the time they are three weeks old, they will leave the den for short periods and are
able to eat rabbit.A purebred dingo stands about 60 cm high and weighs about 15 kgmaking it slightly smaller than a
German shepherd. Although their coats are mainly sandy-yellow, they can also be black and tan in colour, depending on
their habitat (golden yellow dingoes are found in sandy areas, while the darker ones are found in forests).The Australian
Government was so concerned that dingoes might crossbreed with German shepherds that it banned the importation of that
breed from 1920 until 1970.In the wild, dingoes often hunt for food alone, although they can hunt together with others when
seeking large prey (e.g. kangaroos).They are different from most dogs in that they dont bark, only howl; breed only once a
year; and have no dew claws1 on their hind legs.
Note
In dogs, the dew claw is the toe hanging loosely attached to the skin, on the rear of the leg. (While the other toes touch the
ground, the dew claw merely brushes the dew from long grass.)Dingoes were then brought by either the first or subsequent
waves of human immigrants. Tribal stories of the Larrakia people of the Northern Territory speak of their ancestors arriving
by canoe and of bringing their canine companion with them.Dingoes are represented in rock-art sites,19 and feature

prominently in Aboriginal storiese.g. the Pleiades constellation (or Seven Sisters) is depicted as a flock of kangaroos
being chased by Orions two dingoes.1
The big picture
We see:
That a single pregnant female could have populated an entire continenta nice demonstration that from a limited number
of animals, a healthy population can be sustained,. So, next time you hear someone claim that the worlds land animals and
birds couldnt possibly have come from male/female pairs, tell them about the Australian dingo!That the ready interbreeding
of dingoes with other dogs (which continues apace today), 20 along with the uncertainty in assigning species names, points to
the a single original dog kind. Rapid speciation is not evolution, but just what we would expect from the young age
account.21That a wild animal can be tamed by man, reflecting the original created orderman to rule over the animals.22
That the movement of dingoes and humans to this continent fits with the expected pattern of post-Flood during the last
4,500 years. Interestingly, lice that live on kangaroos have also been found on Indonesian dogs. Some researchers suggest,
therefore, that the Australian dingo must have been taken back to Indonesia (carrying the kangaroo lice north from
Australia).12 But this evidence could also be interpreted to mean that kangaroos once lived in Indonesia (en route to
Australia), later becoming locally extinct as the large carnivores (e.g. Asian tigers) arrived there after the end of the Ice Age,
when the land bridge to Australia was severed.That an animal classed as a carnivore can actually survive without meat
(see box Dingoes and sheep dont mix) !
Would you trust a dingo?
When Lindy Chamberlain, the wife of a pastor, told authorities in 1980 that a dingo had taken her baby Azaria from their tent
at Ayers Rock (Uluru) in central Australia, the tragedy quickly became the focus of national attention.
A young dingo, like this one seen here, is typical of those found around
four wheel drive camping areas on Australias Fraser island. Media
warnings suggest they should not be trusted.Sadly, the Australian public
was more inclined to place faith in the (imagined good) character of a wild
dog than in the word of a pastors wife. People wore T-shirts emblazoned
with the slogan, The dingo is innocent.Many were not surprised when Mrs
Chamberlain was convicted of murder, on the basis of scientific experts
seemingly irrefutable assessment of forensic evidence. This was despite
eyewitness testimony that the baby was alive after the time at which the
Crown Prosecutor claimed her mother had murdered her.Some years later
while Mrs Chamberlain was serving a life sentence in prisonthe
discovery of further evidence confirmed an aspect of her account. She was
released from prison, and subsequently officially exonerated.Yet many
Australians remained unconvinced, obviously unaware of (or deliberately
ignoring) the counsel that Every matter should be established on the
testimony of two or more witnesses (2 Corinthians 13:1, Deuteronomy
19:15). In the minds of many, the original forensic findings held sway
despite official recognition that forensic scientists had misinterpreted the
evidence. For example, the bloodstains reported to have been identified
inside the Chamberlains car were later found to be various chemicals
sprayed during vehicle manufacture.It was not until the gruesome death in
2001 of a nine-year-old boy holidaying with his family on Fraser Island, just
off Australias east coast, that many Australians finally began to consider it
possible that a dingo did take the life of Azaria Chamberlain two decades
earlier.Graphic eyewitness testimony from horrified family members of the
young lad being chewed upon by the feeding canines shocked a nation.
Consequently, government agencies now warn tourists that dingoes are
capable of killing people.1 (Which is just as well, as a family recently scared away a dingo that had walked into their hotel
room and was only 60 cm (2 ft) away from their baby lying on the bed. 2)Notice that these warnings are made on the basis of
eyewitness testimony, not forensic evidence. Theres a moral there somewhere for when it comes to knowing how the world
began.
Dingoes and sheep dont mix
As the First Fleets cargo of sheep, along with other livestock and goods necessary for establishing the colony, was
offloaded onto the Great South Land in 1788, could anyone have known that this fledgling nations economy would largely
be built on the sheeps back (i.e. wool), and that an epic war against the dingo lay ahead?It didnt take long for dingoes to
learn that sheep were easy pickings compared to their prey of
native animals. When sheep farmers saw that dingoes would
harass, bite and kill sheep in large numbers without actually
eating them,1 they realized something had to be done. On
stations (the Australian equivalent of ranches) that used to shear
100,000 sheep, dingoes inflicted such heavy losses that owners
switched to cattle instead.Others mounted massive shooting,
trapping and poisoning campaigns to try to control the problem of
dingoes, which apparently multiplied substantially after sheep
were introduced.2 Realizing that dingoes and sheep dont
mix,3 many woolgrowers constructed wire mesh fences to try to
protect their sheep.Ultimately, the longest exclusion fence in the
worldat 5,321 km (3,307 miles), longer even than the Great
Wall of Chinawas built to try to protect the sheep industry in the
entire south-east part of Australia. South of the Dog Fence,
dingoes are declared vermin, attracting bounties of up to A$500
(US$380) per scalp.45 North of the fence, the dingo is regarded as a legitimate wildlife species and roams freely.South of
this 1.8-metre-high (6 ft) protective fence, sheep can now graze in relative safetyalongside kangaroos, whose populations
have exploded in the absence of a predator large enough to keep their numbers in check.6
But how could this bedont dingoes and wolves need to eat meat to live? Not sotoday we see echoes that the dingo is
able to not only eat fruit,8but also survive (for generation after generation) on a diet virtually devoid of meat.

In meat-poor south-east Asia, village dingoes predominantly make do with food scraps of cooked rice and vegetables, and
fruit. A vegetarian wolf in our midst!9
Zenkey, zonkey, zebra donkey!
by David Catchpoole
For copyright reasons we are unable to display here the
original
images
published
in Creation magazine.
Click on the image to enlarge.A zoo in Japan has
proudly announced the birth of a zebra-donkey hybrid,
describing it as a zenkeya story excitedly picked up
and relayed around the world by news media.1Actually,
the offspring of a zebra stallion and donkey mare (jenny)
is more usually defined as a zonkey or zedonk, or
even zebrass. But whether zenkey, zonkey or zedonk,
the appearance of this little foal sure caused a stir at
Nasu Safari Park (near Tokyo).As we keep herbivorous
animals without separating them, the unbelievable can
happen, said Osamu Ishikawa, deputy head of the
safari park. A donkey was pregnant and everybody was
expecting a donkey foal.But the keepers were surprised
when, in August 2003, a striped foal was born! Was it a
donkey, or ? It had a donkeys ears, and the black
cross mark on its withers2 is characteristic of donkey foals, but oh those stripes! [Photo available
in Creation magazine.]This is not the first time the arrival of a half-zebra foal from a non-zebra mare has surprised
observers. A Shetland pony astonished its UK owners by giving birth to a half-zebra, half-horse foala zorse or
zony.3 The owners had earlier purchased the pony from a wildlife park, where, like the donkey mare at Nasu Safari Park, it
had shared a field with a male zebra.This ability of donkeys, horses and zebras to breed with one another indicates they all
descended from the same original created kind. Some people might argue that because hybrid offspring are often sterile,
the horse, ass and zebra must therefore be separate created kinds. No-one would say that a human male/female
couple unable to have children must therefore be separate species!Infertility in hybrid offspring can be due to
rearrangements of chromosomes. Such (non-evolutionary) changes within the horse kind sees zebras today with 44
chromosomes, donkeys 62, and horses 64so mules, the offspring of donkeys and horses, are often sterile as they end up
with 63 chromosomes, which theoretically cannot divide into chromosome pairs.However, accounts of mules giving
birth6 show they are not always infertile, and also demonstrate that the genetics in such cases is not yet fully understood.
Occasional fertile hybrids such as these strengthen the case that all Equusspecies and their offspring (mules, hinnies,
zorses, zonies, zedonks/zonkeys and whatever other inventive names we give them) are the same created kind
descendants of the horses after the Flood around 4,500 years ago.
Comparative cytogenetics and chromosomal rearrangements
by Jean K. Lightner
Figure 1. Chromosomal rearrangements involve the repair of
double stranded breaks. They may be followed by changes in
heterochromatin or centromeres, which suggest designed
mechanisms are involved in the modifications. A better
understanding of chromosomal rearrangements is necessary
to developing both a more robust creation model and better
reasoned
apologetic
arguments.
Creationists accept that creatures can change over time, but a
clearer understanding of the types of changes involved is
necessary for a robust creation model. In creation apologetic
arguments, many genetic changes are assumed to be
accidents and the degenerative nature of these changes are
commonly
pointed
out.Degenerative
changes
are
expected.1 However, there is no reason why all genetic
changes must be accidents or even degenerative. Related to
this issue is a critical need for a reasonable estimate of genetic
similarity between various kinds in the begining. For example, evolutionists often point to human-chimp similarities to
support their models assumption of common ancestry. Creationists commonly respond that similarity can be from a
common designer and then list genetic differences between humans and chimps. Which of these differences are because
humans and chimps differently and which are from changes that have been acquired since then? If we point to differences
that can reasonably be attributed to changes since Creation, our arguments will be weak and misleading. A proper use of
evidential arguments depends on a robust young age model which requires a more detailed understanding of genetic
changes that have occurred during history.
Chromosomal rearrangements
Comparative cytogentics has been important in establishing that many mammals have undergone significant chromosomal
rearrangements during their history. A diversity of karyotypes may occur within a genus 3-5 or even a species.6-8 Given the
considerable karyotypic diversity within some animal baramins (kinds), many of which were represented by only two animals
on the Ark at the Flood, accounting for relatively rapid karyotype changes is a necessary part of the creation model. 9 All
rearrangements involve the repair of double stranded breaks. Additionally, many rearrangements are associated with
alteration of heterochromatin, silencing of a centromere, and/or the formation of a new centromere. 10 Because of the
precision necessary to accomplish such changes while maintaining viability of the animal, it appears there are designed
mechanisms in place to accomplish such rearrangements.
Creating comparative genome maps

Comparative genome maps based on chromosome painting are useful and have been performed using more than eighty
eutherian species. Yet chromosome painting has some significant limitations when comparing divergent species. There can
be reduced hybridization efficiency of the probes from increased sequence divergence between these species (e.g.
eutherians and marsupials). Comparative genome sequence analysis based on direct genome alignments has been used to
overcome this problem. However, when evolutionists attempt to construct maps of a putative eutherian ancestor, the results
are quite different between the two methods.A new in silico method of comparison, called electronic chromosome painting
(E-painting), has been developed to overcome limitations of the previously mentioned techniques and reduce the complexity
of whole genome sequence alignments. First, orthologous (corresponding) genes are identified using various means such
as reciprocal BLAST best-hit searches.11 Comparative mapping of these orthologous genes allows for identification of
regions with conserved gene order (syntenic segments). These can be used to infer details about past chromosomal
rearrangements. E-painting makes comparisons easier because it ignores intergenic regions. This also means the method
cannot be applied to telomeric, centromeric, or non-genic portions of the genome.A recent study using E-painting has
revealed some interesting results.12 The genomes of six different mammalian species (human, mouse, rat, dog, cow,
opossum) and the chicken were compared. The mammalian genomes have been sequenced with a 7-fold or greater
coverage. The chicken genome was included because previous studies had shown it remarkably similar to eutherians in
genome organization. Altogether 526 evolutionary breakpoints (EBs) were identified and mapped with a resolution around
120 kb. There was a positive correlation between EB frequency and gene density. Unlike some previous studies, these EBs
did not significantly correspond to well known breakpoints in cancer and other disease related rearrangements. Primatespecific rearrangements occurred preferentially in regions containing segmental duplications and copy number variants. The
authors concluded that EBs were not random and show evidence of reuse. Their reconstruction of a putative ancestral
eutherian genome based on this technique showed remarkable similarity to previous ones based on comparative
chromosome painting.
Usefulness of comparisons across baramins
At this point some readers may be questioning the relevance of the above study. After all, the results are interpreted within
an evolutionary framework where all life is considered to be related. Further, these results may make some people feel
uncomfortable. If rearrangements do occur, and evolutionists can show how a chimp genome can be rearranged to fit the
order found in a human, doesnt that lend credence to evolution?First, chromosomal rearrangements themselves do not
change one type of animal into another. Carriers of balanced chromosomal rearrangements generally have a normal
phenotype, although they may have reduced fertility.13 Additionally, intergenic regions, genes without orthologs, and the
specific sequence of orthologous genes are not considered in these comparisons. One cannot turn a mouse into a man by
simply aligning its genes in the same order as ours. Second, genomic comparisons, whether within or between baramins,
can provide useful information on genomic structure. This information is essential for further building the creation model.The
identification of syntenic segments shows that genes commonly appear in a specific order. If there is an advantage to a
specific order of genes, then chromosomal rearrangements may provide a mechanism for new gene associations that are
advantageous in a different environment. Intrabaraminic E-painting investigations would be useful in investigating this idea
further. It would also be interesting to note any overlap between EBs and breakpoints required by the creation model.This
study should also force creationists to address the issue of genome organization similarity between baramins at creation.
Decades ago it was thought that karyotypes were fixed, at least at the species level. Understanding interbaraminic similarity
at Creation will add robustness to the young age model and aid in interpreting interbaraminic investigations that exist in the
literature.
Baranomes, VIGEs and chromosomal rearrangements
Peter Borger has suggested that baranomes, pluripotent uncommitted genomes, were created within the kinds.14 These
genomes were designed to adapt rapidly, facilitated by the presence of variation inducing genetic elements (VIGEs). VIGEs
include repetitive sequences and various mobile elements. 15 Interestingly, another recent study identified a significant
enrichment of certain endogenous retrovirus (ERV) and long interspersed nucleotide (LINE1) elements in EBs in humans
and marsupials.16 Studies of phylogenetic trajectory of orthologous chromosomes have shown many EBs are coincident with
ancient centromere activity or the appearance of new centromeres.16 Thus the identified ERVs and LINE1s may be acting as
VIGEs which play an important role in chromosomal rearrangements.
Conclusion
Creationists need a more complete understanding of the types of genomic changes that have occurred throughout history.
This includes a more detailed understanding of chromosomal rearrangements. Identification of patterns of intrabaraminic
chromosomal diversity should help clarify what types of rearrangements are consistent with the creation model. It may also
help uncover underlying mechanisms for rearrangements and allow for reasonable inferences about the designed purpose
of such rearrangements. This improved understanding of genomic structure and function may inform conjecture about
interbaraminic similarities at Creation and aid in interpreting interbaraminic comparison that appear in secular literature. Epainting is a recently developed tool that can aid creation research in this area as genomic data continues to accumulate.
Fast mouse evolution claims
Creationists should get excited.
by Carl Wieland, CMIAustralia
26 May 2003
Researchers at Chicagos University of Illinois were able to compare DNA from present-day mice with that of museum
specimens (also captured around that city) dating as far back as 1855. 1 They focused on the DNA from the little
powerhouses found in cells (mitochondria) that is easier to find in ancient specimens.They concluded that there had been a
dramatic genetic shift, which they labelled evolution, in that time. One of them, Oliver Pergams, was reported as saying that
mitochondrial DNA does evolve much more quickly than nuclear DNA, but the timeframe was thought to be over thousands
of years. This was the first time anything like this speed had been observed in mammals, they said.So why do we say that
creationists should get excited, not concerned? For one thing, as weve pointed out before, genetic changes as such are no
big deal. Information reshuffling, shifts in gene frequency within populations, natural selection thinning out gene pools
causing adaptationall of these merely move around information thats already there (see Muddy Waters).In fact, within a
given population, selection removes information. That is, creatures that are not fit for their environment are eliminated, thus
their genetic information is not passed on to the next generation.The other main plank in neo-Darwinism, mutations
(accidental hereditary copying mistakes in DNA), also do not cause an increase in genetic information. This applies even in
those rare cases where the defect confers a survival advantage, so is beneficial (see Beetle Bloopers and New eyes for
blind fish?). So the changes we observe today, even though labeled evolution, do not give even a whiff of a hint of how
amebae could have blossomed progressively into aardvarks, avocado trees, and atomic physicists.It may surprise
uninformed evolutionists, but rapid diversification is an implicit prediction of the young age model. This is because the kinds

had to diversify, even speciate, fairly quickly afterwards (dog kind into wolves, dingoes, coyotes, etc.; another kind into
horses, zebras, asses, and so forthsee Speedy Species Surprise). Therefore, the faster such downhill rearrangements
can be seen to take place, the more neatly it fits the young age model.The reports of the Chicago mouse observations
involve no suggestion that there has been any addition of new genetic information to the biosphere, such as real evolution
would have to involve (e.g., feather genes where previously there was no information for feathers anywhere in the world).
Instead, we read of shifts in populations, mutations brought into the area, and so on.When it comes to mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) there is an extra bonus. Changes in mtDNA are the basis for calculations concerning mitochondrial Eve (or
African Eve). This is a hypothetical woman (not meant by the labelers to be equated with the biblical Eve) who was living
with other women at the time, but is the only one of those whose mtDNA (inherited mostly via ones mother) was passed
down to all humans living today. The calculations leading to the dates she supposedly lived are based on assumptions
about how fast mtDNA changes. These dates have ranged up to 250,000 years ago, although recent recalculations based
on actual observed mutation rates in human mtDNA bring it down to around 6,000, interestinglysee A shrinking date for
Eve.This observation of astonishingly rapid mtDNA change in mice once more brings into serious question the
assumptions on which all such mitochondrial dates are based.The scientific community and the media insist on labeling all
genetic change as evolution, without taking into account the nature/direction of the change [see The evolution trains acomin]. This is why we have to make these same sorts of basic points again and again. The average citizen, bombarded in
the media by talk of observed evolution, can hardly be blamed for thinking that it is foolish to deny the idea of goo-to-you
evolutionWhy, look, theyre saying we can see it everywhere. But this is, as we have shown repeatedly, purely due to a
dangerously careless equivocation on the meaning of the word evolution. In fact, the changes we see not only have nothing
to do with uphill evolution, they are readily and beautifully consistent with the notion of the young age model.
Resurrecting a prehistoric horse
by Philip Bell
Previous articles in Creation have dealt with depictions of so-called prehistoric animals in cave paintings around the
world.1 While we recognize many of these creatures because they are still alive today, others are apparently extinct. The
prehistoric label reinforces the idea that many types of creatures lived and died before mankind came on the scene. But
starting with the real history , we can be sure that the beginning of earth history was also the beginning of human history, 2 so
there has never been an era of prehistory in that sense!
Breeding a Tarpan
What would it be like to see a prehistoric animal from a cave painting alive? Well a couple from central Oregon, USA, do
that every day! Back in 1990, Lenette and Gordon Stroebel bought a herd of 20 Tarpan-style horses with a view to breeding
horses that we typically associate with cave paintings. Other cave paintings of horses resemble Przewalskis horses
(see Przewalskis horses below). The Stroebels call their ranch Genesis Equines and their herd of horses consists of
genuine look-alikes of wild Tarpans, which became extinct in the late 1800s. 3They carry on a breeding project begun in the
1960s by horse lover Harry Hegardt. His efforts to recreate a prehistoric horse from wild American mustangs eventually
resulted in something closely resembling the original Tarpan. The Stroebels have continued where he left off. Others have
attempted to revive Tarpans, but their approach is rather different, and not without its critics. 4 Believing that Tarpan genes
were in American wild mustangs,5 they captured mustangs that exhibited true Tarpan characteristicsincluding a more
upright mane (seeTarpans and Tarpan-style horses below)to breed from. So the Stroebels (like Hegardt before them)
succeeded in recreating Tarpan look-alikes without resorting to crossbreeding with Przewalskis horses, as had been done
previously.6
Artificial selection has limits
The Stroebels are careful to point out that their Tarpan-style horses are very unlikely to be true genetic re-creations of the
extinct Tarpan.7 They may have a very similar phenotype (physical appearance), but the information present in the original
Tarpan genotype (genetic makeup) was lost due to extinction. By recombining genetic information that exists in other
species of the horse kind, the breeders have apparently restored information for an upright mane, among other character
traits. But, there are limits to our ability to resurrect the genetic code of now extinct creatures. Notice that the Stroebels had
to carefully select breeding mares and stallions that theyjudged were likely to possess the genetic information for desirable
(Tarpan) characteristics. This selection process was nonrandom (obviously requiring the application of their knowledge of
horse traits) and goal-orientated (offspring with the best mix of Tarpan traits were chosen for breeding the next generation).
Although this has resulted in significant changes in features, it is quite unlike evolution. Evolution on the grand scale
depends on the generation of totally new genetic information. However, no examples of this are known in living things, so it
is a bankrupt theory.8 Not only that, evolution is meant to be a blind, purposeless process. This is quite unlike the intelligent,
purposeful Tarpan-breeding program of the Stroebels! Artificial selection results in recombination of genetic information
already present in various horses. Evolution must account for where all this information came from in the first place, but
cannot do so. Rather, the biological and fossil evidence is fatal to all such theories.9
Cave artmore recent than you might think!
Cave paintings of horses and other animals would have been created after the Babel dispersion. As small populations of
human beings migrated from Babel across the continents, some sheltered/lived in caves and daubed the cave walls with
images of horses and other animals they saw. Many of these creatures (including the classic prehistoric-looking horse)
subsequently became extinct. In one way, the work of people like the Stroebels has served to bring this cave painting era
psychologically closer to the present.17 It also raises the question of whether these creatures and the paintings really date to
many tens of thousands of years ago, as is popularly claimed.18
Przewalskis horses
The Russian explorer and naturalist Nikolai Przewalski (pronounced shuh-vahl-skee1) discovered these horses on the
China/Mongolia border in 1879, although recent reports suggest other explorers had seen them many years earlier. 2,3 These
are thought to be the only truly wild horsesthat have not come from feral domestic horses. Now an endangered species,
they are smaller than most domestic horses, with a stocky body, short legs, large head and a stiff, upright mane. They are
dun-coloured (golden red) with a dark stripe along their backs but pale white undersides and muzzlesthe coat grows lighter
in winter.4Przewalskis horse has 66 chromosomes, compared to 64 for the domestic horse, Equus caballus, seemingly
supporting its separate species name, Equus przewalski.5 Nevertheless, recent DNA sequencing studies show that they are
very similar to both modern horses and ancient ones (i.e. horses preserved in permafrost). 6Once thought to have covered the
steppe (plains) regions of Europe and Asia, their numbers plummeted in the decades following their discovery. So a captive
breeding program began at the turn of the last century. Thirteen of the horses from that conservation effort are the ancestors
of about 1,200 Przewalskis horses alive today, in zoos, private reserves and protected areas of Mongolia.3 Return to top.

Tarpans and Tarpan-style horses

True Tarpans are extinct wild horses that seem to have lived principally in Eastern Europe, some on the steppes, some in
scrubland and forested areas. Based on cave paintings, their range extended as far as Spain. 1 S.G. Gmelin, an 18th century
explorer, first described the Tarpan. Its status as a distinct wild species was controversial until a University of Vienna
paleontologist (O. Antonius) argued that it was a separate type and gave it the name Equus gmelini (sometimes called Equus
przewalskii gmelini, that is, a subspecies of Przewalskis horse).2As expanding agriculture destroyed their habitat, they began
to die out, the last wild Tarpan dying in the Ukraine in 1879. 3,4 In the early 1900s, zoologist brothers Heinz and Lutz Heck, at
the Munich Zoo (Tierpak Hellabrunn) in Germany, began a conservation effort to re-create Tarpans. The Hecks selected
representatives of several European pony breeds believed to be descendants of the original Tarpans for breeding. They bred
mares from these breeds with Przewalskis stallions and established a new Tarpan breed at Munich in 1933. 1Modern Tarpantype horses are small, with a short back, thick neck, large head and a semi-erect mane. The coat is a mousy-grey colour
(called grulla) with a dark stripe along the back.5 With the exception of the few dozen Tarpan-style horses bred at Genesis
Equines, Oregon (see main article), there are about one hundred modern Tarpans worldwide, descended from a handful of
horses from the Hecks breeding stock.1 Return to top.

HAS CREATIONIST RESEARCH FOUND ANY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF ANIMALS THAT ARE IN THE SAME BARAMIN
A baraminology tutorial with examples from the grasses (Poaceae)
by Todd Charles Wood
Creationist biosystematics has existed since Frank Marsh coined the term baramin in 1941. Unfortunately, actual research
into identifying baramins has been sparse. In the past decade, creation biologists have worked to develop a systematic
methodology called baraminology. This paper presents a short tutorial on some of the techniques now in use to identify and
study baramins. Readers are encouraged to use the information in this paper as a starting point for baraminology research
of their own.
The biological discipline of systematics was developed to discover natural groupings of organisms, such as species. A new
systematic method, baraminology, specifically pertains to creationists. 1 Baraminology seeks not the species but the
baramins, created kinds. In the broadest sense, baraminology has its roots in the writings of Frank Marsh. In 1941, Marsh
coined the term baramin.2 However, Marshs ideas have begun to flourish in creationist research only in the past two
decades. The German creationist group Wort und Wissen has produced a book of systematics papers, Typen des Lebens,
in which they apply Marshs ideas to groups of plants and animals. 3 Fortunately for English-speaking creationists, Georg
Huber is currently translating the book into English. Also during the 1990s, Kurt Wise applied baraminology to turtles, 4 and
Ashley Robinson and David Cavanaugh produced a series of papers on baraminology in turtles, 5 primates6 and cats.7 I have
been very active behind the scenes in promoting baraminology to my fellow biologists. As part of the Baraminology Study
Group (BSG), I helped organize two baraminology conferences at Liberty University and Cedarville University. 8,9Science in
general and baraminology specifically require an appropriate philosophical basis in order to be successful in describing the
world. At the baraminology conferences, so much emphasis has been placed on philosophy that researchers have not
gained a practical understanding of the basic methodology and relevance of baraminology. Consequently, I find that many
researchers do not know how to proceed. In this short work, I intend to demonstrate as clearly as possible how to undertake
a baraminology study, using the grass family Poaceae as an example. It is my hope that once others see how
straightforward it can be, they will be encouraged to try it themselves.
What to look for
Many creationists share the problematic desire to have a definition of baramin that makes it easy to recognize. Marshs
heavy emphasis on hybridization as the defining feature of a baramin has certainly contributed to this bias. 10 An
unambiguous criterion makes research easy, but even the hybridization criterion has serious limitations (e.g. it is
inapplicable to asexual or fossil organisms). Because of these problems, baraminologists of today focus on approximating
the limits of the baramin using a suite of characteristics. To assist in the approximation, we employ three terms that are
derived from Marshs baramin:11The monobaramin is a group of organisms that share continuity, either genetic or phenetic.
The apobaramin is a group of organisms that is discontinuous with everything else. Creationists have long used bats as an
example of animals that are unrelated to any other mammals. 12,13 Since we dont know how many kinds (baramins) of bats
were created, baraminologists refer to the bats as an apobaramin.The holobaramin is roughly what we call the created
kind. Technically, it simply combines the definitions of monobaramin andapobaramin. A holobaramin contains a complete
set of organisms that share continuity among themselves but are discontinuous with all other organisms.Because these
definitions are not mutually exclusive, they form the basis of the baraminological method of successive approximation. If you
divide groups of organisms into smaller and smaller apobaramins by subtractive evidence, you will eventually come to a
point when you can legitimately divide the group no longer. Similarly, if you add more and more species to a monobaramin
by additive evidence, you will eventually come to a point when you cannot legitimately add any more species. Hopefully, the
point at which the apobaramin can no longer be divided and the point at which the monobaramin can no longer be
expanded is the same point: the holobaramin. At this point, the membership list of the monobaramin and the apobaramin
are exactly the same; therefore, this group probably represents the holobaramin.To do baraminology then, we evaluate two
kinds of evidence: Additive and subtractive. Hybridization works well as additive evidence. The ability of members of two
different species to produce offspring strongly indicates that they share basic genetic machinery and a common
developmental path; however, failure to hybridize is not subtractive evidence. There are too many factors that can cause
reproductive isolation that have nothing to do with baraminic status. Unfortunately, subtractive evidence proves difficult to
identify in many cases.
If subtractive evidence cannot be found, you should not consider your baraminology study a failure:You might be looking at
only part of the holobaramin; that is, your focus is too narrow. Prior studies have shown that the holobaramin is larger than
most genera.Baraminology constantly advances and refines its methodology. Discontinuity that is undetectable today may
be detected tomorrow.Practically speaking, establishing a monobaramin is useful information. For example, in a
baraminology study of a group of species in the sunflower family, I found good evidence for continuity (hybridization) but no
discontinuity with other species of the same family.14 At the very least, my results indicated that the holobaramin is broader
than this group.
The grasses: choosing a subject
Biologists reading this article probably have a research subject in mind, but for those who do not, guidance on choosing a
group may be in order: First, realize that you will likely choose a group that no creationist has studied before. Because

precious little baraminological research has been published, you will probably not choose one of the few groups that have
already been studied. Studying a group that has been the subject of previous baraminological analysis is also good. The
essence of the baraminology method is approximation, so follow-up studies are always welcome.Also consider how your
baraminology study might relate to others already published. Will you study a group similar to one already studied, or will
you choose something completely new? For example, since the dogs, 15 bears16 and cats7 have all been the subjects of
baraminology studies, another carnivore group, such as the weasels or raccoons, would complement the previous work well.
On the other hand, studying a new group (e.g. invertebrates, microbes, or fungi) will blaze new trails in baraminology and
expand our understanding of the general features of the baramin.Practical issues involved in gathering appropriate data for
your group of interest should be considered as well. Will there be enough published data to do a good baraminology study,
or are you willing and able to gather your own data? Re-interpreting published data is less laborious than gathering new
data, but published datasets can be sparse. For example, I was surprised to find almost no published, family-level cladistic
(tabulations of shared / non-shared characters) datasets on dinosaurs. On the other hand, baraminologists need to begin
generating our own data rather than simply re-interpreting what someone else has already published. If you are able, I
would strongly encourage collecting your own data.To illustrate the baraminological method, I have chosen the grasses. The
grass family Poaceae is one of the most important families on the planet. People associate the word grass with the stuff in
their lawns, but grasses also include important cereal crops such as rice, maize, oats, wheat, barley, rye, and sugarcane.
Half of the worlds population subsists on members of the grass family. The family itself consists of approximately 10,000
species in 56 subfamilies and 46 tribes.17In addition to its utilitarian importance, Poaceae makes an excellent baraminology
subject for a number of other reasons. Because of the importance of the grasses, many botanists actively research Poaceae
systematics. Scientists have formed a collaborative group to study the phylogeny of the grasses, and several genomics
projects are underway for the more important cereal crops, mainly rice 18 and maize.19 A great deal of data from these
research projects is publicly available. Third, a creationist study of the wheat tribe has been published in Typen des
Lebens,20 allowing a comparison of results and conclusions. Finally, my own research work has focused on rice, so grass
baraminology will help me understand other areas of my research interests.18,21
The baraminology method
There really is no single baraminology method but rather a collection of methods used in successive approximation. In the
following sections, I present a few techniques that can be used by nearly any biologist. I begin with Scriptural
considerations, then move to additive and subtractive evidences, and conclude with an interpretation of my results. At each
step, I present general methods that can be applied to any group and illustrate their application in my study of the grasses.
This paper is necessarily short, so some methods in baraminology have been omitted. Consult the literature for discussions
of phylogenetic discontinuity detection,4 the use of mitochondrial DNA,5 and Analysis of Pattern.14,22
Additive evidence: hybridization
Due to its popularity, I will present hybridization as the first scientific method. If you are working with a group that is not
amenable to hybridization experiments, you might want to skip to the next section on Robinson and Cavanaughs baraminic
distance method, which can be used on any group. 6 Space does not permit a full discussion of the theory of the
hybridization criterion, so I recommend consulting other references 1,30 for more information.Unfortunately, good compilations
of hybridization records are difficult to obtain. The Center for Origins Research and Education at Bryan College is
developing a computerized database of hybrids to assist in baraminology studies. 31 Though the HybriDatabase (HDB)
(www.bryancore.org/hdb) currently contains 2,711 hybrid records, I have gained valuable experience during the
development of the HDB. I formulated an effective method of locating hybrid records.First, consult the HDB. Although
incomplete, it contains valuable information. For each hybrid, a complete literature citation is available at the click of a
mouse. Second, try computerized search engines. PubMed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) offers free searching of mostly
biomedical and molecular biology journals. Ovid (www.ovid.com) and Biosis (www.biosis.org) offer database searching of a
wider array of biology literature for a subscription fee. Many public university libraries provide Ovid or Biosis searching to
their patrons. Third, consult published hybrid compilations. Excellent sources include Grays Bird Hybrids32 and Mammalian
Hybrids,33 the periodicals Plant Breeding Abstracts and Animal Breeding Abstracts, and numerous specialty compilations
(e.g. Orchid Hybrids34). You may consult online university library catalogues or Bookfinder (www.bookfinder.com) to locate
hybridization compilations. I recommend the two Breeding Abstract periodicals as comprehensive sources of papers on
hybrids. Creationists often recommend Grays books,30 but some of the hybrids listed are not accepted as valid.35 In all
cases, try to locate the original paper to confirm the hybrid success. Finally, if you find a research article on a hybrid of
interest, scan the references for other hybrid records.I found a plethora of grass hybridization information in Knoblochs A
Check List of Crosses in the Gramineae,29 (Omdalennaya Gibridiza Rasteni, The
Remote Hybridization of Plants, a Russian book on distant plant hybridization),36 Watson and Dallwitzs Grass Genera of the
World17 and several papers in Plant Breeding Abstracts. I also used the AltaVista search engine (www.altavista.com) to
locate other records of newer hybrids.37-40
Figure 1. Inter-tribal hybridizations in the grass family. Black
squares indicate reports of inter-tribal hybrids. Grey squares
indicate two tribes known to hybridize to the same third tribe.
Open
squares
indicate
no
reported
hybrids.
Click here for larger viewTo display hybridization information,
baraminologists frequently use a graphical tool called
ahybridogram. To create a hybridogram, begin with graph paper
or a computer spreadsheet. Next, list your species down the left
side and across the top, forming a square matrix where each cell
represents a potential interspecific hybrid (Figure 1). Record
successful hybridizations by filling in the appropriate cells.
The Wort und Wissen creationist group uses the hybridogram
extensively in their book Typen des Lebens.3The 10,000 grass
species make a challenging subject for a hybridogram. Because I
cannot put all species on one hybridogram, I made several
approximations for the hybridogram in Figure 1. I listed only the
46 grass tribes recognized by Watson and Dallwitz. 17 Next, I filled
in cells indicating successful intergeneric hybridization within and
between tribes. I also used Scherers secondary membership criterion, Two individuals belong to the same basic type if
they have hybridized with the same third organism. 30 By extension, I shaded cells grey where two tribes are known to cross
with members of the same third tribe.In Figure 1, inter-tribal grass hybrids join only twelve of 46 tribes. At first glance, 12 out
of 46 seems like poor baraminic evidence, but the 12 hybridizing tribes comprise approximately 7,220 species.

Consequently, I can assign 72% of the Poaceae to one hybridization-defined monobaramin. The remaining tribes that are
not connected to the rest by hybridization are mostly small (half of the grass tribes contain less than 20 species). In his
analysis of the duck baramin, Scherer noted the same pattern. Of the 13 tribes of the duck family Anatidae, hybridization
connects eight. The remaining five represent tribes of 13 species each. Despite a lack of hybridization to connect the five
small tribes with the remaining eight, Scherer still concludes that all Anatids (ducks, swans and geese) form a single basic
type (or monobaramin; see below).41Even though most of the non-hybridizing grass tribes are small, two tribesBambuseae
(the bamboos) and Stipeae (including ricegrasses)are quite large. This illustrates a limitation of hybridization: Lack of
recorded hybridization is ambiguous baraminic evidence. Although I could find no hybrids between bamboos or ricegrasses
and other grass tribes, my search for grass hybrids was cursory. A more comprehensive search may reveal hybrids that join
all grass tribes. At this stage, I would advance the conservative hypothesis that 72% of grass species in 12 tribes form a
monobaramin.
Additive and subtractive evidence: baraminic distance
Since hybridization is only additive evidence, I need more data to determine the apobaraminic status of Poaceae.
Fortunately, Robinson and Cavanaugh developed statistical methods for examining baraminic relationships without
hybridization data.6 They base their methods on thebaraminic distance, a metric that summarizes systematic data. The
information in systematic data sets is organized in columns where each column represents a particular characteristic, such
as tooth shape or head size. The rows represent the taxa and the particular character states of those taxa. For example, oat
flowers (character) are bisexual (character state 1) while maize flowers are unisexual (character state 2). For convenience,
character states are almost always coded numerically (1=bisexual, 2=unisexual).Systematic data sets can be challenging to
locate. Systematists are aware of this limitation and have begun to archive their datasets in internet databases. You can use
two
different
databases
to
search
for
datasets
for
your
group
of
interest,
TreeBASE
(www.herbaria.harvard.edu/treebase/index.html) and Cladestore (palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/cladestore/default.html). Since the
databases are relatively new, they only have a few datasets. You may need to dig further to find a useful dataset for your
group.
Specialty
journals
likeCladistics, Systematic
Biology,
and
organism-themed
publications
(like Herpetologica or Journal of Mammalogy) often publish data sets to accompany articles on systematics. Although many
published data sets exist, they are not always baraminologically useful. They may exclude taxa deemed baraminologically
significant, or they may simply have too few taxa or characters to give reliable baraminic information. As mentioned
previously, we creationists should strive to generate our own datasets by direct observations of living or preserved
specimens. Only in this way can we obtain the precise data needed. In the meantime, published datasets can offer useful
information in many cases.Because of the importance of the grass family, the Grass Phylogeny Working Group (GPWG)
placed a large data set online so that anyone with Internet access can analyze it (www.virtualherbarium.org/grass/gpwg/).
The GPWG dataset contains 7,025 characters scored for 62 grass genera and four outgroup genera. The 62 grass genera
represent 36 tribes. Most importantly, the large tribes excluded from the hybridization-defined monobaramin are present in
this dataset; therefore, their baraminic status should be clearer. For more information about the GPWG dataset, consult their
website.
Figure 2. Baraminic distance correlation test. The R2statistic is
the square of the correlation. In this example, the correlation
coefficient (R) would be the square root of 0.9646, or 0.982 (A
and
C
are
probably
closely
related).
Click here for larger view
Space prohibits a detailed explanation of the baraminic distance
method, but a short description of the metric is in order. The
baraminic distance between two species is the percentage of
characters in which the two species differ in their character
states. The simplicity of this metric is very important, because
most evolutionary phylogenetic methods make assumptions of
common ancestry to calculate similarities and distances. With a
percentage, no prior assumptions are made, so identifying both
significant similarity between species (implying baraminic
relationship) and significant differences between other species
(implying discontinuity) should be straightforward. For a detailed
discussion of the baraminic distance method, consult Robinson
and Cavanaughs original paper.6I developed the computer
program BDIST to perform the baraminic distance calculations on
the large GPWG dataset. BDIST is available at the BSG website
(www.bryancore.org/bsg), where you will also find detailed
documentation on how to use the software. Because BDIST is
written in Perl, it will run under any operating system. BDIST first
sorts through the characters and calculates character relevance.
Relevance is the percentage of taxa for which a character state is known, and BDIST includes relevance figures for each
character in its output file. Robinson and Cavanaugh recommend that character with relevance less than 95% should be
eliminated from baraminic distance calculations.6 After calculating relevances for every character, BDIST eliminates
characters that have less than 95% relevance. Finally BDIST calculates baraminic distances from the remaining characters
and outputs the distance matrix to a plain text file, which can be cut-and-pasted into a spreadsheet or other mathematical
software for further analysis. BDIST eliminated 4,906 characters from the GPWG dataset because of low relevance. The
remaining 2,119 characters were used for the baraminic distance calculations. Baraminic distances can be analyzed in a
variety of ways. I will illustrate the correlation test, one application of baraminic distances.Robinson and Cavanaugh
recommend calculating the Pearson product-moment correlation between all possible pairs of taxa. 6 If the distance between
taxa A and B is similar to the distance between taxa C and B, and if this similarity of distances holds for taxa D, E, and F,
then A and C are probably closely-related (Figure 2). By calculating the correlation of baraminic distances for taxa A and C,
we can test whether the distances are similar enough to be statistically significant. Robinson and Cavanaugh suggest that
significant positive correlation indicates that the two species are members of the same monobaramin and significant
negative correlation indicates that the two species are discontinuous (members of different apobaramins). You should
consult their paper for more information on baraminic distance correlation tests. 6 I did not implement a correlation test in
BDIST because these tests are more efficiently done by any number of statistical software packages. You can even use a
simple spreadsheet, like Excel or QuattroPro. I use the S+ package, available from Insightful Corporation (www.insightful
.com).

Click here for larger view

Figure 3. Summary of baraminic distance correlation tests for (A) molecular and morphological data and (B) morphological
data only. Filled squares indicate significant positive correlation. Circles indicate significant negative correlation. Black
horizontal
and
vertical
lines
separate
tribes.
Labels
for
columns
are
same
as
for
rows.
Click here for larger view
In the GPWG dataset, the 62 grass genera yield 1,891 unique species pairs for which baraminic distances and correlations
can be calculated. Using the baraminic distances from BDIST, I found that 98% of the species pairs had significant positive
correlation. Curiously, I also found that 53% of the 248 species pairs between the grasses and outgroup species also
displayed significant positive correlation, and only 6% had significant negative correlation (Figure 3A). Based on Robinson
and Cavanaughs original discussion of the distance correlation test, I did not expect a high frequency of significant positive
correlation between the grass and outgroup species. These results suggest that the non-Poaceae genera included in the
dataset might also be members of a monobaramin together with the grasses. If correct, this result would be very surprising,
since grasses are widely acknowledged to form a well-defined group.To re-evaluate these results, I removed molecular
characters from the GPWG dataset and re-calculated the baraminic distances. Systematic data derived from DNA sequence
comparisons may not be very useful for baraminology because so many DNA/DNA comparisons are done on genes that are
very similar between many species. Consequently, species appear much more similar than they would if you examined their
morphology, thus the use of DNA sequence information biases the systematic results towards similarity that is purely
genetic.Of the 7,025 characters in the GPWG dataset, only 53 are morphological. The remaining 6,972 characters come
from DNA analyses. After eliminating the DNA characters, the baraminic distance calculations were very different. With the
morphology-only dataset, 21 characters were eliminated due to low relevance, and 32 characters were used to calculate
baraminic distance. From the Pearson correlation analysis, I found that nearly every one of the grasses shares significant
positive correlation with all the other grasses but significant negative correlation with the outgroup genera. Two notable
exceptions are the grass generaStreptochaeta and Anomochloa (possibly Pharus as well), both of which have significant
negative correlation with most other grasses but significant positive correlation with the four outgroup genera and with each
other (Figure 3B).From the morphological analysis, I draw several conclusions. First, the Poaceae (excluding tribes
Streptochaeteae and Anomochloeae) form a coherent monobaramin and apobaramin, suggesting that the majority of grass
species are members of a single holobaramin. Second, negative baraminic distance correlation indicates that tribes
Anomochloeae (1 sp.) and Streptochaeteae (2 spp.) are not members of the grass holobaramin. The position of Pharus and
the Phareae (14 spp.) is presently unclear. Third and perhaps most important for the advancement of baraminology
methods, heavy reliance on molecular sequence data biases baraminic analysis towards too much similarity. I strongly
suggest that researchers do not rely too heavily on sequence similarity for determining baraminic relationships.
Conclusions
The final step of any baraminology paper is interpreting the analyses and presenting your conclusions. The considerations
that went into selecting the group to study should now come back into play. You might consider the geographical distribution
of the modern members of your baramin and how it relates to their Flood survival mode. You might also discuss possible
diversification theories for an exceptionally large baramin. Finally, compare your results with the results of other creationist
researchers. If you are dealing with a completely new group, discuss the general characteristics of your baramin, such as
the number of species, the fossil record or how it compares with conventional taxonomic catagories (such as family, order or
tribe).Interpreting the grass holobaramin is a monumental task, so I will limit my comments to a few points. Junker previously
assigned basic type status to the tribe Triticeae. 20 Because basic type biology considers only hybridization and lacks a
method of identifying discontinuities, a basic type is a monobaramin. Junker found no records of hybridization between
species in the Triticeae and other tribes of the grasses. Since I found several intertribal hybridization records involving the
Triticeae using the journal Plant Breeding Abstracts, I would broaden Junkers basic type to include all the grasses except
Anomochloeae and Streptochaeteae. In a report on the grass species Ring Muhly, the authors speculate that the boundaries
of the created kind lie within the genus Muhlenbergia.42 My results demonstrate that the holobaraminic boundaries of the
grasses (including Ring Muhly) are much broader than any single genus.Lastly, I want to address the question of the
diversification of the grass holobaramin, the largest holobaramin identified to date. With 10,000 species, the grass
holobaramin easily outnumbers even the biggest mammalian baramins. For example, a recent study places 150 fossil horse
species into a single monobaramin.22 The great number of grass species is unlikely to be caused by excessive splitting by
over-zealous systematists. Instead, the large number of tribes indicates that the diversity is real. The fact that grasses are
plants gives a possible clue to the origin of the extreme diversity. It is therefore possible that some of the grass diversity
dates from before the Flood, possibly even from created diversity from the begining.Pre-Flood grass diversification would
help to make sense of the early grass references. Some cereal grains might have arisen after the Flood. Archaeological
evidence of a post-Flood domestication of barley (Hordeum vulgare) could be interpreted as merely diversification within
theHordeum genus.43 To clarify the issue of grass diversification, we will need to evaluate the post-Flood fossil record of the
grasses.With the Internet and the BDIST software, nearly any student or professional in biology can do a baraminological
analysis of their favorite creatures. As we accumulate more baraminological studies, we will get a clearer picture of what
baramins look like and how to identify them better. I pray that this article will help researchers become more familiar with
baraminology and that biologists reading this article will seriously consider joining this exciting work.

Identification of species within the sheep-goat kind (Tsoan monobaramin)

by Jean K. Lightner
Animals were created according to their kind with the ability to reproduce. Since variations in climate exist, it follows that
animals will have the ability to adapt so this could be accomplished. Hybrid dataindicate that sheep (Ovis aries) and goats
(Capra hircus) belong to a
monobaramin (or basic type, a
group belonging to the same kind).
Further hybrid data indicate that
other
species
in
the
genera Ovis, Capra,Ammotragus,
Hemitragus and
probably Rupicapra fall within this
monobaramin as well. An alleged
hybrid
between
sheep
and
European roe deer suggests that
this monobaramin may actually
include several ruminant families;
however, a better documented
example
is
desirable
before
reaching strong conclusions. The
variation
seen
within
this
monobaramin, at least some of
which are adaptive changes,
indicate
that
mutation
and
chromosomal rearrangement have
contributed to the development of
currently existing species.
Figure 1. Variation within the Tsoan
monobaramin. A) This Dalls sheep
(Ovis dalli) exhibits tightly curved
horns that curl at the sides of the
head
typical
of Ovis species. B) This alpine ibex
(Capra ibex) exhibits horns with a
more gentle curve that grow up
away from the head. C) The large male Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia) has horns with a different curvature as well as a
mane (shaggy hair under the neck) and chaps (shaggy hair down the front of the legs). D) This Swaledale, a breed of
domestic sheep (Ovis aries), exhibits the heavy growth of underfur known as wool that is typical of most domestic sheep
breeds. Many creationists believe that after the Flood there were dramatic changes in climate. This was also a time of rapid
speciation as animals spread out over the earth and adapted to new environments. Although animals reproduce within their
own kind, characteristics of different populations eventually became divergent enough that they were given different
names.4 This concept that creatures were designed according to their kind and with the ability to adapt 5 is in contrast with
the molecules-to-man evolutionary idea that all organisms had a single common ancestor and adaptation is the result of
chance events.The study of created kinds is called baraminology (from Hebrew bara: create, min: kind). One tool used to
determine if two different species belong in a monobaramin (a group belonging to single kind) is to see if they can hybridize
with each other or if they can both hybridize with a third species. 6 While such interspecific hybridization* clearly identifies two
species as belonging to the same baramin, the absence of such hybridization data is not in itself conclusive. 7 There are a
number of differences that can naturally arise between populations that may result in hybridization failure. 8 This study will
examine data relating to the baraminic classification of sheep and goats and some of the variation that exists within this
monobaramin.
Hybridization data
Domestic sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra hircus) have been closely associated throughout history. Even today there
are many places where they are kept together. Although it is not uncommon to see them mating under these circumstances,
live offspring from such a mating are extremely rare. Several hybrids have been confirmed using chromosomal analysis to
demonstrate that they had 57 chromosomes (2n = 57) which is intermediate between goats (2n = 60) and domestic sheep
(2n = 54) (table 1).12 One study reported a 96% fertilization rate when goats were mated (a buck* with a doe*), and a 90%
fertilization rate when sheep were mated (a ram* with a ewe*). However, when rams were crossed with does there was a
72% fertilization rate and the embryos died at 5 to 10 weeks. When bucks were crossed with ewes there was a 0%
fertilization rate.13 Thus, the few well documented live hybrids confirm that sheep and goats do both belong to the Tsoan
monobaramin. The study cited illustrates how differences have developed within this baramin that most commonly result in a
poor fertilization rate and/or a high spontaneous abortion rate in matings between sheep and goats.Within the
genus Ovis hybridization occurs quite readily. In fact this is one reason why the species listed in this genus vary depending
on the source.14 The mouflon, wild sheep previously classified as O. musimon or O. orientalis, are now often classified as O.
aries along with domestic sheep.15 Fertile offspring have been observed from crosses between domestic sheep and the
mouflon. Fertile offspring have also been documented between these sheep and Argali sheep (O. ammon, 2n = 56), the
Urial (O. vignei, 2n = 58), and bighorn sheep (O. canadensis, 2n = 54).16 It is worth noting that within this genus, differences
in chromosome number do not pose a barrier to hybridization.Attempts to artificially cross domestic sheep with the chamois
(Rupicapra rupicapra, 2n = 58) resulted in hybrid embryos which died. Similar attempts to cross sheep with domestic cattle
(Bos taurus, 2n = 60) resulted in 11 out of 51 sheep eggs cleaving when fresh bull semen was introduced. However,
fertilization and cleavage are not sufficient to classify two organisms within the same monobaramin. It is necessary for
embryogenesis to continue past the initial maternal phase and for there to be coordinated expression of both paternal and
maternal genes.17 Finally, there has been an alleged hybridization between domestic sheep and European roe deer
(Capreolus capreolus, 2n = 70).16 European roe deer belong to the family Cervidae, which are characterized by their bony,
branched antlers that are shed annually. All other animals previously mentioned in this section belong to the family Bovidae,
which are characterized by unbranched horns consisting of a bony core, covered by a keratinized sheath and are not
shed.18Domestic goats can hybridize with the Alpine ibex (C. ibex), Nubian ibex (C. nubiana), Siberian ibex (C. sibirica),

Markhor (C. falconeri), West Caucasian or Kurban tur (C. caucasica), East Caucasian or Daghestan tur (C. cylindricornis),
and Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia, 2n = 58). Many of the hybrids within the genus Capra are fertile. Crosses between
domestic goats and the Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus,2n = 48) have resulted in abortions, but no live young.
Hybrids between goat and the chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) have been reported, but a further attempt to produce a hybrid
failed.16

Table 1. A hybridogram for sheep and goat hybrids showing all members of the subfamily Caprinae (family Bovidae) and
one member of subfamily Odocoileinae (family Cervidae). V = viable hybrid(s); VF = viable, fertile hybrid(s); A = abortion; E
= early embyronic death; ? = hybrid of questionable reliability reported; * = the same species.
Inferences from other data
Within the genus Ovis there are two species for which no clear hybrid data were found. These are Dalls sheep (O. dalli, 2n
= 54) and the snow sheep or Siberian bighorn (O. nivicola, 2n = 52). Both these species are considered to be very closely
related to bighorn sheep (O. canadaensis).19 They are mountain sheep which are similar in morphology, habitat, and
chromosome number.Within the genus Capra there are also two species for which no clear hybrid data were found. These
are the Spanish ibex (C. pyrenaica) and the Eithiopian or Walia ibex (C. walie). These species are closely related to the
other ibexes which were all classified as subspecies of C. ibex at one time. As with sheep, there is still controversy over
definitions of species and subspecies. The Walia ibex is often included with the Nubian ibex. 20 Since the few species that
lack hybrid data are considered so closely related to a species linked by hybrid data, it seems reasonable to conclude that
all species of Ovis and Capra fall within the Tsoan monobaramin.Additionally, animals within the same genus would be
expected to be more closely related to each other than animals from different genera. Thus, even if there had been no
further information on the Ovis or Capra species that lacked hybrid data, it would still seem reasonable to assume that they
belong within the monobaramin. When hybrid data shows animals from different genera to be monobaraminic, all animals
within the two genera would be expected to be in the monobaramin.
Variation within Tsoan
Once animals have been identified as belonging to the same monobaramin, variation within the monobaramin can be
examined for patterns. There is tremendous variation found within Tsoan (figure 1). For example, horns in sheep generally
curl at the side of the head as they grow. Normally there is only one pair of horns, but Jacob sheep (a domestic breed) may
have two or even three pairs. Those with four horns have two vertical centre horns that may be up to several feet long
(much like goat horns), and two lateral horns which curl down along the side of the head. 21 Goat horns tend to grow upward,
and somewhat outward and backward. In some Capra species the horns of adult males 22 form a very large semi-circle as
viewed from the side.23 However, the Markhor has tightly curled corkscrew-like horns, 24 while the Daghestan tur has horns
which are a rounded triangle shape on cross-section that make an open curl over the head (much like a lyre as viewed from
the front of the animal when its head is slightly lowered). Horns in males are usually much larger than those in
females.25 Some breeds of domestic sheep are naturally polled*. Thus, there is considerable variation in the size, shape,
and number of horns within this monobaramin.The pelage or hair coat of Tsoan is also highly variable. Typically mammals
have guard hairs which overlay and protect the underfur. The underfur may be composed of wool, fur and/or
velli.26 Domestic sheep are best known for having well developed wool, a growth of underfur that is not shed, and very few
guard hairs. This wool ranges from the fine (narrow diameter) wool of the Merino to the longer, coarser wool of the Jacob
sheep. Some domestic sheep and most domestic goats have no obvious wool. The length of hair may also vary according to
the species, gender and body region of the animal. Bucks often have a beard. Rams in some species have a mane, a fringe
of long hair under the throat that runs down to the brisket. In Barbary sheep, the mane divides at the brisket and continues
down the legs as chaps.27 In addition to variation in type, diameter and length of hair fibres, there is variation in colour,

colour pattern and density of the hair coat.There is considerable homology among the sheep, goat, and cattle genomes.
Both goats and cattle have 60 chromosomes consisting of 29 pairs of acrocentric* autosomes*. Domestic sheep have 3 less
chromosome pairs relative to goats and cattle, including 23 pairs of acrocentric and 3 pairs of metacentric * autosomes.
Sheep chromosome (OAR) 1 is considered equivalent to goat (CHI) and cattle (BTA) chromosomes 1 and 3. OAR 2
corresponds to CHI/BTA 2 and 8, and OAR 3 to CHI/BTA 5 and 11. These differences are attributed to three Robertsonian
translocations.28 A Robertsonian translocation occurs when the long arms of two nonhomologous acrocentric chromosomes
combine to form a single chromosome.29 This is a relatively common type of chromosomal change which is nonrandom and
appears to have distinct mechanisms that drive the change.30
Conclusions
All species in the genera Ovis, Capra and Ammotragus are clearly within Tsoan. Hemitragus is also included because
identifiable abortions indicate a significant amount of embryonic development has taken place. Rupicapra is probably
included; it appears the major reason for doubting the authenticity of the alleged hybrids with goats was because an
additional attempt failed. However, failure is the most common result when goats are crossed with sheep. It is unclear how
far the embryos developed when Rupicapra was crossed with sheep. A better documented hybrid would remove the
uncertainty. These five genera all fall within Caprinae, a subfamily within the family Bovidae.Although similarities between
Tsoan and cattle have been noted, there is currently insufficient hybrid data to place cattle within Tsoan. Cattle belong to
Bovinae, a separate subfamily within the family Bovidae. Yet, the alleged hybrid between sheep and European roe deer
suggests Tsoan may include not only the family Bovidae, but also the family Cervidae. If this is verified, then Tsoan would
likely include Antilocapridae, a family consisting of only the pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) which is intermediate
between Cervidae (consisting of over 40 species) and Bovidae (consisting of nearly 140 species). Other ruminant families
may be included as well. A better documented Bovidae/Cervidae or other interfamilial hybrid would be tremendously helpful
in ascertaining the true baraminological relationship of these families. Since well documented hybrid data is lacking at this
time, cattle hybrids will be examined separately in a subsequent paper.The variation present within the Tsoan monobaramin
is from both the variety created in this baramin initially and changes that have been acquired throughout history. Some
characteristics naturally change as a result of environmental changes, for example growth of a heavier winter coat and
moulting. However, the variation within the monobaramin far exceeds this. Mutations, any acquired change within the
genome, have historically been considered to be due to random copying errors. As such, they do not significantly add
information and often result in disease. However, within the last several decades evidence has been found that some
changes within bacterial genomes are directed. Such mutations can be initiated by environmental signals which allow
changes in a part of the genome that is likely to help the organism adapt. 31 Much of the variation in pelage could be
attributable to similar changes.32 For example, growth in any tissue is controlled by multiple factors; some work to stimulate
growth, others to inhibit growth. If directed changes occurred as a result of environmental changes from a post-Flood ice
age, mutations may have occurred that increased factors stimulating hair growth and density 33,34 or decreased factors
inhibiting it.34 This would easily explain how animals which had no need for heavy coats prior to the Fall were able to acquire
them when the need arose.
Glossary
Acrocentric:
a chromosome with the centromere very near one end
Autosomes:
chromosomes that are not sex (X or Y) chromosomes
Buck:
an adult male goat
Doe:
an adult female goat
Ewe:
an adult female sheep
Interspecific
forming a hybrid by crossing two different species
hybridization:
Metacentric:
a chromosome with the centromere near the middle
Polled:
an animal without horns
Ram:
an adult male sheep
Tsoan:
an anglicized form of the Hebrew word ( tsn) which is used 275 times in the Hebrew Old
Testament to refer to sheep and goats
Identification of species within the cattle monobaramin (kind)
by Jean K. Lightner
Baraminology, the study of created kinds, uses hybrid data to determine what species can hybridize and thus belong to the
same monobaramin or basic type. Hybrid data indicate that domestic cattle (Bos taurus) are in a monobaramin with all other
species of the genera Bos, Bison, and probably Bubalus. These
species are all within the family Bovidae and subfamily Bovinae.
Additionally, there are alleged hybrids between cattle and the musk
ox (subfamily Caprinae) and cattle and moose (family Cervidae).
More data would be helpful to determine the full extent of this
baramin. Variation within the genus Bos shows different individuals
adapted to extremes in environmental conditions, from the yak
which can tolerate extremely cold environments and high altitudes,
to the zebu which can tolerate very hot conditions and is more
resistant to parasites.

The yak (Bos grunniens) is a member of the cattle monobaramin that is well adapted to cold environments and high
altitudes.The study of created kinds is sometimes called baraminology (from Hebrew baracreate, mnkind). One
technique used to determine if two species belong to the same baramin (created kind) is to demonstrate that they can
hybridize with each other or they can both hybridize with a third species. Species that are linked by hybrid data are termed a
monobaramin (or basic type 2). However, lack of hybridization is inconclusive since differences can arise during speciation
which prevent hybridization.3In vitro (done in a laboratory, outside the animal) fertilization is a well developed technology for
a number of animal species, including cattle. This has been a useful tool in attempts to form hybrids. Mere fertilization is not
considered sufficient evidence of hybridization. The embryo must develop to the point where there is a coordinated

expression of embryonic genes.2 There is no strong consensus within creationist circles of exactly when this
occurs.4Creationists recognize that intrabaraminic (within kind) changes may occur over time. Such changes may be help
animals survive in particular environments. Other changes are recognized as being degenerative and the result of the
Curse.5 However, the evolutionary notion that all living things have a common ancestor and throughout history have gained
new organs and complex, well-integrated biochemical pathways is rejected. The historical accounts and the pattern of
changes seen in the real world are in direct conflict with molecules-to-man evolutionary ideas.In my previous paper, 6 I
identified a number of species within the Tsoan (sheep-goat) monobaramin. There was insufficient hybrid data to conclude
that cattle (members of the genus Bos) belong to the Tsoan monobaramin, so they are examined separately in this paper.
Hybridization data
Within the genus Bos, hybrids form quite readily. Domestic cattle of European descent (Bos taurus, 2n = 60) hybridize with
Indian cattle, or the zebu, (B. indicus, 2n = 60) to form fertile offspring so that the latter is sometimes considered a
subspecies of the former (i.e. B. taurus indicus). The yak (B. grunniens, 2n = 60) will hybridize with the above species as
well; the resulting females are fertile, but the males are sterile. The guar (B. frontalis, 2n = 58) and the banteng (B.
javanicus, 2n = 60) have formed a three way cross with domestic cattle. Other hybrid combinations have been formed as
well. With the exception of the first cross mentioned, hybrid males are nearly always sterile while the females are
fertile.22 This is in spite of the fact that, except for the guar, they all have the same number of chromosomes.Both the
American bison (Bison bison, 2n = 60) and the European bison, or wisent, (Bison bonasus, 2n = 60) have hybridized with
various Bos species. Again there is the pattern of fertile females and usually sterile males in the hybrids. Water buffalo
(Bubalus bubalis, 2n = 48 or 50) have been observed mating with the gaur and zebu cattle, but no progeny have been
observed. Hybrids between water buffalo and domestic cattle (B. taurus) have been reported in China, but they are
generally regarded as doubtful because other attempts have repeatedly failed.22 In vitro fertilization has resulted in hybrid
embryos that developed until about the 8-cell stage, but then failed and did not express mRNA transcripts found in control
buffalo embryos.23 However, at least one study was able to bring hybrid embryos to the advanced blastocyst stage, with
cattle oocytes fertilized by buffalo sperm resulting in a significantly larger percentage of blastocysts than the reverse
cross.24A report of hybrids between zebu cattle and the eland (Taurotragus oryx, 2n = 31 in males, 32 in females) exists.
Further attempts to cross the eland with domestic cattle have failed, so these hybrids are considered by some to be eland
bulls.22
All hybrids considered thus far are within the subfamily Bovinae, however there are also alleged hybrids between domestic
cattle and species outside this subfamily. One is with the muskox (Ovibos moschatus, 2n = 48) which belongs to the
subfamily Caprinae. Sheep also belong to the subfamily Caprinae. Attempts to artificially cross sheep with cattle have
resulted in fertilization and development to the 8-cell stage, but the embryos failed to transition from maternal to embryonic
control as indicated by a lack of RNA synthesis. 25In vitro fertilization of cattle oocytes with sperm from the endangered
scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah, 2n = 5658) from the subfamily Hippotraginae has been reported. However, the
embryos were only reported to have reached the 5-to 8-cell stage. 26 The purpose of the study was to evaluate the quality of
oryx semen rather than investigate the viability of the hybrid embryos. Until such embryos are documented to undergo
further development, this cross should not be considered a hybrid because a coordinated expression of embryonic genes
has not been demonstrated.Cattle, sheep and the oryx are members of the family Bovidae. Mating has been reported to
occur between cattle and a species of deer (Cervus elaphus, 2n = 68), a member of the family Cervidae. There has also
been an alleged hybrid between a cow and a moose (Alces alces, 2n = 68 or 70) which is also in the family Cervidae.
Natural variety within the kind
Cattle vary in body build (e.g. beef breeds vs dairy breeds), size, coloration, and horn morphology (e.g. longhorn vs
shorthorn vs polled (no horn)). The yak has long, coarse hair and a dense, woolen undercoat that grows in the winter. The
yak is able to endure colder environments and higher altitudes that any other cattle. 27 On the other hand, zebu cattle, such
as the Brahman, have large pendulous ears, a dewlap (folds of loose skin that hang down in front of the chest), a hump over
the neck and shoulders from extended dorsal processes, and better developed sweat glands than other cattle. Zebu cattle
can withstand hotter environments and are more resistant to parasites than other cattle.28
Conclusions
All species in the genera Bos and Bison can be considered part of the cattle monobaramin. Bubalus is probably included
since some hybrid embryos have developed to the advanced blastocyst stage. In one study cited, 23 failure around the 8-cell
stage was associated with a lack of mRNA transcripts. This suggests that coordinated expression of embryonic genes is
necessary for an embryo to develop past this stage into a morula and then a blastocyst. 29The blastocyst stage, at least in
cattle, is when the embryo would be placed back into a recipient animal for implantation and further development. More
research should be done to determine if the advanced blastocyst stage is really a satisfactory indicator of hybridization in
mammals.Alleged hybrids of cattle with members of another subfamily (Caprinae) and family (Cervidae) hint that the
holobaramin (all organisms derived from the created common ancestors, whether known or not) could possibly include the
entire family Bovidae and several, if not all, of the five other ruminant families. 30Considerable variety is apparent within the
cattle monobaramin. In my previous paper on the Tsoan (sheep-goat) monobaramin,6 I suggested that some of the variety
may have resulted from directed mutations. These are changes in genes that occur in response to certain environmental
clues and help the organism adapt to the new environment. So far, heritable directed mutations have only been documented
in microbes. Within the evolutionary paradigm, mutations are essentially the result of random processes. In the creationary
paradigm, mutations may be programmed into the genome so animals could adapt to changing environments after the
Curse. Further study of variation within monobaramins, particularly looking at the molecular basis of these differences, may
reveal programming of an infinitely wise Creator who provides for his creation in ways we had never before imagined.
Karyotypic and allelic diversity within the canid baramin (Canidae)
by Jean K. Lightner
Previous studies suggest that all dog-like creatures (canids, family Canidae) belong to a single created kind. As unclean
animals, all modern canids are descendants of two canids survived during the Flood. This pair of canids would have carried
a limited amount of genetic diversity. They would be expected to have had a fairly uniform arrangement of chromosomes
(low karyotypic diversity) and up to four different versions of any particular gene (allelic diversity). Today there is
considerably more karyotypic and allelic diversity within the canids. The patterns imply that more than random mutation and
natural selection are involved; instead, certain genetic components appear designed to change and numerous designed
mechanisms may be involved in driving many of these changes. This suggests that animals were designed to be able to
undergo certain genetic mutations which would enable them to adapt to a wide range of environmental challenges while
minimizing risk.

Table 1. List of canid species and

their normal diploid (2n) number
which
were
included
in
a
phylogenomic
analysis
by
Graphodatsky et al.7There is a need
to more fully describe intrabaraminic
(within kind) variation on a genetic
level for understanding the basis for
the variety we see within baramins
today. It has been pointed out that the
majority of mutations are near
neutral.1 Yet intuitively, I would expect
random (chance) errors in such a
complex system to be more
consistently disastrous unless the
system was designed to change.2 If
genetic systems were designed to
allow for such changes, then mutations (changes in the nucleotide sequence of DNA) are not necessarily just errors or
accidents. On the contrary, some mutations may be directed to allow animals to adapt in the present fallen world. By
examining intrabaraminic genetic diversity, we should be able to discover a clearer picture regarding the role of mutations in
the development of the diversity found in animals today.Previous baraminic studies have identified all canids (family
Canidae) as belonging to a single baramin. This historical information is important because it suggests there was a limited
amount of diversity present in canids at that time. Today, this family is represented by 34 species that are widely distributed
around the world.6 There are considerable data available on the karyotypic and allelic diversity in protein coding genes for
several of these species. A brief overview of the data is presented here.
Karyotype
The family Canidae exhibits the most highly rearranged karyotypes* of any family within the order Carnivora. Normal diploid
numbers vary from 34 for the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) to 78 for the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) and dhole (aka Asiatic
Wild Dog; Cuon alpinus) (table 1). The Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) is polymorphic for a centric fusion; diploid numbers of 49
and 48 are found in individuals carrying one or two copies respectively of this fusion. Phylogenomic analysis suggests that
82 may have been the ancestral karyotype. Within the 10 species that have been studied in detail it appears that
approximately 80 rearrangements have occurred. This includes numerous fusions, both centric and tandem, fissions,
pericentric inversions and/or centromere transpositions.7 Several paracentric inversions, and even whole arm (telomere to
centromere) inversions, have been implicated based on the differences in loci order among species (figure 1).8,9
Figure 1. Diagrams depicting some of
the
chromosomal
rearrangements
reported within the canid baramin. Such
rearrangements often result in the loss
of relatively small portions of DNA.
Fusions (top row) involve combining two
distinct chromosomes to form one; to
become stable, one centromere must
then be silenced. Inversions (bottom
row) involve reorienting a portion of DNA
within an existing chromosome. There
also is evidence that the amount of
heterochromatin can be adjusted. These
types of rearrangements are too
complex to be the result of purely
chance events. While rearrangements
do involve some risk, they probably also
have purpose, such as adaptation in a
fallen
world.Evidence
of
similar
rearrangements is present within other
baramins and even within some
species.1012 Detailed
studies
of
rearrangements in ruminants strongly
suggest that numerous designed mechanisms operate to repair breaks, silence an extra centromere, adjust amounts of
heterochromatin and possibly alter the position of the centromere. 13 The fact that such rearrangements often become fixed
within a species suggests that they may be beneficial under certain circumstances. However, fixing these rearrangements
also likely required a small population, since it is difficult to fix even beneficial mutations in a large population. 14 Thus,
rearrangements should not be viewed as a major genetic accident from which animals occasionally may recover. Instead,
the presence of multiple designed mechanisms enabling translocations to occur while maintaining viability of the animal
suggests that such rearrangements are likely helpful for adaptation in the present fallen world. This is not to say that such
rearrangements are without risk. For example, many heterozygous carriers experience some decline in fertility. Occasionally
there are more serious results with infertility and/or serious chromosomal aberrations in the offspring. 13 Furthermore, these
types of rearrangements certainly dont explain the origin of chromosomes.The red fox and both subspecies of raccoon dog
carry B chromosomes as part of their normal karyotype. 7These small, supernumerary chromosomes can vary in number
both within as well as among individuals. Generally their numbers are low, with three to five being typical for the red
fox.15 They usually contain significant amounts of repetitive sequences and, until recently, it was thought that they did not
contain any protein coding genes. However, the canid B chromosomes have been found to contain the KIT gene, which
encodes a transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptor involved in the proliferation, migration and differentiation of
hematopoietic, melanoblast, and primordial germ cells. Adjacent sequences were detected, including
the RPL23A pseudogene and, in the raccoon dog only, a portion of the more distal KDRgene. This suggests that the B
chromosomes were derived from an autosome in a common ancestor and have been lost in other lineages descending from
this ancestor. Further studies need to be done to determine if the KIT gene of B chromosomes is actually transcribed.16

Major histocompatibility complex genes

The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) consists of a number of genes involved in immune function and which are
known for high allelic diversity. Several dog leukocyte antigen (DLA) genes have been evaluated for polymorphisms. As of
2006, there were 90 alleles recognized for DLA-DRB1, 22 for DLA-DQA1 and 54 for DLA-DQB1, with more expected to be
discovered.17 High levels of polymorphism are generally considered a sign of a healthy population, although some dog
breeds and wild mammals have low MHC diversity with no apparent ill effects. The DLA genes are on dog chromosome
(CFA) 12.18 Some DLA haplotypes are associated with various canine autoimmune diseases such as primary immune
mediated hemolytic anemia, polyarthritis, hypothyroidism and diabetes. 19 However, it is important to recognize that these
haplotypes do not cause disease directly; instead, they may be risk factors that affect the likelihood of disease development.
As suggested previously, there is risk in maintaining sufficient variability to adapt in the present fallen world.
Dopamine receptor D4 gene
There are two portions of the dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene that are variable in dogs. The first is in exon 1 where the
two known alleles differ by a 24-base pair (bp) indel. 20 Interestingly, humans also are polymorphic in this region with a 12-bp
duplication and a 13-bp deletion having been identified.21 The latter is particularly intriguing as it is found in 2% of the human
population and is not associated with any known disease; yet the frameshift is predicted to result in a truncated, nonfunctional protein.22
Figure 2. A representation of
the variable number tandem
repeat (VNTR) patterns in exon
3 of the dopamine receptor D4
(DRD4) gene for seven dog
alleles (after Hejjas et al.23).
The nonrandom pattern of
mutation suggests designed
mechanisms are involved in
this mutation. The variability in
this region appears to have
some influence on personality
and behaviour.The second
polymorphic region is found in
exon 3. There are eight alleles
that have been identified in
dogs.20 A number of these have been identified in wolves. The alleles differ by variable number tandem repeats (VNTRs) of
12-and 39-bp (figure 2). A similar pattern has been observed in humans, where a 48-bp segment is repeated from 2 to 10
times. These variations are believed to influence behaviour because certain alleles have been shown to be associated with
the novelty-seeking personality trait in humans, primates and dogs. 23 VNTRs have been identified in exon 3 of
the DRD4 gene of nearly all mammals examined except rodents. The length of the repeated segments varies among taxa,
but is consistently a multiple of three. 24This bias of indels, particularly VNTRs, in base pairs that are multiples of three does
not appear to be explicable by natural selection. If essentially random, approximately one-third of indels should be multiples
of three unless a frameshift, which often results in a premature stop codon and a nonfunctional protein, is lethal or
significantly detrimental. It does not appear that frameshifts in DRD4 would be subject to such selection pressure, since a
frameshift mutation is carried by a number of normal humans and knock-out mice. 20,22 Furthermore, variability in this gene
appears to contribute to variability in personality. The number of alleles in canids (greater than eight, as the raccoon dog has
a separate allele identified25) is greater than the maximum of four alleles expected in the pair of canids. Humans also carry
more alleles than can be attributed to the first man and woman. This suggests that this gene was designed to vary in a
rather unusual way to enhance variability in personality and perhaps other traits as well.
Olfactory genes
Olfactory (smell) receptor (OR) genes are seven transmembrane receptors. While 1,094 OR genes have been identified in
the dog,26 the canine repertoire of odorant molecules is significantly greater than this. This appears to be from a complex
combinatorial code. Odorant molecules can bind 20 or more ORs depending on their concentration. ORs can bind more
than one odorant molecule. Through interpretation of the complex signalling patterns, dogs are able to detect an incredibly
wide array of individual odorants and a large number of mixtures. 27In one study, 16 OR genes were examined in 95 dogs
from 20 different breeds. All genes were
polymorphic ranging from two to 11 alleles per
gene. There was an average of one change
per 920 sequenced nucleotides, which is
much higher than most coding sequences and
a random sampling of non-coding sequences.
Of the 98 single nucleotide polymorphisms
(SNPs) identified, 55 resulted in an amino acid
change and 30 of these involved changes to a
different amino acid group. These changes
were found throughout the protein (figure 3),
mostly in variable or highly variable regions
within OR genes. However, two come from
highly
conserved
regions,
one
in
transmembrane (TM) 3 and the other in
TM7.28Five of the 16 genes had an allele with
a disrupted open reading frame. These were
from one of the four indels identified or an
SNP
introducing
a
stop
codon.
Pseudogenization of OR genes is fairly common. In poodles, 18% of ORs are pseudogenes while 20.3% (or 222/1094) are
in the boxer. Interestingly, 17 of the OR pseudogenes in the poodle were not found in the boxer, and 22 of those found in the
boxer were not found in the poodle. 28It may be premature to assume there is no purpose in mutation or pseudogenization
within OR genes.29There is a tremendous amount of redundancy in OR genes which may have been designed to allow for
future specialization. For example, a study involving Drosophila sechellia, a highly specialized vinegar fly that feeds solely
on fruit from Morinda citrifolia, a shrub which strongly repels related species of flies, suggests that pseudogenization of ORs

and gustatory (taste) receptors has occurred nearly 10 times faster than in the closely related species D. simulans. For
those genes which remained intact, D. sechelliaappears to have fixed non-synonymous substitutions at a consistently higher
rate than synonymous substitutions compared to the same genes in D. simulans.30 Therefore, the ability of OR genes to be
modified or pseudogenized may be an important design element.
Conclusion
Figure 3. Two-dimensional diagram of an olfactory receptor (OR) indicating positions of 55 non-synonymous single
nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and their allele frequencies in dogs, as identified by Tacher et al.28 * indicates the SNPs
found in highly conserved regions of the OR genes. There are 1,094 OR genes that have been identified in dogs.The two
canids that survived the flood would be expected to have carried a fairly uniform karyotype and up to four alleles for nonduplicated genes. This brief examination of present-day karyotypes and several groups of genes indicates that significant
diversity has arisen since the Flood. Several different lines of evidence suggest that many of these mutations may have
some benefit to the animal. For example, intrabaraminic chromosomal comparisons have implicated numerous designed
mechanisms which control chromosomal changes in a way that maintains viability of the animal. The fact that such
mechanisms appear to be operating suggests there is purpose to chromosomal rearrangements. The fact that different
karyotypes often are fixed in different species within a baramin seems to support this concept as well.The various genes
examined here appear to handle mutations very well. In fact, it is generally believed that the high allelic diversity in the MHC
genes is important for a healthy population. The redundancy in ORs and the pattern of mutation and pseudogenization in
these genes suggests that these genes were designed to vary so that animals can adapt to different environments. Finally,
the striking non-random pattern of VNTR mutations, all in lengths divisible by three, when there is no known selection that
could produce this non-random pattern, strongly suggests that in some instances there are designed mechanisms driving
mutations. The patterns seen here suggest that animals were designed to be able to undergo genetic mutations which
would enable them to adapt to a wide range of environmental challenges while minimizing risk.
Glossary
Autosome:

a chromosome that is not a sex (X or Y) chromosome.

Centric fusion:

combining of two acrocentric (centromere near one end) chromosomes to form a new
chromosome with the centromeres adjacent to each other. See figure 1.

Centromere
transposition:

a change in the position of the centromere on the chromosome without a change in gene order.
This rearrangement can be very difficult to distinguish from a pericentric inversion.

Frameshift:

an insertion or deletion (indel) that shifts the three-base-pair reading frame of the gene. A
frameshift will often result in loss of function of the protein.

Haplotype:

a region of DNA usually inherited together; a group of alleles that are closely linked.

Heterochromatin:

sections of DNA containing highly repetitive sequences and few genes. Despite appearing
inactive, these regions are important for proper function. The amount of heterochromatin
appears to be adjusted following chromosomal rearrangements.

Karyotype:

the appearance of the chromosomes within an individual at metaphase, the time during cell
division when the chromosomes are clearly seen.

Open reading frame:

the portion of DNA that is read (copied into RNA) and may be used for protein formation.

Knock-out mice:

mice in which the specific gene under study is disabled (knocked out). Studies with knock-out
mice have been very helpful in determining the function of genes.

Paracentric inversion:

an inversion in one chromosome arm that does not include the centromere. See figure 1.

Pericentric inversion:

an inversion in a chromosome that includes the centromere. See Figure 1.

Phylogenomic:

comparison of the genomes of organisms within a group to attempt to reconstruct ancestry.

Single
nucleotide
polymorphism (SNP):

a difference in a single base in the DNA sequence; a change in which a single base pair differs
from the usual base pair in that position.

Tandem fusion:

combining of two chromosomes where the end of one chromosome attaches to the end or
centromeric region of another chromosome. See figure 1.

Tandem repeats:

multiple copies of the same base sequence on a chromosome. See figure 2.

Identification of a large sparrow-finch monobaramin in perching birds (Aves: Passeriformes)

by Jean K. Lightner
In baraminology hybrid data is used to determine which species are able to reproduce with each other and thus logically
belong to the same created kind (baramin). Hybrid data from birds in the order Passeriformes was examined. It was found

that there is a large sparrow-finch monobaramin that includes over 1,000 species. One questionable hybrid, if confirmed,
would potentially double the size of this monobaramin to include birds such as swallows. Ravens and crows are in a
separate taxonomic category within this order and have no hybrid data that would connect them to the sparrow-finch
monobaramin. Given the variety within these monobaramins,
Male house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus)
One goal of baraminology is to identify extant species
that belong to a common created kind (baramin). One
important method of determining that two different
species belong to the same baramin is the ability to
form hybrids between them. As long as there is
significant embryological development, hybridization is
considered, by most creationists, to be conclusive
evidence that creatures are from the same
baramin.1 Taxa connected by hybrid data are said to be
in the same monobaramin. One problem is that a lack
of hybrid data does not, in itself, suggest that the two
are necessarily from different baramins. This is because
barriers can arise which make hybridization difficult or
impossible even when creatures are known to be
related.Hybrid data is more complete for animals that
are domesticated or held in captivity. Indeed, the rare
hybrids between sheep and goats would likely never
have been identified if these two domestic species were
not commonly kept together.2 Several years ago a
compilation of all known avian hybrids was published by
Eugene McCarthy.3 Again, a very large proportion of the
hybrid reports come from animals held in
captivity.Several baraminologic studies have been done
using this excellent resource. The first was with the
order Galliformes (landfowl).4 Hybrid data connected
the families in the superfamily Phasianoidea:
Phasianidae (pheasants and partridges), Meleagrididae (turkeys), Tetraonidae (grouse), Odontophoridae (New World quail),
and Numididae (guineafowl) and the family Cracidae. The inclusion of Cracidae in this monobaramin is somewhat surprising
since this family is generally placed in a separate suborder, Craci, which is more closely associated with the remaining
family of this order, Megapodiidae (mound builders).5The second baraminologic study involved the order Anseriformes
(waterfowl).6 Here the major family, Anatidae (ducks, geese, swans), which includes over 145 species, had hybrid data
across subfamilies showing it to be a monobaramin. The other two families, Anhimidae (screamers) and Anseranatidae
(magpie goose), are small and include three and one species, respectively. There is no hybrid data connecting these three
families.Another order, Passeriformes (perching birds), contains more than half of the worlds bird species. It includes the
domestic canary (figure 1), which itself has considerable hybrid data with other species. Other members of finch and
sparrow families also have interfamilial hybrid data which reveals a sizable monobaramin.Before beginning the analysis, it
should be pointed out that bird taxonomy is in a state of flux. It is common for sources to disagree. Some genera have been
lumped from several different families into one; others have been separated out into a new family. One reason is that it is
notoriously difficult in birds to distinguish between traits that occur due to common ancestry and those that arise via
convergent evolution. For example, a thick, conical bill does not necessarily imply anything about the relationship of two
species. This trait is referred to as an analogous trait in that it has arisen a number of times in divergent taxa. 7 Additionally,
DNA studies have had a mixed effect. In many cases they have confirmed traditional classification; in other cases they
profoundly challenged accepted taxonomy based on morphology and other data.8
Interfamilial hybrids
Hybrid data exists (table 1) which connects Fringillidae (finches) with Estrildidae (estrilid finches), Emberizidae (American
sparrows and buntings), Passeridae (Old World sparrows), and Icteridae (blackbirds). Further Estrildidae species have
crossed with those of Ploceidae (weaver finches) and Emberizidae with Cardinalidae (cardinal and grosbeaks).Many of
these interfamilial crosses have multiple well-documented hybrids. However, the documented cross connecting Fringillidae
with Passeridae involves the formation of fertile eggs with no comment on a live hybrid being hatched. There are also
several other hybrid reports between these two families, but McCarthy considers these latter ones doubtful. Assuming
fertility was measured by candling, significant embryonic development would be necessary to identify the eggs as fertile.
Thus, I consider the hybrid evidence strong enough to include these families in the same monobaramin.Due to the current
state of flux in avian taxonomy, some of the species generally identified as from the family Emberizidae have been
reassigned to the family Thraupidae (tanagers). This includes some species involved in the hybrids above. Not all sources
accept this taxonomic change, but it is interesting to note that McCarthy groups the families Cardinalidae, Coerebidae
(bananaquit), Emberizidae and Thraupidae together in one section when reporting the hybrids. 22 Other sources group these
families together as well. 23 Thus, I conclude the monobaramin also includes Coerebidae and Thraupidae.Several other
families are connected by hybrid data that McCarthy considers questionable. An old reported cross between Estrildidae and
Viduidae (vidua finches and whydahs) is strongly questioned because the details of the original report are so sketchy. A
cross between Fringillidae and Zosteropidae (white-eyes) is also questioned because the latter belongs to a separate
superfamily (Sylvioidea) than the rest of the Passeroidea hybrids above.
Hybrids involving swallows and ravens
Swallows are in the family Hirundinidae, which is also in the superfamily Sylvioidea. There have been reports of natural
hybrids connecting several genera (Delichon, Hirundo, Riparia and Tachycineta) within this family, but no interfamilial
hybrids have been reported.24 Thus, based on the data considered most reliable by McCarthy, swallows currently occupy a
separate smaller monobaramin than the sparrow-finch monobaramin.
There is no hybrid data connecting the above families with Corvidae (crows, ravens, magpies and jays). Within Corvidae
there is hybrid data connecting the many species of Corvus (crows and ravens) and Pica (Magpie),25 forming a small
monobaramin.
A
second
monobaramin
is
present
in
this
family,
consisting
of Aphelocoma, Calocitta, Cyanocitta, Cyanocorax, and Psilorhinus, genera comprised of various species of jays. 26There are
many other families in the order Passeriformes, but they lack well-substantiated interfamilial hybrids. They also contain small

monobaramins similar to what is found among swallows and ravens. They will not be listed in detail here as it would be
tedious and not add significantly to this paper.
DNA-DNA hybridization
Sibley and Ahlquist used DNA-DNA hybridization data in an attempt to clarify avian taxonomy.27 This laboratory procedure
involves unzipping DNA by heating it. The DNA is then cut into fragments averaging about 500 bases to allow for the
removal of the bulk of repeated sequences and to obtain reproducible rates of reassociation. These DNA fragments are then
reassociated, either with fragments from the same individual or those from another species. The stability of the resulting
duplexes is evaluated by comparing the median melting temperature of a homoduplex (same individual) DNA hybrid with
that of a heteroduplex (different species) hybrid.The reassociated DNA duplexes have a lower thermal stability due to base
pair mismatches. Thus, a greater difference in thermal stability between a homo-and heteroduplex implies greater sequence
differences between the two species. The authors analysis assumes that sequence similarity is always from common
ancestry. Thus, universal common ancestry for all birds is assumed, which is clearly in conflict with the young age history.
This incorrect assumption may explain some radical rearrangements in higher taxa compared to traditional means of
classification. A detailed investigation of this is beyond the scope of this paper, which is limited to taxa connected by hybrid
data.A second assumption more directly related to this paper is that convergent evolution on a DNA sequence level is
negligible. There could be some reason to question this since convergence is so common on a morphological level.
Research in color-coding genes has shown that the same nucleotide changes can occur in divergent taxa, but this is not
terribly common.28 Further, the same color patterns can be acquired via different mutations in the same gene or mutations in
different genes.29 This suggests that sequence convergence should be less of a problem than morphologic convergence.
Table 1. A list of successful interfamilial crosses within the sparrow-finch monobaramin.
Page

276

276*

293*

FAMILY
Genus
common name

species X

FRINGILLIDAE
Carduelis
Eurasian Linnet

FAMILY
Genus
common name

species

ESTRILDIDAE
cannabina Amadina
Cut-throat

fasciata

FRINGILLIDAE
ESTRILDIDAE
Serinus
mozambicus Amandava
Yellow-fronted Canary
Zebra Waxbill

subflava

FRINGILLIDAE
Carduelis
Grey-crowned Goldfinch

ESTRILDIDAE
caniceps Taeniopygia
Zebra Finch

guttata

FRINGILLIDAE
Carduelis
European Goldfinch

EMBERIZIDAE
carduelis Emberiza
Yellowhammer

citrinella

EMBERIZIDAE
chloris Emberiza
Yellowhammer

citrinella

FRINGILLIDAE
Serinus
Domestic Canary

EMBERIZIDAE
domesticus Volatinia
Blue-black Grassquit

jacarina

342*

FRINGILLIDAE
Serinus
Domestic Canary

PASSERIDAE
domesticus Petronia
xanthocollis
Chestnut-shouldered Petronia

339

FRINGILLIDAE
Serinus
Domestic Canary

ICTERIDAE
domesticus Agelaius
ruficapillus
Chestnut-capped Blackbird

341

FRINGILLIDAE
Serinus
Domestic Canary

PLOCEIDAE
domesticus Foudia
Red Fody

297298*

299

344

276

317

317

FRINGILLIDAE
Carduelis
European Greenfinch

madagascariensis

ESTRILDIDAE
Amadina
Cut-throat

PLOCEIDAE
fasciata Euplectes
Orange Bishop

EMBERIZIDAE
Gubernatrix
Yellow Cardinal

CARDINALIDAE
cristata Cardinalis
Northern Cardinal

cardinalis

CARDINALIDAE
coronata Cardinalia
Northern Cardinal

cardinalis

EMBERIZIDAE
Paroaria
Red-crested Cardinal

franciscanus

319

EMBERIZIDAE
CARDINALIDAE
Sporophila
caerulescens Cyanocompsa
Double-collared Seedeater
Ultramarine Grosbeak

brissonii

324

EMBERIZIDAE
Paroaria
Red-crested Cardinal

ICTERIDAE
coronata Agelaius
ruficapillus
Chestnut-capped Blackbird

324

EMBERIZIDAE
Paroaria
Red-crested Cardinal

ICTERIDAE
coronata Molothrus
Shiny Cowbird

bonariensis

DOUBTFUL HYBRIDS
281

344

ESTRILDIDAE
VIDUIDAE
Lonchura
atricapilla Vidua
Southern Blk-Headed Munia
Village Indigobird
FRINGILLIDAE
Serinus
Domestic Canary

chalybeata

ZOSTEROPIDAE
domesticus Zosterops
Green White-eye

Pages
are
from
McCarthy,
*
indicates
fertile
eggs,
but
no
mention
of
indicates species which are now sometimes classified as Thraupidae.

virens
ref.
hatched

2.
hybrids.

Extent of the sparrow-finch monobaramin

Ignoring the hybrids McCarthy considers questionable, it appears the monobaramin would easily include nine families in the
Passeroidea superfamily (Fringillidae, Estrildidae, Emberizidae, Passeridae, Icteridae, Ploceidae, Cardinalidae, Coerebidae
and Thraupidae). This would include 1,045 species30 and about half of the families generally placed in the superfamily
Passeroidea. If the cross between Fringillidae and Zosteropidae is confirmed, then the monobaramin would include
Passeroidea and at least some of Sylvioidea, two of three major superfamilies in the infra-order Passerida. 31 This seems to
imply that swallows, as members of Sylvioidea, might also belong to the sparrow-finch monobaramin.Using Sibley and
Ahlquists taxonomy based on DNA-DNA hybridization, the monobaramin includes two families: Passeridae and Fringillidae.
The other families are demoted to subfamilies within these two. However, with this regrouping the monobaramin consists of
1,379 species. If Zosteropidae were also included, then a second superfamily, Sylvioidea, would be included in this
monobaramin as described above. This would more than double the number of species in the monobaramin and, as
mentioned above, include swallows. 32 Regardless of whether this monobaramin actually includes one or two superfamilies,
the ravens still occupy a separate parvorder and remain unconnected to the sparrow-finch monobaramin based on current
hybrid data.
Conclusions
Though ambiguity exists within avian taxonomy, there is clear evidence from hybrid data for a large sparrow-finch
monobaramin consisting of over 1,000 species from multiple families. These species display an impressive variety of color
patterns, beak morphology, and other characteristics. This is particularly notable given the severe genetic bottleneck at the
time of the Flood less than 5,000 years ago. There are examples of genes that were designed in a way to allow for genetic
changes to occur which are useful and/or add beauty and variety. Given patterns observed in these genes, it was further
suggested that the genome is programmed to respond appropriately to environmental factors. 33 This would allow for these
non-random changes to appear at appropriate times rather than waiting on chance mutations to supply them. Epigenetic
factors may play a crucial role as well. Further study into the underlying basis for variation in this monobaramin would be
helpful in determining if similar patterns exist in birds. If interspecific hybridization is a reliable criterion in determining
baramins, then much more work is necessary to identify the genetic and environmental mechanisms responsible for
generating this tremendous intrabaraminic diversity from one kind. Identification of gene modules or gene regulatory
networks and the factors responsible for their differential expression are essential in understanding the mechanisms driving
post-Flood diversification. In addition to genomic analysis, phenotypic plasticity and/or ecomorphological studies could lead
to important insights and testable hypotheses regarding the innate genetic potential of baramins.
WHAT IS SPECIATION.DOES IT TAKE MILLIONS OF YEARS TO OCCUR
Brisk biters
Fast changes in mosquitoes astonish evolutionists, delight creationists.
by Carl Wieland
About 100 years ago, bird-biting mosquitoes called Culex pipiens entered the tunnels then being dug for the London
Underground (the Tube). Cut off from their normal diet, they changed their habits to feed on rats and, when available,
human beings. During WW2, they attacked Londoners seeking refuge from Hitlers bombs. Their plaguing of maintenance
workers may be the reason the underground variety has been dubbed molestus.British scientists have now found that it is
almost impossible to mate those in the Tube with the ones still living above ground, thus suggesting that they have become
a new species1 (or almost so). This has astonished evolutionary scientists, who thought that such changes must
take many times longer than this.2 Informed creationists have long pointed out that the young age model of earth history
would not only allow for the possibility of one species splitting into several 3 (without the addition of new information, thus not
evolution as commonly understood), but would actually require that it must have happened much faster than evolutionists
would expect. The thousands of vertebrate species emerged into a world with large numbers of empty ecological niches,
often as varied as the two worlds of our mosquito example here. They must have split many times into new species in the
first few centuries thereafter, as the bear population, for example, gave rise to polar bears, grizzlies, giant pandas and
more.5 The observations on these underground mosquitoes are thus exciting news.Actually, creationists have long
suspected that organisms had built-in genetic mechanisms for rapid variationeven beyond the normal processes of
adaptation where genes, reshuffled by sexual reproduction, are selected in various environments. 6 Thus, recent discoveries

of such mechanisms being still viable today are of very great interest.For example, there are genes which can jump around
the chromosome. These are normally kept in check, but Drs Jenny Graves and Rachel ONeill of La Trobe University in
Melbourne, Australia, have found that in hybrids, these can undergo rampant changes.This may even be the general
mechanism for speciation in all multi-cellular creatures (by making it impossible to back-breed with a parent population).
Graves says, We thought it took millions of years of long-term selection for a jumping gene to be activated. Weve now
shown that it can happen maybe in five minutes after fertilization.7 These are exciting times to be a creationist.We think that
expanding genetic research will likely reveal even more examples of built-in, pre-fab mechanisms for rapid change in
response to environmental pressures. Ironically, as more such created mechanisms (very far from normal Darwinian ideas)
are discovered, they will probably be misconstrued as support for evolution.
Darwins finches
Evidence supporting rapid post-Flood adaptation
by Carl Wieland
Thirteen species of finches live on the Galpagos, the famous
island group visited by Charles Darwin in the 1830s. The finches
have a variety of bill shapes and sizes, all suited to their varying
diets and lifestyles. The explanation given by Darwin was that they
are all the offspring of an original pair of finches, and that natural
selection is responsible for the differences.Surprisingly to some,
this is the explanation now held by most modern creationists. It
would not need to be an evolutionary change at all, in the sense of
giving any evidence for amoeba-to-man transformation. No new
genetic information would have been introduced. If the parent
population has sufficient created variability (genetic potential) to
account for these varied features in its descendants, natural
selection could take care of the resulting adaptation, as a simplistic
example will show.Say some finches ended up on islands in which
there was a shortage of seeds, but many grubs were living under
tree bark. In a population with much variation, some will have longer, some shorter, beaks than average. Those birds
carrying more of the long-beak information could survive on those grubs, and thus would be more likely to pass the
information on to their descendants, while the others would die out. In this way, with selection acting on other characters as
well, a woodpecker finch could arise.The same thing is seen in artificial selection, with all the various modern breeds of
dogs being more specialized than the parent (mongrel) population, but carrying less informationand thus less potential for
further selection (you cant breed Great Danes from Chihuahuas). In all these sorts of changes, finches are still finches and
dogs are dogs. The limits to change are set by the amount of information originally present from which to select.Creationists
have long proposed such splitting under selection from the original kinds, explaining for example wolves, coyotes, dingoes
and other wild dogs. The question of time has, however, been seized upon by anti-creationists. They insist that it would take
a much longer time than the young age frame allows. Artificial selection is quick, they admit, but that is because breeders
are deliberately acting on each generation. The usual guesstimate of how long it took for Darwins finches to radiate from
their parent population ranges from one million to five million years.However, Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant
recently released some results of an intensive 18-year study of all the Galpagos finches during which natural selection was
observed in action.1 For example, during drought years, as finches depleted the supply of small seeds, selection favoured
those with larger, deeper beaks capable of getting at the remaining large seeds and thus surviving, which shifted the
population in that direction.While that is not very surprising, nor profound, the speed at which these changes took places
was most interesting. At that observed rate, Grant estimates, it would take only 1,200 years to transform the medium ground
finch into the cactus finch, for example. To convert it into the more similar large ground finch would take only some 200
years.Notice that (although the article fails to mention it) such speedy changes can have nothing to do with the production of
any new genes by mutation, but are based upon the process described, that is, choosing from what is already there. It
therefore fails to qualify as evidence for real, uphill (macro) evolution though many starry-eyed students will doubtless be
taught it as evolution in action.Instead, it is real, observed evidence that such (downhill) adaptive formation of several
species from the one created kind can easily take place in a few centuries. It doesn't need millions of years. The argument is
strengthened by the fact that, after the Flood, selection pressure would have been much more intense with rapid
migration into new, empty niches, residual catastrophism and changing climate as the Earth was settling down and drying
out, and simultaneous adaptive radiation of differing food species.
Dogs breeding dogs?
Thats not evolution!
by Don Batten
Museums, and school, college and university courses in biology,
emphasize variation within a kind as evidence for evolution. For
example, the Natural History Museum in London says that
breeding of dogs shows evolution. Presumably all you have to do
is breed dogs for long enough and you will get something which
is not a dogsomething that is basically different. To the
uninformed this can seem convincingafter all, there are many
and varied breeds of dogs. However, the evidence from breeding
and the science of genetics actually presents a huge problem for
evolution. In spite of much breeding and the generation of many
varieties of dogs, from chihuahuas to Great Danes, dogs are still
dogs. Dogs have only ever bred dogs. Roses have only ever
bred roses.
As a biologist with a Ph.D. in plant physiology and over 20 years
research experience, including the breeding of fruit trees, I
believe genetics holds major problems for evolutionists. Why?
Because there is no mechanism for the acquisition of new, more
complex characteristics in living things. There is no means of

generating the new genetic information required. Evolution from microbes to man requires such a mechanism.A recent
survey of students before and after a genetics course at Central Michigan University (USA) showed that the number of
students believing in evolution declined from 81% before the course to 62% after, although the course was almost certainly
taught from an evolutionary perspective.1If the course had been taught without the inevitable evolutionary bias, the shift in
attitude towards creationism might have been even greater!
Pigs breed pigs!
How can one basic kind of organism change into something fundamentally different? A pig farmer in the UK heard an
evolutionist academic talk about how breeding of farm animals shows evolution. At the end of the lecture the pig farmer said,
Professor, I dont understand what you are talking about. When I breed pigs, I get pigsif it were not so I would be out of
business!The evolutionist Dr Keith Stuart Thompson said: Evolution is both troubled from without by the nagging insistence
of anti-scientists, and nagged from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms, and new
questions about the central mystery: speciation itself. 2 In other words, how can the incredibly complex biochemical systems
in living things come about by any conceivable natural process? And then how could random changes in such complex
systems change them into something elsesomething fundamentally new?What Thompson said 13 years ago has been
amplified by the studies in molecular biology since then. Every new discovery should be another nail in the coffin of
naturalistic origins (evolution). As a graduate student at the University of Sydney I sat in on a biochemistry course covering
the operation of a bacterial gene which coded for the enzyme complex which breaks down lactose, the milk sugar. The
enzymes are produced only if lactose is available. I found it fascinating. The system was so beautifully designed and finely
tuned to do what it did. An end-of-course discussion time saw a student ask the lecturer how such a system could evolve.
The answer? It couldnt. Such integrated and complex systems cannot come about through chance, random processes
(mutations etc.).
Spelling it out
Dr Michael Denton, a molecular biologist, spelled out the problem in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.3 Dr Denton,
although not a Christian or a creationist, acknowledges the problems for
the idea of chance processes generating living things or generating new
genetic information. Dentons book was published in 1985, but it has not
dated in any substantial area. Although written by an expert in his field, the
book is quite readable.There is no known natural process for generating
new, more complex, traits. If a reptile changed into a bird, the reptile would
have to, along with many other improbable changes, acquire the ability to
produce feathers. To get a reptile to produce feathers requires new genes
to produce the proteins necessary for the production of feathers. The
chance of natural processes creating a new gene coding for a protein
fundamentally different to those already present is essentially zero.
New species?
New species can and have formed, if by definition we mean something
which cannot breed with other species of the same genus, but this is not
evidence for evolution. The new species have no new genetic information!
For example, a new species has arisen in Drosophila, the ferment fly so
popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new species cannot
breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own type, so it is, by
definition, a new species. However, there is no new genetic information,
just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one chromosometechnically called a chromosome translocation.To get
evolution from bacteria to Bach requires incredible amounts of new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about
2,000 proteins; a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs to be new information added.
Where does it come from? Not from mutationsthey degrade information.Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted:
mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmfulit is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random
change in the instructions for making it.4
But no new kinds
There are many breeds of pigeons, cattle, horses,
dogs, etc., but they are all pigeons, cattle, horses,
dogs, etc. Recombination of existing genes can
produce enormous variety within a kind, but the
variation is limited by the genes present. If there are
no genes present for producing feathers, you can
breed reptiles for a billion years and you will not get
anything with feathers! Polyploidy (multiplication of the
number
of
chromosomes),
chromosome
translocations, recombination and even (possibly)
mutations can generate new species, but not new
information, not new characteristics for which there
were no genes to start with.It is possible for mutation
breeding to generate new varieties with traits which
are improved from mans point of view (e.g. shorter
wheat plants, different protein quality, low levels of
toxins, etc.). Where such improvements have been investigated on a molecular basis, researchers have found that the
new trait is not due to the appearance of a new protein, but the modification of an existing one, even when it seems to be a
new trait, such as herbicide resistance.Herbicides often work by fitting into an enzymea bit like a key in a lock. The
presence of the wrong key stops the protein or enzyme from accepting the correct key, the chemical compound that it
normally works on, and so the plant dies (see diagram). Herbicide resistance can be due to a mutation in the gene coding
for the enzyme so that a slightly modified enzyme is produced which the herbicide molecule no longer fits. The enzyme may
still do its usual job sufficiently well for the plant to survive. However, such a mutant is normally less fit to survive in the wild,
away from the herbicide, because the modified enzyme is no longer as efficient at doing its normal job.In the whole
creation/evolution debate, keep in mind that variation within a kind, such as through breeding or adaptation, is not evolution.
All the biological / genetic evidence for evolution is actually variation within a kind, not evolution at all. This includes
peppered moths, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, insecticide resistance, horse evolution, Galpagos finches, Arctic
terns, etc. Creationists recognize the role of natural selection in todays world, in changing gene frequencies in populations,

but this has nothing to do with the evolution of some mythical simple life form into a human over billions of years, because
natural selection cannot generate new information. Nor can mutations, polyploidy, etc.Evolutionists often call the natural
variations in living things microevolution. This misleads people into thinking that since such variations are real, therefore
evolution itselffrom molecules to manis proven. There is no logical connection between varying gene frequencies in
populations of peppered moths, for example, and the origin of the genes themselves, which is what evolutionists claim the
theory explains.In a recent paper, evolutionist Dr George Gabor Miklos summed it up nicely when he said: We can go on
examining natural variation at all levels as well as hypothesising about speciation events in bed bugs, bears and
brachiopods until the planet reaches oblivion, but we still only end up with bed bugs, brachiopods and bears. None of these
body plans will transform into rotifers, roundworms or rhynchocoels. 5All kinds of living things were created tohave the
genetic capacity for variation by the rearranging of the genetic information, the genes, through the reproductive process.
However, the variation is basically limited to that available in the created genes, with the addition of some extra variation due
to non-lethal mutations in the original genes. The extra variations in humans caused by genetic mutations probably include
such visible things as freckly skin, blue eyes, blond hair, inability to roll the tongue, lack of ear lobes, and male pattern
baldness.
Genetic engineers unwind species barrier
But have they reversed evolution?
by Philip Bell
Imagine hearing that scientists had managed to genetically engineer one species of living creature so that it could now
successfully breed with a totally distinct species; i.e. whereas the offspring of this union are usually sterile, they are now
fertile. Well that is exactly what a team of scientists from several British academic institutions have done (reported in the
journal Nature)1albeit with the humble bakers yeast. 2This yeast is one of a group of six related species
(all Saccharomyces) that are able to cross-breed, but form sterile hybrids. By ingeniously tinkering with the genome of this
single-celled fungus, the scientists managed to create a new strain that was able to form fertile crosses with a distinct, but
similar species.3 This is the first time that this has been observed in these yeasts. 4

In this cousin of the bakers yeast, portions of its sixth and seventh chromosomes have apparently swapped places at some
point in the past.5 This change did not involve the input of any new informationjust a reshuffling of what already existed.
Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that it contributed to the inability of the different species to interbreed, once the
species formed.6 Believing this rearrangement of genetic information was wrought by evolution, one science writer claimed
that the genetic engineers had actually succeeded in undoing what evolution had achieved! 7 She even quoted a Ph.D.
scientist from the brewing industry, claiming that fermentation failures were similarly due to evolution in the vat!Apparently,
when yeasts with new chromosome arrangements arise during the brewing of beer,8 they drop uselessly to the base of the
vat. Now, this is hardly evidence for evolution. Who benefits? Its certainly not the yeasts, which are now less fit to survive.
As far as the brewers are concerned, these mutant yeasts are useless and the brewers have to start over with new yeast
cultures.Evolutionists often delight in pointing to such speciation as an example of evolution in action, thinking that this
contradicts the young age account. The fixity of species is an erroneous belief that was held by several early biologists 10 but
which we know to be false today.11In fact, a young age of the history of life would seem to require that speciation not only
happens, but does so rapidly. The wolf kind, for example, would need to have been able to rapidly diversify into the different
species seen todaythe various types of wolves, jackals, coyotes and dogs, which are adapted to a wide range of different
climates, from Arctic to tropical. These can hybridize, indicating that they came from the same original created kind 12 (see
pp. 1922).Sojust variation within the created kindsbut a surprise to the evolutionists, who are wedded to their millionsof-years dogma.13 In addition, evolution from molecules to man would have had to involve massive additions of new
information. However, all known examples of modern-day speciation (and the assumed speciation that occurred in the past
in the case of these yeasts) involve a loss or reshuffling of existing information.So if speciation is not evidence for evolution,
reversing it obviously has nothing to do with undoing evolution. If all it takes to cause two species to become one is a
reshuffling of genes, then a gene reshuffle presumably caused the original Saccharomyces species to split into isolated
species. Since this involves no new information, it cannot legitimately be used as evidence that yeasts can become yaks,
given enough time.Examples like this one show that evolutionists are really clutching at straws. Past events are
unobservable and unrepeatable, so trying to reconstruct vanished history is (for the evolutionist, at least), rather like
investigating a crime for which there are no witnesses. Ironically, in a commentary on the yeast speciation paper (same
issue of Nature), the author said, Research into evolution is a bit like forensic detective work. Because its impossible to
carry out million-year experiments, we instead look at what evolution has produced and try to figure out what happened and
why. 14This reveals the faith of the evolutionist, which can be summarized as follows: We cannot go back in time to observe
evolution happening, but although we werent there, were sure evolution happened. We just dont know how or why!Of
course, this will not prevent claims that a greater understanding of speciation
mechanisms will show how evolution happensin spite of the scientific and logical
objections to the contrary. Ultimately, if a person chooses a worldview that
redefines science to say that only natural processes have ever occurred, that
person will be forced to the irrational conclusion that any change in the genome
(even if it is downhill) is evidence of big-picture (uphill) evolutionthe sort that
supposedly changed single cells into scientists.
The Heliconius hybrid butterfly: speciation yes, evolution no
by David Catchpoole
23 June 2006
The news headline proclaimed Evolution simulated in the lab.1 The article then
went on to say that a research study published in the prestigious journal Nature last
week2had successfully recreated the South American butterfly Heliconius heurippa,

Changes in butterflies do not

demonstrate
bog sludge-to-butterfly evolution
as there is no observed increase
in genetic information.

which has red-orange and yellow-white stripes on its wings. They did this, the article said, by seeking to recreate the
evolutionary pathway that had given rise to it.
Other news media carried the same theme, with BBC News reporting the study
demonstrates that two animal species can evolve to form one.3
But is it really evolution? A closer look at the facts shows otherwise.
Researchers had suspected that H. heurippa might be a hybrid of Heliconius cydno,
which has a yellow stripe, and Heliconius melpomene, which has a red one. So the
researchers interbred these two species, creating a butterfly with the two-stripe
pattern of H. heurippawithin just three generations. And there was no need to
physically separate the two-stripe butterflies from the others, in order to maintain the
purity of the newly bred H.heurippa. Butterflies tend to choose partners that look like
themselves, said one of the researchers, Chris Jiggins of Edinburgh University. So,
once the new pattern was established, these individuals have tended to mate with
one another and shunned their parental species.This is a fantastic example
of rapid speciationno surprise to creationists. However, it is not evolution, as no
The patterns on butterfly wings are
new genetic information has been produced. The butterflies are still butterflies, with
mosaic pictures, made up of
the hybrid species simply having an assortment of genes inherited from the two
thousands of individual, vividly
parent species.
coloured dermal scales (often due to
diffraction rather than pigment). On a
single square millimetre of wing
surface, there can be as many as
600 of these, arranged in straight
lines as if drawn with a ruler and
systematically overlapping each
other like roofing tiles.

DAILY ARTICLES
Comparative cytogenetics and chromosomal rearrangements
by Jean K. Lightner

Figure 1. Chromosomal rearrangements involve the repair of double stranded breaks. They may be followed by changes in
heterochromatin or centromeres, which suggest designed mechanisms are involved in the modifications. A better
understanding of chromosomal rearrangements is necessary to developing both a more robust creation model and better
reasoned apologetic arguments.Creationists accept that creatures can change over time, but a clearer understanding of the
types of changes involved is necessary for a robust creation model. In creation apologetic arguments, many genetic
changes are assumed to be accidents and the degenerative
nature of these changes are commonly pointed out. However, there
is no reason why all genetic changes must be accidents or even
degenerative. Related to this issue is a critical need for a
reasonable estimate of genetic similarity between various kinds at
Creation. For example, evolutionists often point to human-chimp
similarities to support their models assumption of common
ancestry. Creationists commonly respond that similarity can be from
a common designer and then list genetic differences between
humans and chimps. Which of these differences are differently and
which are from changes that have been acquired since then? If we
point to differences that can reasonably be attributed to changes
since Creation, our arguments will be weak and misleading. A
proper use of evidential arguments depends on a robust creation
model which requires a more detailed understanding of genetic
changes that have occurred during history.
Chromosomal rearrangements
Comparative cytogentics has been important in establishing that many mammals have undergone significant chromosomal
rearrangements during their history. A diversity of karyotypes may occur within a genus 3-5 or even a species.6-8 All
rearrangements involve the repair of double stranded breaks. Additionally, many rearrangements are associated with
alteration of heterochromatin, silencing of a centromere, and/or the formation of a new centromere. 10 Because of the
precision necessary to accomplish such changes while maintaining viability of the animal, it appears there are designed
mechanisms in place to accomplish such rearrangements.
Creating comparative genome maps
Comparative genome maps based on chromosome painting are useful and have been performed using more than eighty
eutherian species. Yet chromosome painting has some significant limitations when comparing divergent species. There can
be reduced hybridization efficiency of the probes from increased sequence divergence between these species (e.g.
eutherians and marsupials). Comparative genome sequence analysis based on direct genome alignments has been used to
overcome this problem. However, when evolutionists attempt to construct maps of a putative eutherian ancestor, the results
are quite different between the two methods.A new in silico method of comparison, called electronic chromosome painting
(E-painting), has been developed to overcome limitations of the previously mentioned techniques and reduce the complexity
of whole genome sequence alignments. First, orthologous (corresponding) genes are identified using various means such
as reciprocal BLAST best-hit searches.11 Comparative mapping of these orthologous genes allows for identification of
regions with conserved gene order (syntenic segments). These can be used to infer details about past chromosomal
rearrangements. E-painting makes comparisons easier because it ignores intergenic regions. This also means the method
cannot be applied to telomeric, centromeric, or non-genic portions of the genome.A recent study using E-painting has
revealed some interesting results.12 The genomes of six different mammalian species (human, mouse, rat, dog, cow,
opossum) and the chicken were compared. The mammalian genomes have been sequenced with a 7-fold or greater
coverage. The chicken genome was included because previous studies had shown it remarkably similar to eutherians in
genome organization. Altogether 526 evolutionary breakpoints (EBs) were identified and mapped with a resolution around
120 kb. There was a positive correlation between EB frequency and gene density. Unlike some previous studies, these EBs
did not significantly correspond to well known breakpoints in cancer and other disease related rearrangements. Primatespecific rearrangements occurred preferentially in regions containing segmental duplications and copy number variants. The

authors concluded that EBs were not random and show evidence of reuse. Their reconstruction of a putative ancestral
eutherian genome based on this technique showed remarkable similarity to previous ones based on comparative
chromosome painting.
Usefulness of comparisons across baramins
At this point some readers may be questioning the relevance of the above study. After all, the results are interpreted within
an evolutionary framework where all life is considered to be related. Further, these results may make some people feel
uncomfortable. If rearrangements do occur, and evolutionists can show how a chimp genome can be rearranged to fit the
order found in a human, doesnt that lend credence to evolution?First, chromosomal rearrangements themselves do not
change one type of animal into another. Carriers of balanced chromosomal rearrangements generally have a normal
phenotype, although they may have reduced fertility.13 Additionally, intergenic regions, genes without orthologs, and the
specific sequence of orthologous genes are not considered in these comparisons. One cannot turn a mouse into a man by
simply aligning its genes in the same order as ours. Second, genomic comparisons, whether within or between baramins,
can provide useful information on genomic structure. This information is essential for further building the creation model.The
identification of syntenic segments shows that genes commonly appear in a specific order. If there is an advantage to a
specific order of genes, then chromosomal rearrangements may provide a mechanism for new gene associations that are
advantageous in a different environment. Intrabaraminic E-painting investigations would be useful in investigating this idea
further. It would also be interesting to note any overlap between EBs and breakpoints required by the creation model.This
study should also force creationists to address the issue of genome organization similarity between baramins at creation.
Decades ago it was thought that karyotypes were fixed, at least at the species level. Historically, many creationists have
assumed that different kinds with different karyotypes were created . In light of what is now known about rearrangements,
this assumption needs to be reassessed. Understanding interbaraminic similarity at Creation will add robustness to the
creation model and aid in interpreting interbaraminic investigations that exist in the literature.
Baranomes, VIGEs and chromosomal rearrangements
Peer Terborg has suggested that baranomes were created, pluripotent uncommitted genomes, within created kinds. 14 These
genomes were designed to adapt rapidly, facilitated by the presence of variation inducing genetic elements (VIGEs). VIGEs
include repetitive sequences and various mobile elements. 15 Interestingly, another recent study identified a significant
enrichment of certain endogenous retrovirus (ERV) and long interspersed nucleotide (LINE1) elements in EBs in humans
and marsupials.16 Studies of phylogenetic trajectory of orthologous chromosomes have shown many EBs are coincident with
ancient centromere activity or the appearance of new centromeres.16 Thus the identified ERVs and LINE1s may be acting as
VIGEs which play an important role in chromosomal rearrangements.
Conclusion
Creationists need a more complete understanding of the types of genomic changes that have occurred throughout history.
This includes a more detailed understanding of chromosomal rearrangements. Identification of patterns of intrabaraminic
chromosomal diversity should help clarify what types of rearrangements are consistent with the creation model. It may also
help uncover underlying mechanisms for rearrangements and allow for reasonable inferences about the designed purpose
of such rearrangements. This improved understanding of genomic structure and function may inform conjecture about
interbaraminic similarities at Creation and aid in interpreting interbaraminic comparison that appear in secular literature. Epainting is a recently developed tool that can aid creation research in this area as genomic data continues to accumulate.
Inheritance of biological informationpart I: the nature of inheritance and of information
by Alexander Williams
Creationists need to rethink their understanding of inheritance. The current secular view is based on the inadequate
Mendelian (genetic) paradigm and the inadequate statistical theory of information. The new understanding needs to be
based on young age model and Werner Gitts multidimensional theory of information. The key element in the
multidimensional theory is apobetics and this explains the failure of Darwinists to come to grips with the reality of biological
information, because they reject the idea of purpose. Two different purposes can be identified in the yong age view of
biologystasis of created kinds and variety within kinds. We therefore need to look for two corresponding types of
informational structuresone to explain stasis and one to explain variation. The cell may be the basic unit of inheritance that
provides stasis, for its extra-nuclear contents pass unchanged from parent to daughter generation. Coded information on the
chromosomes is also strongly conserved, but in addition it provides controlled variation within the created kind. The new
science of semiotics may provide some useful tools for implementing the multi-dimensional approach to biological
information.
The nature of inheritance

The five dimensions of biological information. Statistics concerns the states of the four bases, semantics concerns the
meaning of codons, syntax concerns the order of codons and the stop and start positions, pragmatics concerns the function
of proteins, and apobetics concerns the purpose of the genetic code.The current view of inheritance taught in our schools
and colleges is Mendelian. Darwin imagined inheritance to occur by a blending of the characters of each parent, but Mendel
showed that inheritance was particulateit was carried by discrete particles in discrete states. These particles became
known as genes, and genes were eventually found to be coded segments on the DNA molecules that make up
chromosomes in the nucleus of cells. Darwinists today view all of inheritance as genetic, and because genes can change
more or less indefinitely, they identify this as the obvious means to explain how everything has evolved from something else
during the supposed millions of years of life on Earth.But Mendels work only explained the things that changed during
inheritance, not the things that remained the same. For example, he used varieties of pea plants that had round or wrinkled,
green or yellow seeds. He simply took for granted, and thus overlooked, the fact that the peas produced peas. Darwinists

today still remain blind to this fact and insist that peas will eventually produce something other than peas, given enough
time. There is certainly enormous variability in all forms of life, yet all our experiments in plant and animal breeding still show
the same resultpeas produce peas, dogs produce dogs and humans produce humans. Unfortunately, creationists today
still tend to do their reasoning on the subject of inheritance in Mendelian terms. It is time that we developed a theory of
inheritance, and this article (in three parts) is an attempt to outline some principles required for such a theory. Here, in Part I,
the nature of inheritance and of information will be considered, emphasising the 5-dimensional Gitt theory of information.
In Part II, the information challenge (where did the new information come from in goo to you evolution?) will be
reformulated in terms of the Gitt theory of information. And in Part III the biological mechanisms for control of information
transfer and change will be examined in the light of the young age principles.
Static and variable inheritance structures
If inheritance was totally Mendelian, this would indeed favour the Darwinian model because, in principle at least, any and
every part of a chromosome can be chopped and changed, and therefore variation should be unlimited. The in principle
rider is important because both internal and external constraints operate in practice. One external constraint, for example, is
the survival of the organism, which requires practical limitations on the amount of change that can occur in any one
generation. One internal constraint is that choices made at any particular stage in a selection process will shut off the
deleted options for later stages in that lineage. Furthermore, the two sexes need to be genetically compatible for
reproduction in order to pass on any change to the next generation.But this argument leads to a paradoxchromosomes
are potentially infinitely variable, while organisms are not infinitely variable. Is this just a matter of practical constraint, as
Darwinists would argue, or is something more fundamental at work? Could it be that chromosomes are not the sole
determinants of inheritance?Cytoplasmic inheritance1 is now well documented. Organelles such as mitochondria,
chloroplasts and the centriole all have DNA of their own that is passed on directly to the daughter generation in the
cytoplasm of the mothers egg cell, independently of chromosomal DNA. But this kind of inheritance is still particulate, coded
and Mendelian. There is another kind of inheritance that is quite differentstructural inheritance.Living cells are
extraordinarily complex in their structural and functional organization, as modern textbooks on cell biology testify.2 However,
the more we study cells, the more we discover of their complexity. There seems to be, as yet, no end to their astonishingly
intricate designs. Not only are they intricate and complex, they are amazingly fast and accurate in what they do. For
example, the enzyme carbonic anhydrase can break down a molecule of carbonic acid in under 2 millionths of a second.
Chemical reactions that go so fast need to be precisely controlled and integrated with other cell reactions, otherwise they will
just as quickly go wrong and wreak havoc in the cell. And fatal diseases such as progeria and Tay Sachs disease can be
produced by no more than one single mistake in the structure of just one single kind of molecule. Not every molecule is so
intolerant of error, but the fact that some are means that not only can the cell avoid mistakes, but it can also normally correct
them when they do occur to the supreme standard of 100% accuracy.Such incredibly fast and accurate biochemistry at a
submicroscopic level requires a wondrous array of minute transport, communication and control systems, otherwise
chemical chaos would produce a plethora of unwanted (and fatal) cross-reactions. All of this structure is contained in the
mothers egg cell and is passed on in toto to the daughter cells. As a result, the fast and accurate biochemistry of the
mothers cell continues, seamlessly, to occur in the daughter cells without any interference from mutations or recombinations
that might have occurred in the chromosomes.If mutations or recombinations have occurred in the chromosomes in such a
way as to modify the behaviour of the daughter organism relative to its ancestor, then such effects will come into play during
the subsequent development of the offspring as nuclear information is used by the cell to guide the development and
behaviour of the new organism.Most of this structural inheritance has been overlooked by biologists. Until recently it was
thought that cellular components moved passively from parent to daughter cells during cell division, carried along by the
cell-division mechanism that duplicated the chromosomes and pulled them apart into the daughter cells. However, in 1999,
Yaffe3 found that there was a complex of cellular machinery associated with the cytoskeleton that coordinates the
distribution and movement of mitochondria throughout the cell. Recent developments in microscopy have allowed these
structural components and their movements to be viewed in live cells. 4 If mitochondria are catered for in this way, then
obviously other cellular components are equally well catered for when it comes to cell division. Organelles such as
mitochondria, peroxisomes, etc. then divide and proliferate in the daughter cell, once again independently of the replication
that goes on in the nucleus and in the whole cell.Mutations can occur in mitochondrial DNA, and this has been used to trace
ancestral lineages in humans and other species, on the assumption that no recombination occurs in mtDNA. However, the
recent discovery that recombination also occurs in mitochondria casts these types of studies into doubt.5 Such studies show
that inheritance goes beyond the nuclear chromosomes, but it still ignores the microstructure of the cell that is so essential
for all of these processes to occur.
Cellular inheritance
Genes can no longer be seen as the cause of biological inheritance because we now know that control over their expression
(i.e. their being switched on and off when needed or not needed, respectively, and the timing of these events) comes from
epigenetic mechanisms operating in the cell. 6 This suggests that the DNA simply provides a library of information and the
use of that information is controlled not by the genes themselves but by the cell.If the cell, and not the genes, control
inheritance, then certain observations that puzzle Darwinists become explicable. For example, Australian rock hopper
wallabies display an incredible array of chromosomal aberrations, yet all within a group of species that are so similar to one
another that most people cannot tell them apart.7 The chromosomes have been grossly scrambled, yet the cell is still able to
extract the information it needs for survival. If the genes had been in control during such a scrambling process, Darwinists
would expect it to take about a hundred million years, but the evidence suggests quite recent divergence of these species.A
similar pattern of cell stability in the face of genome change is constantly at work in bacteria. It has been found that new
gene sequences are continually being brought into bacterial cells and spliced into the bacterial genome. 8 The bacterial
genome does not keep getting bigger, however, because it also has a complementary method of getting rid of unwanted or
useless sequences. The result is that the bacterium is continually sampling its genetic environment, looking for new gene
sequences that might be useful in the ever-changing world around it. Throughout all this change, the bacterium maintains its
integrity as a bacterium. For example, a study of the bacterium Escherichia coli over 10,000 generations found that at the
end, almost every individual had a different genetic fingerprint, yet they were still Escherichia coli.9Only if the cell is in
control can we explain these observations.Another kind of evidence comes from the architecture of cells. When cell
membranes were transplanted by microsurgery in ciliates, for example, the transplanted membrane pattern was inherited
even though the DNA had not changed.10 This provides direct evidence for inheritance of cell architecture from cell
architecture.An illustration of how cell architecture and DNA interact is provided by an organelle called a peroxisome, which
detoxifies cells by breaking down hydrogen peroxide. Peroxisomes self-replicate by binary fission and, like all other
organelles, are passed directly from mother to daughter in the cytosol. Certain chromosomal mutations will suppress
peroxisome development and it was originally thought that such mutant cells therefore lacked peroxisomes altogether.
Further study, however, showed that a structural remnant of the peroxisome continued to be present, and was inherited, and

it could be resurrected in subsequent generations by reversal of the chromosomal mutation. 11 Thus, it seems that the cell
passes on structural components upon which the genes act in a cooperative way to reproduce the architecture of the mature
daughter cell.So here we have an obvious source for the fixed information that maintains the integrity of the created kinds.
When reproduction occurs, it is not just chromosomes that are passed on to the offspring, but whole cellscomplete with
cell walls, cytoplasm, organelles and the elaborate and extensive transport and communication and control networks that
connect cells inside and out. These things are passed on independently of the genetic shuffling that occurs on the
chromosomes. Thus, it is biologically possible (and perhaps blindingly obvious) to identify the cell as the unit of inheritance,
not the chromosomes. Since cells appear to pass unchanged from parent to daughter generations, this could explain why
organisms reproduce after their own kind and are not infinitely variable as Darwinists assume.
The nature of information
Inheritance occurs by the transmission of information from parent to daughter generation. Because genetic information (i.e.
that which is coded on the DNA molecule) is superficially easy to understand, it has dominated scientific thinking on
inheritance. Yet the concept of information itself is quite complex and this complexity has limited creationists ability to break
away from the Mendelian mould.Information theory only began as a discipline in 1948 with the publication of Claude
Shannons classic paper, entitled A Mathematical Theory of Communication.12 He was working on electronic communication
(radio, television, telephone) and needed to create a high signal-to-noise ratio that would ensure accurate transmission of
messages. While he acknowledged that messages frequently have meaning, he went on to say that These semantic
aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. He quantified information statistically, in terms of all
possible ways of arranging the symbols that carried the messages.Another approach to quantifying information is
called algorithmic information theory. In this view, the information content of any object is defined as the shortest binary
computer program that would adequately describe it. In one of the pioneering papers in this field, Gregory Chaitin claimed
that his method was theoretically capable of describing biological systems, but he also acknowledged its practical
limitations: We cannot carry out these tasks [i.e. biological descriptions] by computer because they are as yet too complex
for usthe programs would be too long. 13 Creationist biophysicist Lee Spetner used an algorithmic approach to enzyme
specificity to determine whether genetic mutations could produce new information. 14 While he concluded that mutations
could not do so, others have claimed that a more rigorous application of his method shows the opposite result, that
mutations can produce new information.15 This illustrates the potential complexity of information arguments.Intelligent
Design theorist William Dembski has identified his work on complex specified information as constituting a theory of
information different to the former two. 16 He defines information in its most general sense as the actualization of one
possibility to the exclusion of others and claims that this definition encompasses both syntactic and semantic information.
He thus treats information as a multidimensional entity, not just a one-dimensional entity as Shannon and Chaitin treated it.
His first dimension is statisticalhe defines complex as being an improbable arrangement of elements. He then includes
dimensions of syntax (ordering rules) and semantics (symbolic associations or meanings) when he defines specified as
conforming to a predetermined pattern. But Dembskis work stops there. Information specialist Werner Gitt goes on to show
that information actually has five dimensions.17
The Gitt theory of information
In his book In the Beginning was Information, Gitt did not apply his analysis to biology in any detail, so I will here explain it
by applying it to biological information and to information as expressed in the English language. The genetic code consists
of four bases (the genetic alphabet) taken three at a time (the genetic words). The four bases are guanine (G), adenine (A),
cytosine (C) and uracil (U).18 Four bases taken three at a time yield 64 possible three-letter genetic words (there are no
one-, two-or four-letter genetic words). There are twenty amino acids and each three-letter codon (word) represents one
amino acid or a stop or start sign. Several different codons can represent the same amino acid (since 64 is greater than
20) but each codon represents only one amino acid. For example, GCA, GCC, GCG and GCU all represent alanine, and
UAA, UAG and UGA all represent the stop sign, but AUG alone represents methionine.Lets now consider some three-letter
English words for comparison. Cat, mat, bat, hat, fly and sky are all three-letter English words that carry approximately
similar Shannon-type statistical information content. Yet we all know that these words carry much more information than just
the statistical properties of their letter frequencies. The most obvious extra dimension is their semantic content. Cat
represents a furry, four-legged mammal, bat represents a flying mammal, hat is a shading device placed on human heads,
etc. In an exactly parallel fashion, the genetic codons UUU and CGA have semantic content as wellthe former represents
the amino acid phenylalanine, and the latter represents arginine.The next dimension of information is syntaxthe place
value or ordering rules of the words. The English sentence A bat can fly in the sky is meaningful, but The sky can fly in a
bat is not. Likewise, syntax is a component of the meaning of genetic words. For example, the correct sequence of amino
acids in the enzyme hexosaminidase A can produce a healthy human child, but a single error in that sequence can produce
a child with the fatal Tay Sachs disease.A fourth dimension of information is pragmaticsthe practical functionality of words.
For example, a bat can fly in the sky is a statement about the capability of bats. This statement could have a practical
application in a childrens book, for example, to teach children about the world around them. Information always has some
practical application; it does not just float around in the air waiting for somewhere to settle and become meaningful. In an
exactly parallel way, the amino acid sequence in hexosaminidase A has a practical function in preventing the abnormal
build-up of fatty substances in human brain cells.The fifth dimension of information is apobetics (teleology or teleonomy)
the overall purpose for which a particular word sequence is produced. In the case of the childrens book cited above, the
overall purpose is that parents want their children to learn about the world around them so that they will grow up to be good
citizens (and perhaps look after their parents in their old age). In the case of the amino acid sequence in hexosaminidase
We can now see that Shannons statistical approach to information ignores all four of these extra dimensions of
information. The reason is quite straightforwardShannon was originally interested in quantifying the concept of
information, and there is no easy way to quantify semantics, syntax, pragmatics or apobetics. They are no less real,
however, and this is the challenge that creationists face. We cannot simply say, as Shannon did, that [the] semantic aspects
of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. They are certainly not irrelevant to the biological problem.
The higher dimensions of biological information
Fifty years of molecular biology have produced enormous advances in knowledge, but you wont find any discussion about
these extra dimensions of biological information in any standard textbook on biology. No doubt, progress could continue
without ever addressing the issue. But no biologically realistic worldview can develop without addressing this question,
because it is here that we find meaning, order, practical application and purpose. To incorporate these extra dimensions
into our understanding of biology, we first need to know more about them.
Semantics
The essence of semantics is symbolism. The English word cat has no statistical, alphabetical or biological relationship with
the furry mammal that it refers to. The relationship is purely arbitrary. The equivalent (and different) words in Russian,
Chinese and Arabic are entirely as satisfactory for the intended purpose as the English word. English speakers at some time

in the past chose to use the word cat and we continue to use it by convention in order to maintain effective communication.
In every language the relationship between the furry mammal and the word that represents it is purely symbolic. Symbolism
is an activity of the mind that does not have any physico-chemical basis in biology. A multilingual human can speak about a
cat in several different languages, yet say exactly the same thing using different symbols. The mindand nothing else
makes the connection between the words and the objects that they symbolize.In the genetic code, the relationship between
UUU and phenylalanine is likewise symbolic. There is no physicochemical or biological reason why UUU should not
represent glycine, lysine or serine rather than phenylalanine. At some point, someone made a choice and decided that
UUU would represent phenylalanine. And in order to maintain effective communication between parent and daughter cells,
the convention has been strictly maintained ever since. While some variations from the standard code do exist in some
microbes and mitochondria, the symbolism is strictly maintained within each such lineage. Indeed, the slight variations in the
code highlight the purely arbitrary nature of the relationship between codon and amino acidthe symbols can be changed!
Since semantics is based on symbolism, and symbolism is a purely mental connection between object and symbol, this may
explain why evolutionary biologists have ignored the matter of the extra levels that exist in biological information. They do
not want to admit any such anthropomorphisms (or worse) into their naturalistic biology.

Syntax
The essence of syntax is structure. As already mentioned, the English sentence A bat can fly in the sky is meaningful, but
The sky can fly in a bat is not. Word order in English is crucial to meaning. Yet the rules of English syntax are arbitrarythe
rules are different in other languages. In Greek, for example, word order can be changed without changing the meaning, but
different word orders will give different emphases to that same meaning.Syntax in the genetic code is like the English
language where word order is crucial to meaning. One of the smallest biologically useful protein molecules is insulin. It
contains 51 amino acids. Now there are 2051 = 1066 ways of arranging 51 amino acids into chains, but only a very small
number of these are biologically useful. For example, beef insulin differs from human insulin in only two places, and pork
insulin in only one place. Even fish insulin is close enough to human insulin to be effective in humans. Hexosaminidase A is
about an average-sized molecule and it contains 529 amino acids. There are 20 529 = 10688 different ways of arranging 529
amino acids into a protein chain, but just one single error in the sequence can be sufficient to produce the fatal Tay Sachs
disease. Other proteins can be much largerthe muscle protein titin, for example, consists of 27,000 amino acids. The
number of wrong ways in which the amino acids in these proteins could be assembled is approximately 20 27,000 = 1035,127. So
the fact that they are usually assembled in precisely the correct order, and only allow the most minute variations, testifies
that cells are extremely sensitive to syntax in the genetic language.
Pragmatics
The essence of pragmatics is context. The English sentence A bat can fly in the sky tells us something about the
capabilities of the small, furry mammal (it can fly) and where it can exercise that capability (in the sky). But this sentence has
no function on its own. It is entirely dependent upon the context of an English-speaking writer and/or reader to become
functional. Its function is also likely to be just one component part of some larger work that describes batsin greater detail.
Just as an English sentence requires a context (writer and/or reader) to be functional, so the function of a protein molecule
is entirely dependent upon the cell. Life does not exist outside of cells. Viruses are simpler than cells but they can only
reproduce inside functional host cells. Some microbes can have acellular stages but they retain a full complement of cell
contents and mechanisms and require a cell stage to complete their life cycle.The biological function of a protein does not
come just from its amino acid sequence, but from its three-dimensional shape. The precise amino acid sequence in a
protein chain determines the ways in which it is able to fold into that three-dimensional state. The wrong amino acid in the
wrong place may produce a 3-D structure that is out of shape and so fails to achieve its required function. Furthermore,
other proteins, called chaperones, are necessary for the correct folding of many proteins; so the amino acid sequence only
generates the correct shape in the context of a cell with chaperones. Moreover, the context within which each molecule in a
cell exercises its function is extremely dynamicthe molecule must appear when and where it is needed and
then disappear when and where it is not needed. If, for example, hexosaminidase A does not appear at the right time and
place and/or does not function properly, then fatty ganglioside molecules build up in brain cells, causing the brain cells to
degenerate and the child to die.
Apobetics
The essence of apobetics is inverse causalitypresent processes occur because of some future goal. All human languages
have a purposecommunication between individuals. A vast range of other organisms (perhaps all organisms) also
communicate in many and varied ways, and each has a purpose in doing so, but only humans use syntactic language. For
example, white-tailed deer communicate alarm by flicking up their tails. The flash of the white tail has semantic contentit
means danger is near. But it has no syntax capability like in the English language, where 26 letters can be combined in
different ways to form hundreds of thousands of words that can be then arranged in an infinite number of ways to
communicate unlimited different ideas and messages. In further contrast, apes can learn hundreds of symbols and can
communicate quite a range of semantic content, and their communications also show pragmatic and apobetic content, but
they have no syntax capability like humans.The language of DNA also has purpose. The discipline of embryology would be
incomprehensible without apobetics. For example, the large, bony plates on the back of the stegosaur are of no practical

use to the embryo, yet the stegosaur embryo develops these plate structures. The reason it does so is for the benefit of the
adult (it is currently supposed that the adult used them for temperature control). The end (the benefit to the adult)
determines the means (the development in the embryo). Non-biological causality usually proceeds the other way around
the cause precedes the effect. But in biology, the effect (embryonic development) precedes the cause (the needs of the
adult organism). This inverse causality is the essence of apobetics. In Part II of this paper, when we use the Gitt theory to
analyze information change, we will find that apobetics is the major determinant of information change.
Applying the Gitt theory of biology
It is genetic engineers, not Darwinists, who are using biological information to its fullest extent. They are the ones who look
for semantic content (i.e. what protein a particular codon sequence refers to), whereas Darwinian phylogeneticists simply
use the overall similarity between DNA sequences (irrespective of semantic content) to construct phylogenetic trees.
Genetic engineers are the ones who are working out the syntax of genes (i.e. where they occur on the chromosomes and
what their relationship is to adjacent and/or internal non-coding sequences). They are the ones discovering pragmatics (i.e.
what the genes actually do). And they are the ones who are applying their knowledge to novel purposes (apobetics) such as
gene therapy and improved crop production. Such an analysis of biological information is lethal to Darwinism because what
Darwinists dismiss as the appearance of design becomes intelligent design in the hands of the genetic engineers. Yet
even the genetic engineers, it seems, are mostly oblivious to the implications for intelligent design that their work entails.
But the fact that genetic engineers are forging ahead without producing any new biological theory of information illustrates
how difficult it is to grasp and implement these concepts. However, Italian biologist Marcello Barbieri believes he has found a
way of moving on from the statistics only view of information through what he calls the semantic theory of biology.19 He
argues that we cannot make progress in this area until we find a mechanical model from which we can develop a
mathematical model, which we can then use to integrate and organize the information and make experimentally verifiable
predictions.By way of explanation, Barbieri points out the mechanical and mathematical models underlying Darwins theory.
Darwin developed his theory of natural selection by bringing together the experimental results of plant and animal breeding
(i.e. organisms reproduce with slight variations that are subsequently inherited) with the population model of Thomas
Malthus (i.e. populations grow exponentially, forcing a competition for resources). Barbieri then uses a computer as a
mechanical model of the Mendelian (genetic) view of life. A computer with its hardware and software is a good analogy,
taking the cell as the hardware with the genome as the software. But computers do not ceaselessly repair and reproduce
themselves, as cells do, so this clearly exposes the inadequacy of the genetic view of life. Something more is
needed.Barbieri has brought together the problem of embryonic development (i.e. how can one cell differentiate into
something as complex as a tree or a human being?) with an ingenious mathematical solution that he developed to the
problem of reproducing computed tomography images from a less-than-complete set of data. Analytical solutions (that is,
straightforward exact solutions) to the computed tomography problem exist, but only for impractically small data sets. For
real life (large) data sets, an iterative method is required. But working iteratively with a complete set of tomographs is deadly
slow and uses huge amounts of computer memory. Barbieri discovered that by adding a memory matrixto his results
matrix (i.e. not only keeping track of the current best picture, but also remembering highlights from the past) he could rapidly
converge onto the required image with as little as 10% of the full complement of tomographs.Applying this principle to
embryological development, Barbieri argues that growth from zygote to adult is a process of reconstructing the adult
organism from incomplete starting information (i.e. only that which is in the zygote). His model predicts the existence of
biological memory matrices that assist the process, and he is able to name at least some of them. For example, when
embryonic cells differentiate they remain differentiated for life. A memory of differentiation must therefore be lodged
somewhere within each cell. Similarly, the location of each cell within the body plan of the organism is remembered for life
(and can be considerably rearranged during insect metamorphosis), so a memory of body plan must exist somewhere. He
cites other examples as well.Now for a memory to be a functional part of an organism (or a computer) there must be
a code that relates each item in the memory to its functional complement in the organism. As an example, the genetic
code relates DNA codon sequences (i.e. the genetic memory) to functional amino acid sequences in proteins. In a similar
way there must be a differentiation code that relates the information in the differentiation memory to the repair mechanisms
in the cell that ceaselessly maintain the cell in its differentiated state.Barbieri admits that much work needs to be done to
develop and test these ideas, but he certainly seems to have opened a door to new ways of looking at life. The three main
points of his semantic theory are:The cell is fundamentally an epigenetic, rather than a genetic, system (i.e. cells and not
genes control inheritance).
While the genes provide a genetic memory for the cell, there are other memories (waiting to be discovered and described)
that assist in many aspects of embryonic development.
Each memory has its associated codean arbitrary but irreducible and essential semiotic (see below) systemto enable
the memory information to be implemented within the ceaseless self-maintenance of the cell.
Conclusion
The Gitt theory of information provides a whole new way of looking at biology. Purpose (apobetics) becomes the primary
concern, rather than chance, as in Darwinism. Stasis of the created kinds requires the conservation of biological information,
not the continual change that is required in Darwinism. Multi-dimensional information is also a very complex subject and
requires a new way of thinking about life. Barbieris semantic theory of biology may provide a way ahead.In Part II of this
article, I shall reformulate the information challenge (where did the new information in goo to you evolution come from?) in
terms of the Gitt theory. In Part III (to appear in a future issue of JoC), I shall look at experimental evidences for the way
information is transferred and changed in biology.A parallel can be drawn between information, as expressed in the English
language (left), and biological information (above). The five dimensions in Werner Gitts theory of information (see previous
image) can be applied to understand both the genetic code in DNA and the English language system.
Inheritance of biological informationpart II: redefining the information challenge
by Alex Williams
The information challenge (Where did the new information for goo to you evolution come from?) raises lots of questions for
creationists when viewed in the light of Gitts multidimensional theory of information. It highlights Creationists need to
develop a new attitude towards biological information, and develop new tools for discovering its multiple levels of meaning.
Despite this challenge, however, the Gitt theory provides a stunning confirmation of a creationist position because the true
nature of biological information rules out a chance origin and requires intelligent design.

Figure 1. The late Stephen Jay Gould used Scillas coral as an icon to illustrate
the structure of Darwinian theory. The trunk represents natural selection.In Part I
of this article I pointed out that information is conventionally treated as a onedimensional statistical entity, but creationist Werner Gitt has shown that
information is a five-dimensional nominal entity. By nominal we mean that
information can be named (i.e. identified) but it cannot be explained in terms of
matter or energy so it is a third fundamental component of the universe after
matter and energy. Despite this revolutionary new understanding of information,
creationists appear not have made any progress in applying it to biological
problems. In this article, I use the Gitt theory to redefine the information
challenge that creationists have been bringing against evolutionists. And in a
third article in this series, I will look at control of information transfer during
inheritance in the context of the Gitt theory.
Darwinian treatment of biological information
Creationists commonly challenge evolutionists to explain how vast amounts of
new information could be produced that would be required to turn a microbe into
a microbiologist (or goo to you and other catchy alliterations). We shall look at
this challenge in detail shortly, but before we proceed, it is instructive to look at
how leading Darwinists have handled the problem of information in their own
worldview. They seem not to have dealt with it at all, and perhaps have deliberately ignored it.No Darwinist appears to have
developed a full theory of informationit took a creationist to do so. Indeed, a prominent cause of Darwinisms survival is
that the true nature of information has not been properly understood (and perhaps even suppressed). One reason for this is
that Darwinian evolution is a mechanical theory that was born in a mechanical age (the Industrial Revolution) and
information theory only began in the mid-twentieth century. Darwins theory is based on four main propositions:
organisms produce offspring that differ slightly from themselves;
they produce more offspring than survive to reproductive age;
there is a struggle for survival; and
those individuals most suited to their environment are naturally selected and they pass on their genes to future generations.
Although information is passed on in this process, no information is needed to drive it, just the blind forces of nature. This
has allowed Darwinists to occupy themselves with the blind forces and to ignore the true nature of information.Lets look at
some examples. In a review of evidence presented for evolution in ten biology textbooks, 1 the best example that addressed
the information challenge is the case of four-winged fruit flies being produced by mutation from two-winged fruit flies. But
the extra wings arose from three mutations that switched off existing developmental processes. No new information was
added. Nor was any new capability/functionality achievedthe extra wings were non-functional and the fly was a
cripple.One of the most authoritative works in print at present on evolutionary theory is the late Stephen Jay Goulds 1,433page The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. After a lifetime of challenging Darwinian gradualism and its adaptationist storytelling, Goulds opus magnum reveals that the foundation of all evolutionary theory is still natural selection. 2 Everything that
has happened since Darwin, has served to change the downstream details that flow from natural selection, but nothing has
displaced natural selection from the foundation. While he does use genetic arguments when they suit his purpose, not one
of the 348 headings in his table of contents deals directly with subjects like information, genetic code or DNA, nor do these
words appear amongst the 2,600 items in the Index. At no point does he formulate evolution as an information-creating
process.Darwinian philosopher of science Michael Ruse also recently addressed the issue of design in biology.3 He, like
Gould, covered the history of biological thinking in great detail, but failed to even mention the subject of biological
information.When asked by creationists if he knew of any biological process that could increase the information content of a
genome, Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins could not answer the question. 4 He later wrote an essay on the subject
titled The Information Challenge5 but even in the essay he could not give a single example of a mutation that could increase
the information content of a genome. This is not surprising, for both Gitt 6 and Dembski7 have independently shown that no
naturalistic process can produce new information. Gitt has also pointed out that information is a non-material entity, which
further elucidates why naturalistic material processes cannot create it. This theorem has the status of a natural law that
Dembski calls the Law of Conservation of Information. It states that naturalistic processes can use, transfer or degrade
information, but they cannot create it. Information only comes from information, and ultimately from an intelligent
source.Dawkins failure to have any answer at all when first questioned on the subject illustrates that his information
analysis, as published in his essay, is completely uninformative. He based his analysis on the Shannon theory, which deals
only with the statistics of information systems. This theory defines information as a numerical property calculated from the
number of ways in which the system can be configured. In this concept, a random string of letters can have more
information than a meaningful sentence.Evolutionary physicist Hubert Yockey has been investigating the role of information
in biology for many years. He has not been able to progress beyond the Shannon theory, but he does appear to recognize
the impossible barriers that information poses to the naturalistic origin of life. He has come up with a quasi-solution that it is
undoubtedly a matter of chemistry, but the actual mechanism may be beyond the scope of human reason to grasp. He
writes,There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles [the genetic code]. The existence of a
genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter. [Neils] Bohr argued that life
is consistentwith but undecidable by human reasoning from physics and chemistry. 8Which, interpreted, means they have no
idea how the genetic code could arise spontaneously from non-living chemicals.Evolutionary quantum chemist John Avery
has recently published a book on Information theory and evolution which summarises quite well how evolutionists
misinterpret and misrepresent the evidence on information.9 Avery defines information in terms of Shannons theory, and
points out that thermodynamic information is coming to us continually in photons from the Sun, and he attributes the origin
of life to this source (p. ix). He then explains that it is only Gibbs free energy (a favourable energy balance between
reaction terms in chemistry) that can drive a chemical reaction, and life maintains itself and evolves by feeding on Gibbs
free energy (p. 174). The implication (for the unwary reader) is that information in sunlight can explain the information in
living organisms and the information needed for evolution from microbe to man.However, in chapter 5 he admits that there is
a difference between thermodynamic and cybernetic information (although he does not say what the difference is).
Cybernetics is the field of communication and control in machines and living organisms. So Averys admission means that
the information in sunlight cannot explain the information in intelligently designed machines and living organisms. Indeed,
the full sentence quoted above is:Life maintains itself and evolves by feeding on Gibbs free energy, that is to say, by
feeding on the enormous improbability of the initial conditions of the universe.In admitting that the initial conditions of the
universe were enormously improbable he is inadvertently admitting that it was intricately designed, because enormously

improbable events dont happen by chance. The evidence for special creation is right there in front of him but he cannot (or
will not) see it.
The information challenge
When viewed in the light of the multidimensional nature of information, the information challenge that creationists
commonly throw up to evolutionists, is not at level, the information challenge can be stated in two parts as follows:The
human genome is much larger and contains more genes than that of a microbe.What naturalistic mechanism does an
evolutionist have to explain the increase in information content from microbe to man?This seems to be a reasonable wellformulated question, but is it really? Consider the following facts. The genome of the Anthrax bacteriumBacillus
anthracis contains about 5 million base pairs while the human genome contains about 3 billion base pairs. Thus, at a
statistical level, it seems to take almost a thousand times more information to make the human. This kind of analysis seems
to be confirmed when we look at an intermediate-scale organism such as rice (Oryza sativa) the genome of which contains
an intermediate value of 466 million base pairs.However, the reasoning starts to fall apart when we look at genes rather than
base pairs. The bacterium contains about 5,500 genes, but humans have only 20 to 25 thousand genes. 10 Surely humans
are more than four times more complex than bacteria! Furthermore, the rice plant has an estimated 46,022 to 55,615
genes,11 so it appears to take more genetic information to make grass (rice belongs to the grass family) than it does to make
a human! Suggested solutions to this paradox lie in two main areas. On the one hand, perhaps the rice genome is heavily
redundant and contains a lot of repeated information. On the other hand, human genes (and probably rice genes as well)
can be read in different ways (a process called alternative splicing) and edited in different ways to produce numerous
different products from the same gene. 12 Also, humans, and others of the more complex eukaryotes, have a huge amount of
DNA that does not code for proteins. What this does is only slowly starting to be discovered. A recent paper implicated quite
a bit of it in regulating embryo development in mice. 13 Whatever the final resolution to this apparent contradiction, however, it
illustrates that our ignorance still far outweighs our knowledge in these areas and we need to be careful.Human gender
provides us with another challenging example. The X and Y chromosomes determine gender. XX yields a female, and XY
yields a male. Now the Y chromosome (with about 50 million base pairs) is only one-third the size of the X chromosome
(with about 150 million base pairs), but it contains a mosaic of maleness genes that are not present in the X
chromosome.14 So, does it take more, or less, information to make a male than a female?From the point of view of statistics
(total amount of DNA code), it takes about 100 million base pairs less to make a male than it does to make a female.
However, if we go the extra step up the information ladder and look at genes, we come to the opposite conclusion, that it
takesmore genes to make a male than it does to make a female.Let us now see what happens when we take semantics,
syntax, pragmatics and apobetics into account (Gitt information theorysee part I, p. 29).Since the X chromosome is
always present (in healthy individuals), the default configuration is XX. Both male and female components occur in every
embryo, but the XX chromosome combination will cause them to develop into a female. Only when the Y chromosome is
present do the embryonic structures develop into a male. The XX pair of chromosomes are duplicates (one from the father,
one from the mother) that may contain different copies of comparable genes (alleles). but they will carry essentially the
same amount of total (statistical) information. From asemantic point of view, X means female and Y means male (with the
implied condition that a complementary X is always present).In regard to syntax, the X chromosome has regions associated
with more than 100 genetic disorders, while the Y chromosome is involved in only two disorders. Therefore, correct syntax in
the X chromosome appears to be far more important than in the Y chromosome. Alternatively, the Y chromosome may be
much less prone to mutations, due to the palindromic error-correction system that seems to operate in much of the
sequence.14 Lack of variation in the Y-chromosome sequences has surprised researchers. 15In regard to pragmatics, the
previously mentioned statistics illustrate that the X chromosome has enormous practical importance in constructing a
healthy child of either sex. Male diseases such as prostate cancer and male breast cancer result from defects on the X
chromosome, while it is clear that the SRY gene complex on the Y chromosome is crucial in developing male gonads,
hormones and other sexual characteristics.And what about apobetics? What was the purpose in gender differences and
sexual reproduction? This is a great enigma in evolutionary biology, because the enormous investment in sex that
organisms have to make (the peacock tail is an extreme example), coupled with the dilution of an individuals genes by 50%
in the mating process, would surely cause natural selection to weed out such inefficienciesor at least natural selection
would not permit mutations to invent it (if it were possible) in an asexual organism. While some advantage comes from
added variation in cross-fertilization and getting rid of some deleterious mutations, the advantage is not likely to exceed the
50% loss incurred in meiosis and the halving of the number of reproducers. In a number of cases, asexual species appear to
be just as successful as congeneric sexual species.Given that there is a purpose in sex, however, that purpose finds its
expression in the embryological implementation of the genetic blueprint. Since the purpose is to produce humans of two
kinds, then from an apobetic point of view the two kinds are entirely equivalent. So the apobetic answer is No, there is no
more information required to make a male than a female. The information is simply packaged and dispensed in such a way
that one combination (XX) produces a female and the other combination (XY) produces a male.
Semioticsthe new science of signs
As pointed out in Part I, the enormous gap between the true nature of information and that which is passed off as
information in our colleges and universities has not gone unnoticed. Workers on this problem in many different fields have
recently discovered one another and have come together under the heading of semiotics.16 Semiotics is the study of signs,
meaning and communication. The basic concept is the semiotic triada sign represents an object that has some
significance to an interpreter. In genetics, the codon is the sign, the amino acid that it represents is the object, and the
interpreter is the cell mechanism that implements the genetic instructions.This very simple recognition of what actually goes
on in cells (as opposed to the Darwinian phylogenetic treatment of genomes merely as strings of symbols that are compared
statistically) has created a minefield of controversy. One reason for the controversy is that the relation between the sign and
object is arbitrary and cannot be explained in terms of the laws of physics. Thus, information is revealed to be a fundamental
entity in its own right, not reducible to matter, energy or the forces that govern them. This principle is the first of Werner Gitts
thirty theorems on information,17 and has been recognized by pioneer in biosemiotics Marcello Barbieri, 18 who therefore
classed information as nominable (that is, it can be named) alongside the more familiar quantitative and qualitative entities
of physics.Another reason for controversy is that the relation between the sign and the object is entirely dependent upon the
context, and is independent of the nature of the sign or the object. A sign in one context might signify something entirely
different in another context. This leads to the conclusion that the cell is the unique and crucial context for the meaning of
genes, which appears to contradict Dawkins notion of the selfish gene. It also contradicts the notion that cellular life could
arise from something other than cellular life (e.g. chemical evolution). Yet another reason for controversy is that the need for
an interpreter highlights the concept of mind as something distinct from matter. Materialists vigorously dispute such
conclusions, but they have offered no viable alternative explanations.A pioneering book (published on-line) in this field
is The Organic Codes: the birth of semantic biology, by Marcello Barbieri, founder and president of the Italian Association for

Theoretical Biology.19 Barbieri cites Karl Popper and Ren Thom among his mentors, and he quotes the former as saying his
semantic theory is revolutionary. While Barbieri is a committed evolutionist, his theory appears to be wide open to
creationist interpretations.For example, his theory of semantic evolution says:.The origin and the evolution of life took place
by natural selection and by natural conventions. The great events of macroevolution have always been associated with the
appearance of new organic codes (p. 227).By organic codes he means the protocols or conventions that exist within cells
for reconstructing organisms from their originating cells, and these include things like the genetic code, the translation code,
the splicing code, the patterning codes and (in humans) the linguistic code. His definition of the origin of an organic code is a
gift to creationists:The origin of an organic code is the appearance of a complete set of rules, because when that happens it
also appears something totally new in nature, something that did not exist before (p. 225).Creationists merely have to point
out the irreducible complexity of the semiotic triad and the best explanation of evolution (the origin of biological complexity)
becomes special creation.In explaining why others have not uncovered what he calls the organic codes he says thatThey
can be discovered only if we are looking for them, and we can look for them only if we believe that they can exist. In order to
build a semantic biology, therefore, the first step is a new mental attitude towards nature, even if this will probably be
possible only with a new generation of molecular biologists (p. 233).
Figure 2. The semiotic triad. In
genetics, the amino acid is the object
that is symbolically represented by the
codon, which the cell interprets via the
translation mechanism (the ribosome).
One of the great challenges of semantic
biology find a way of treating meaning
in a quantitative way. Barbieri points out
that the study of linguistics is producing
a theory of group properties that may be
relevant to biosemiotics (pp. 230232).
This again has creationist implications
because the universal grammar of
human language is built-in at birth, and
becomes particularised only when the
child learns an actual language (p. 217).
Research into artificial intelligence faces
the same challenge of quantifying
meaning. Recent use of the Internet is
relevant here. The meaning of a word can be thought of as a point in the multidimensional space of all word meanings, and
the relationship between any word and any other word can be gauged by putting each pair of words into a Google search on
the internet. Word pairs for which Googlereturns a large number of hits are clearly more closely related than word pairs for
which it only returns a small number of hits. Thus a quantitative measure of meaning emerges as a statistical association
between words of related meaning. 20As outlined in Part I, the centrepiece of Barbieris theory is a model of development as
a process of reconstructing the adult organism from anincomplete set of information (i.e. that in the zygote). He believes this
is achieved by the zygote using one or more memories ancillary to the chromosomes (genes are just one kind of memory)
that are each linked to development by an associated code (the genetic code is just one kind of code). Differentiation is one
of several examples that he gives. When a cell differentiates in the embryo it retains its identity throughout the life of the
organism, so there must be a memory of this lodged somewhere, together with a code that ensures the cellular repair
mechanisms always maintain this identity. While the model still requires extensive investigation and validation, it provides
creationists with a much more information-rich template to build upon than the nave Mendelian model. It also makes
testable predictions that we can possibly join with starting assumptions.
Conclusion
The expectation of those that have used the information challenge seems to have been that evolutionists cannot answer it,
but creationists can. There is certainly a huge information problem for evolutionists, but when it comes to a rigorous
definition of biological information, creationists have a lot of work to do. In particular, when we try to formulate the question in
terms of Gitts 5-dimensional theory of information, we encounter vast gaps in our knowledge of the way that cells store, use
and pass on biological information. Clearly, a lot more theoretical and experimental work is required. However, defining
information in terms of apobetics (purpose), which even the new secular field of semiotics does, seems to provide a
stunning confirmation of creationist thinkingbecause the true nature of biological information rules out a chance origin and
requires intelligent design. In Part III of this article, I will use the Gitt theory as a framework for understanding the
experimental evidences for the control of information transfer and change in biology.
Inheritance of biological informationpart III: control of information transfer and change
by Alexander Williams
When viewed in the light of Gitts multidimensional theory of information, Darwinian evolution falls apart. The structure of life,
thought by Darwinians to be purposeless, is revealed to be awash with purpose. There is a surprising amount of
experimental support for the idea that cells (as well as genes) control inheritance, and this contradicts neo-Darwinism
because the extra-nuclear cell contents are passed on unchanged during reproduction. It also provides the foundation for a
creationist theory of baramin stasis. The concept of baramin stasis does not exist in secular biology, so creationists need to
develop it.

Figure 1. The cross-species clone of a young gaur bull from a cow ovum does not represent a cross-baramin clone, for gaur
(right) and cattle (left) probably came from the one baramin.
In Part I of this article, I outlined the poverty of the Shannon theory of information as used in biology by evolutionists, and
illustrated the 5-dimensional Gitt theory of information in biological terms. In Part II, I used the Gitt theory to redefine the
information challenge (where does the information come from in goo to you evolution?) in creationist terms, showing that
there is a vast gap in our knowledge of information storage, use and transfer in biology. Here, in Part III, I review
experimental evidence on control of information during inheritance, and endeavour to develop a new perspective within a
young age framework.
How does biological information change?
As Darwinists struggle to find answers to the information challenge using only the one-dimensional statistical view of
information, creationists now have a powerful 5-dimensional argument to bring to bear on the problem. Here are two
examples.
Antibodies and new enzymes
The human immune system can conjure up new antibodies (which are protein complexes) to deal in a very specific way with
just about any foreign organic material that enters the body. 1 Moreover, microbes can produce new enzymes (by changing
existing enzymes) to metabolize synthetic organic molecules that did not exist prior to their manufacture by
humans.2 Evolutionists have used both these lines of evidence to answer the information challenge and argue that new
information can arise by random mutations in existing biochemical pathways.But can new information really be produced by
a random mutation? We can address this question using a comparison with human language.Lets imagine that Romeo
sends Juliet an email every day saying I love you. But suppose that one day a spontaneous error occurs in the system and
the email reads I love Lou. Juliet goes out and kills herself because she thinks that (a) Romeo no longer loves her, and (b)
he now loves someone else called Lou. But has any new information arisen from the spontaneous error? No. Romeo still
loves Juliet, not someone called Lou, and Lou does not even exist. All that the error has done is to degrade the integrity of
the intended information.In this scenario there is a change at the statistical level that appears to lead to a change at the
semantic levelyou and Lou appear to refer to different peoplebut this is an illusion, because there is not a
corresponding change at the apobetic level. That is, there was no change in the purpose of the message.
Romeos intention in sending the email remained the same. For the new message to be true, Romeos intention would have
had to change, but it did not, so the change to the message was an error, not a change in information content.In contrast,
something quite different can happen in cells. For example, one of the steps in the degradation of the pesticide
pentachlorophenol in the bacterium Sphingomonas chlorophenolica involves a reductive dehalogenase enzyme that may
have evolved by random mutation of a maleylacetoacetate isomerase that is normally involved in degradation of the amino
acid tyrosine.3 Why the difference between biology and the English language? One reason for the difference is that in
common usage the English language is not generally designed to produce useful information by the random shuffling of its
components, whereas cells have a number of systems that are designed to produce useful outputs via the random shuffling
of components. Does this constitute new information? No, it doesnt, as an analysis of the higher levels of information
content will reveal.To do this, a more relevant example in English might be a soccer scoreboard. Lets imagine that the
scoreboard contains the information Home Side 1, Visitors 0. When the score changes to Home Side 1, Visitors 1 has the
amount of information changed? No, it has not. The information content has changed, but no extra information has been
added because the purpose of the information structure at the outset was to record varying score numbers. In a similar way,
bacteria have informational structures in place to produce enzymes with the capability of changing their amino acid
sequence. Some will be useless, some will be useful. Natural selection may ensure the survival of the useful ones, but a
new, useful enzyme will not contain more information than the original system because the intention remains the sameto
produce enzymes with variable amino acid sequences that may help in adapting to new food sources when there is stress
due to an energy deficit.So, the Darwinian arguments are without force, since it is clear that organisms are designed to vary.
When they do vary, they produce nothing new (at the apobetic level), they merely illustrate that the variable design is being
implemented. Apobetics controls information change, not statistics.The challenge for creationists, on the other hand, is to
identify the two different kinds of informational structures that are present in living organisms. In the soccer scoreboard
analogy, the Home Side and the Visitors structures remain conserved, while the score values can vary according to the
progress of the game. What is it that maintains the integrity of the created kind, and what components lead to the different
species within the created kind?
Structural information
Cells and their structural components were created de novo, and (we might reasonably infer) have been passed down more
or less unchanged since then, maintaining the integrity of the created kinds. Organisms today therefore contain an
enormous amount of non-coded (primordial created) information in these structural components, as compared with
the coded information that we find on the DNA molecule and elsewhere.How much non-coded information is contained in
the structure of the cell? The algorithmic approach could be used here, and may be illustrated with a parallel question in
human endeavour such as How much information is contained in the Empire State building? Computer specialists could
answer by calculating the length of the computer program that would be needed to specify the composition and manufacture
of all the components, to direct all the building work, install all the services, establish and conduct all the businesses that use
the building, and direct the finances and maintenance work that keeps the building running. In short, an architecturally

complex entity (a cell is actually more like a city than a building, but even more complex still because it can reproduce itself)
carries an enormous amount of structural information. We are still in the same boat as Chaitin (see Part I) when he said in
1974 that the programs would be too long.So when we ask questions about biological information, it is nave to simply look
at the genetic component of information. Three billion base pairs of coded information in the human genome may well be
miniscule compared with the enormous amount of non-coded structural information built in to the organism at creation.
Information transfer
We are now in a position to specify how information is transferred in a young age model of biology. The chicken came before
the egg. Biology begins with an initial deposit of non-coded structural information in adult baramins. We could, in theory,
quantify this information using an algorithmic approach, but for practical purposes it is enough to note that it
isenormous and non-coded. Then there is created coded information in the chromosomes, with further smaller amounts in
mitochondria and some other organelles. If we accept the Barbieri model (see Part II), then further codes also exist within
the various memories that underlie development, but we should perhaps ignore them for the present, for we cannot deal
with what we do not know.If we now ask How is information transferred? there must be two parts to the answer. Baraminlevel information must be passed on unchanged, and species-level information must be subject to change. Since the
purpose of coding is to provide a flexible information system capable of change, it seems fairly straightforward to propose
that coded information in cells is the locus of species-level change. On the other hand, cell architecture is passed on
unchanged and is thus the likely source of baramin stasis, although there also is much evidence that regions of DNA are
highly conserved as well.How can this information change? The coded information can change by mutation or by enzymemediated recombination. By mutation, in this context, I mean a random change caused by a copying error or by some
physical damage to the DNA caused by radiation or chemical insult. By recombination I mean crossing-over, insertions,
deletions, transpositions, jumping genes and any other enzyme mediatedprocess. Since recombinations are enzymemediated, it reasonably implies that recombination are created to be the primary means of variation within baramins. Since
mutations are arbitrary, and thus generally likely to be deleterious, it is reasonable to infer that the error correction systems
were created to eliminate mutations.Can structural information change? Even though the initial deposit of cell architecture
comes in toto from the mother, its further growth (replication of organelles, extensions to microstructures, synthesis and
destruction of metabolites) presumably involves DNA transcription and is thus subject to variation. As the peroxisome
example quoted in Part I of this article showed, however, there do appear to be structural components in the cell that are not
deleted when the complementary genes are deleted. This is perhaps an area for further research.
Error correction systems
The widespread existence of error correction systems in cells argues powerfully for stasis because things will remain the
same if random change is averted. However, there is a functional rider to this claim. Error correction is also required to keep
the cell functioning. As anyone knows who regularly works with machines (e.g. cars, computers) errors cause chaos, and in
the cells case, death. How much of the error correction machinery is aimed at function and how much is aimed at
maintaining integrity of the baramin? Or perhaps the two aims are in fact oneare baramins functional peaks in an
otherwise flatland of non-functionality?Error correction and/or avoidance mechanisms operate at many levels, and their
ubiquity and utility seems to contradict the neo-Darwinist claim that mutational errors are the driving force behind evolution
and are thus central to the whole scheme of life. At the ground level, there is the redundancy in the three-base genetic
codon arrangement that provides 64 codons to represent only 20 amino acids. This allows more than one codon to
represent one amino acid, so any single mutation has a lesser chance of knocking out or changing an amino acid in the
resulting protein. The mutation may simply change one codon to another which codes for the same amino acid.Sexual
reproduction is another level of defence against mutational change. Adult organisms that reproduce sexually have the
diploid chromosome condition. In humans, for example, we each have 46 chromosomes that consist of 23 pairs, one copy
of 23 from each parent. If there are defects in the copy from one parent, then the uncorrupted copy from the other parent
can override the defect to produce a normal child. This mechanism provides a challenge for neo-Darwinists, because
without it, and given enough time, asexual organisms should go extinct via mutational overload (called Mullers Ratchet). Yet
there are many asexual organisms surviving today. But even if both copies are faulty, there appears to be a revert to saved
function in some cases that does not use DNA as a template. 4 A leftover genetic imprint in the cell somewhere may provide
the template, and if this is so, then it further supports the cellular control hypothesis.The next level of protection comes in the
form of error correction routines in the chromosome copying process. In humans, the system is so effective that only about
one error slips through in around 40,000,000 nucleotide copies.5 Then we have DNA repair systems that check the integrity
of DNA strands and repair any damage. Cells that have unrepaired DNA are prevented from undergoing cell division, so this
is yet another level of protection again. And if the mutation is severe enough, the cell kills itself by apoptosis, 6 thus providing
yet another level of protection.Another level of protection comes with redundancy within the chromosomes themselves.
Large stretches of the chromosomes consist of repeated segments so any mutations in these areas are likely to be
insignificant because there still remain multiple copies of the original.The cell also gives special attention to certain regions
of chromosomes that are known to be highly conserved. In contrast, others regions of chromosomes seem to be mutational
hotspots. That is, during cell division, mutations are much less likely to occur in the highly conserved regions and much
more likely to occur in hotspots. The cell thus appears to be able to control the mutation pattern to some extent.
Insights from cloning experiments
Some interesting insights into control of information during inheritance have come to us in recent years through experiments
in cloning and chimera production. A clone is produced when the nucleus (i.e. the genome only) of one individual is
transferred to an ovum from another individual (from which the nucleus has been removed) to produce a genetically
identical individual to the first one. 7 A chimera is produced by inserting one or more whole cells (stem cells) of one organism
into the early embryo of another organism to produce an adult that carries cells and tissues of both kinds.
Figure 2. Chlamydomonas rheinhardtii, a single celled alga widely
used in research. Photo by Yuuji Tsukii, Protist Information Server,
<protist.i.hosei.ac.jp>
Dolly the sheep was the first reproductively viable mammal to be
cloned.8 Dollys biological mother was a Scottish blackface ewe. The
nucleus was removed from one of her egg cells, then the nucleus
from a body cell (i.e. not a gamete, but a differentiated adult cell, in
this case from the udder) of a Finn Dorsett (white faced) ewe was
inserted into the vacant egg cell, and implanted into the womb of a
third blackface ewe. The embryo grew normally and white-faced Dolly
was born. When she grew up, she was mated and produced lambs of
her own showing she was reproductively normal (although she aged
and died prematurely).Inheritance at the subspecies level

(blackface/whiteface) was thus determined by the nucleus. But because both parents came from the same species
(sheep, Ovis aries) this does not tell us about how the integrity of the created kind is maintained.Is it possible to produce
cross-species clones? On 8 January 2001, a baby gaur bull (Bos gaurus) was born to a domestic cow (Bos taurus).9 The
gaur is an endangered Asian ox and a skin cell nucleus was implanted into a cow egg cell to produce the baby bull.
However, it is almost certain that the gaur is of the same created kind as domestic cattle, so while this is a cross-species
clone it is not a cross-baramin clone.Cross-baramin clones of a lesser kind have been widely produced in which only a
gene or DNA fragment has been incorporated via recombinant technology. For example, a Canadian company has
produced artificial spider silk in the milk of transgenic goats.10 In this case, the cell maintains the integrity of the baramin (the
goats are normal goats and the milk is normal milk but with extra proteins in it), but of course the inserted genetic
component is only a fragment and not a whole genome. The real test of inheritance requires a full-genome cross-baramin
clone.The closest report so far is a cross-genus experiment with common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and goldfish (Carassius
auratus).11 The seven offspring (from 501 attempts) were virtually identical to the nuclear donor species (carp) in
appearance and in most physical traits, but the number of vertebrae was in the range of the recipient species (goldfish). The
authors speculated that a segmentation clock early in
embryonic development directs segmentation of the body
and is controlled by the egg cytoplasm. This suggests
Note on nuclear reprogramming
that the ground plan for the body is controlled by the cell,
Cloning experiments illustrate the extraordinary ability of
and the details of the external morphology are controlled
the nucleus to be reprogrammed when transferred from an
from the nucleus. This is consistent with the hypothesis
adult cell to an ovum. In normal development, a zygote
that baramin integrity is maintained by the cell and
divides into the billions of cells of an adult mouse (for
species-level variation is produced in the nucleus.
example) and each of those cells differentiates and takes
In regard to chimeras, the basic principles are best
on very specific characteristics (e.g. eye, hair follicle,
12
illustrated with different strains of mice, because in
epidermis, etc). The repair mechanisms in each of these
chimeras of unrelated kinds some of the potential
cells maintain this differentiated state for the lifetime of the
offspring combinations are non-viable. When an 8-cell
body. That is, the repair and replacement processes always
embryo of strain A is combined with an 8-cell embryo of
repair the skin cell as a skin cell, not as a toe bone or an
strain B (or just with cells from the embryo of strain B)
inner ear cell. However, when the nucleus of any one of
and is implanted into a strain A mother, then a strain A
those differentiated cells is removed and inserted into a
offspring results, but having certain organs and tissues
mouse egg cell from which the nucleus has previously been
consisting wholly or partly of strain B cells. But by
removed, the inserted nucleus gets reprogrammed and
chemically tricking the strain A embryo into doubling its
the egg behaves as a fertilized zygote and goes on to
chromosome number (thus turning the normal diploid into
differentiate (again) into a whole new mouse. What controls
a tetraploid) and then inserting strain B stem cells into it,
this reprogrammingthe cell or the nucleus? It must be the
an exclusively strain B offspring is produced. This
cell, because it is only the cell (ovum in this case), and not
happens because the strain A tetraploid cells are unable
the nucleus, that is in reproductive mode.
to develop normally and thus the strain B cells take over
the drivers seat.Chimeras tell us at least two important
things about inheritance. First, since pig/human and
mouse/human chimeras have been produced, then it means that whole cells of one baramin are able to be reprogrammed
to function happily inside the body of a different baramin. 13 Second, the cell in the drivers seat (the inner cell mass of the
pre-implantation embryo) determines the baramin of the offspring. Either cell line can (theoretically, at least) take over the
reins of development. The distinction between baramins is maintained in the body of the chimera, yet they can function
harmoniously together.Does this extraordinary discovery provide evidence of a Master Designer who can seamlessly
interface different operating systems? The challenge is well illustrated by the history of personal computers. In the early
days, there were many manufacturers in the marketplace, but none of the different machines could talk to any other. Only
two systems survived the competition (PCs and Macs) and they have gradually learned to talk to one another. Producing a
viable cell is one thing, but getting different kinds of cells to function together is a very much more advanced achievement.
Patterns in embryology
Embryogenesis provides us with incontrovertible evidence of maternal
control over reproduction. In most animals (except mammals) everything that
happens in the zygote up to the 128-cell stage (the blastula) is under the
control of the maternal cell cytoplasm. No transcription of DNA from the
zygote nucleus occurs until the mid-blastula transition (MBT) point. All the
early cell divisions (called cleavage) occur within the existing mass of
cytoplasm that was delivered with the maternal eggno new cytoplasm is
made. The only processes that occur are mitosis and DNA replication, and
the resources needed for these come from RNA stored in the maternal
cytoplasm. Indeed, the zygote nuclei can even be removed and the ovum
will still produce a blastula.14 Only after the MBT does transcription from the
zygote nucleus begin and the new organism begins to make its own RNA
and remaining maternal RNA is broken down and removed.In insects, where
there is too much yolk to allow full cell division, superficial cleavage occurs
and only the nucleus divides. When about 5000 daughter nuclei are
produced, they migrate to the perimeter of the yolk, encapsulate themselves in a membrane, and only then do the homeotic
control genes become active and start coordinating the activity of other genes in embryo development.This clearly shows
that zygote DNA is only brought into operation after the cell has prepared the ground plan for it. This order of events seems
to be confirmed by the carp-goldfish clone, 9 where the early development (vertebra number) was determined by the
cytoplasm and the later development (external morphology) was determined by the nucleus.In mammals, transcription of
zygote DNA begins after the first or second cleavage division in order to provide proteins required in the cleavage process.
But whereas in other animals cleavage begins only a matter of minutes after fertilization, in mammals it does not begin until
1224 hours afterwards. The cell is still in control in this period because it arranges the onset and early progress of
cleavage, and it then co-opts the zygote DNA into providing construction materials for the continuing cleavage process. As in
other animals, the real work of transcriptionproduction of the genetically new offspringdoes not begin until after the MBT.
According to Gao et al.,Early development in mammalian embryos is supported entirely by [egg cell cytoplasmic] factors
before embryonic genome transcription commences, and genetic variation in [egg cell] composition can have profound
effects on early development.15Thus, the groundwork of embryonic development is laid entirely by the mother cell, before it
starts to implement the information contained in the nucleus of the zygote.In the single-celled bi-flagellate

alga Chlamydomonas, development is very briefthe zygote simply divides into four new vegetative individuals. But two of
the most important post-fertilization processes are known to remain under cytoplasmic rather than nuclear control. First, two
sets of DNA are carried in each gametethe nuclear DNA and the chloroplast DNA. The nuclear DNA of both sexes
(actually, strains called plus and minus) are amalgamated to produce the zygote nucleus, but only the plus chloroplast is
transferred to the zygotethe minuschloroplast is digested and destroyed. The latter is accomplished by a nuclease
enzyme present only in the plus gamete cytoplasm that is transferred to the zygote and then selectively imported into
the minus chloroplast. Second, there are genes in the nuclear DNA that only become active when the zygote forms. This
activation is accomplished by a homeodomain protein16 already present in the cytoplasm of theplus strain, which binds with
an as yet unidentified protein delivered by the minus gamete. The new complex then activates transcription of the zygotespecific genes.17
Figure 3. Drosophila melanogaster, the fruit fly that provided the fundamental insights into genetics. Used with permission
from J.A.T. Dow <fly.to/tubules>. Photo by Dow/Davies Laboratories, Glasgow.
In the flowering plant, Arabidopsis, embryogenesis generates only a less complex core structure, the seedling, while
virtually the entire adult plant morphology is generated by the activities of the apical meristems. 18 The apical meristem is a
group of actively dividing cells in the growing tip, which only appears and begins to function once the seedling is in place.
The seedling develops entirely under the control of maternal cell factors.
An inheritance model based on speciation data
The creationists history of biology is that a vast array of original kinds were created. Then extinction on a global scale
occurred during the Flood, and the new world after the Flood was re-populated by a surviving subset of the original kinds.
These surviving kinds proliferated in a glut of post-Flood speciation that resulted in the vast array of species that we see on
Earth today.If we ignore, for the moment, the very interesting question of how this might have happened and simply focus on
the number of species that resulted from it, we can gain some insight into the nature of the information inheritance problem.
For example, humans went through this catastrophic history just like every other created kind, yet there are very few named
species of humans and they probably all belonged to just one biological species. 19 In contrast, the majority of the flowering
plants are generally thought to have speciated in the post-Flood period, and we see numbers amongst them in the order of
30,000 orchid species, 20,000 daisy species and 10,000 grass species. The beetles are the superstars of the animal
kingdom, with over 350,000 named species coming from probably about 150 created kinds (taken as the number of
families).From an apobetic point of view, perhaps it was the designer`s purpose to create mankind to be like Himself and
to retain that likeness consistentlythroughout human history. In contrast, it is clear that the purpose for vegetation (e.g.
grass) was to cover the land, and for creeping things (e.g. beetles) to feed upon vegetation. Lots of grass and beetle species
would thus be needed to fill the innumerable ecological niches that the Earth provided.This model makes testable
predictions. We would expect human inheritance to be dominated by structural and conservative components, and grass
and beetle inheritance to have more emphasis on variable components. Perhaps the existence of more genes in the rice
genome than in the human genome may fit this picture, although further research may show what we have discovered
elsewhere, that the simple statistics are misleading. For example, since rice is an autotroph and has to manufacture and
operate a photosynthesis system, extra genes would be required for this purpose. There may also be major differences in
the levels of alternative splicing.
How did speciation occur?
Any theory of inheritance has to explain speciation, and the yong age worldview requires an enormous glut of speciation to
have occurred in the immediate aftermath of the world-destroying Flood. How is this possible, given that modern species are
fairly stable, and that stasis is the norm in the fossil record? 20Wild populations today may often be morphologically stable,
but they can also be genetically quite diverse.21 A classic series of papers on the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster shows
that speciation can occur in just one generation from the wild. 22 A culture of wild flies from an orchard was developed, and
pupae from the culture were put into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The flies
faced three choices of which way to go through the maze, in the following order: light or dark, up or down, and scent of
acetaldehyde or of ethanol. The flies were further characterized by the time of day when they emerged from the pupae. Two
strains exhibiting opposite behaviors were chosen and allowed to breed together in the maze. One strain emerged early,
flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light
and ethanol. After 25 generations of continuing to live together, mating tests showed the two populations remained
reproductively isolated and behaviorally distinct.Two kinds of forces are at work here, the external environment (maze) and
the internal metabolism (early/ late emergence) and behavior (preference combinations). Organisms that find a balance
between these internal and external factors survive best. But very few characteristics of organisms are determined by single
genes. One gene often influences several or many organ systems, and particular characteristics are often determined by
multiple genes. Genetic engineers are therefore beginning to think in terms of gene modules and a whole new field of
modular genomics is opening up to try to cope with this complexity.23 When a change in environment creates a selective
pressure on a population, the genetic changes that result will sometimes be disruptive to some organisms but not, or less
so, to others. Those that can balance the inner factors with the outer factors are the ones more likely to survive and
reproduce.Changes to the internal factors may also be accompanied by morphological changes (depending which modules
are involved) that would cause a taxonomist to call them a different species. We can view a species therefore as a
population of interbreeding organisms that have reached an equilibrium between their environment and their internal
constitution. Sometimes this equilibrium may be narrowly defined and the individuals will be all alike and easy to identify,
and sometimes the equilibrium may range rather broadly and individuals will vary more from one another and be harder to
identify.After the Flood, as Woodmorappe has pointed out,24 there was a whole world of vacant ecological niches available, a
rapidly changing climate (into and out of the ice age), and lots of opportunities amongst pioneering populations for founder
effects, geographic isolation, and population bottlenecks that together would create a very rich landscape for rapid
speciation.
Towards a yong age semantic model of inheritance
Let me now summarize. First, the nave one-factor Mendelian model of inheritance (genes alone) is not consistent with the
young age view of biology(and real, as opposed to Darwinian, biology) requires a two-factor model. At one level,
organisms were designed to reproduce after their kind, but at a second level they were designed to diversify and adapt into
a multitude of different ecological niches and changing environments. The most obvious experimental correlates with this
two-level system are the cell and the chromosomes. Cells pass on their architecture and contents unchanged from mother
to daughter, but chromosomes can vary from mother to daughter. Cells and their chromosomes do not act independently,
however, and many areas on the chromosomes are highly conserved. The existence of multilevel error correction and error
avoidance mechanisms also points to stasis in the chromosomes. Perhaps both cell and chromosomes together control
stasis. Indeed, so much of the structure of life is devoted to information conservation that there is very little room left for
random variation.Baramin stasis is a concept alien to secular biology, so creationists need to develop a clear understanding

of it. The evidence is there for those who want to see it. For example, Stephen Jay Gould said at the end of his distinguished
career in paleontology, the central fact of the fossil record [is] geologically abrupt origin and subsequent stasis of most
species. the last remnants of a species usually look pretty much like the first representatives. Paleontologists have
always recognized the longterm stability of most species.25Likewise, the mechanism of inheritance was acknowledged to be
fundamentally unexplainable in Darwinian terms when Richard Dawkins wrote,The theory of the blind watchmaker is
extremely powerful given that we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection26 [my
emphasis].Dawkins theory did not even begin to operate until all the complex machinery of reproduction and inheritance
was already in place. Thus the great champions of evolution are telling us virtually all we need to know to formulate the
young age model of baramin stasis!Second, information is a 5-dimensional nominal entity that cannot be explained in terms
of matter, energy or the forces that influence them. The information challenge is thus a challenge for creationists as well as
evolutionists. But since information comes from information and ultimately from an intelligent source, and an intelligent
designer can account for its dimensions of semantics, syntax, pragmatics and apobetics, then creationists are in a leading
position to make progress in this field.Third, the Barbieri semantic model (see Part II) appears to provide a means of
progressing towards an implementation of Gitts 5-dimensional theory of information. This model identifies cells as primarily
epigenetic rather than genetic systemsthat is, stable inheritance is not primarily controlled by genes but by the cellular and
chromosomal systems that control genes. Moreover, it predicts the existence of several other cellular memories apart from
genes, each with its own code system apart from the genetic code. These have yet to be discovered experimentally, but
they should provide a strong test of the validity of the model. Some could, for example, reside within the 97% of the human
genome that does not code for proteins.Fourth, since organisms are designed to change at the species level, Darwinist
attempts to support their theory with statistical arguments are irrelevant. When organism lineages change through their builtin mechanisms of variation (together with natural selection) no increase in apobetic information content occurs. The
organisms are simply doing what they were designed to dosurvive in the face of a changing environment. Apobetics, not
statistics, controls information change.
Conclusion
The concept of baramin stasis does not exist in secular biology, so creationists need to develop an answer to the question of
what maintains baramin integrity and what allows for variation. There is a surprising amount of experimental support for the
idea that cells, not just genes, control inheritance. This provides an obvious foundation for stasis because extranuclear cell
structure and content is passed on unchanged from mother to daughter cell. Furthermore, the high levels of information
conservation in chromosomes also suggests further mechanisms of baramin stasis. Baramin stasis fits well within the Gitt
theory of information, and together they provide a powerful refutation of Darwinism and a resounding affirmation of yong age
model.
The 3 Rs of Evolution: Rearrange, Remove, Ruinin other words, no evolution!
The genetic changes observed in living things today could not have turned bacteria into basset houndsever
by David Catchpoole
Evolution textbooks cite variation as being something upon which
evolution depends.1 However, when one examines closely the
claimed demonstrable examples of evolution, they actually fall
into three categories, which we can label here as the 3 Rs.
Lets look at each of these in turn.
R#1: Rearrange existing genes
Careful examination of many purported instances of evolution in
action shows that such variation actually already exists,
conferred by genes that already exist.Heres a simplified example
that shows this, and also how such genetic variety might be
misconstrued as evidence of evolution. The two dogs in the top
row of Figure 1 are a male and a female. They each have a gene
that codes for short hair (inherited from its mother or father) and
a gene that codes for long hair (inherited from the other parent).
In combination, this gene pair for fur length results in medium
length hair.2

Figure1. The red bars represent the

genes for hair length (short and long hair).
One of each gives medium length hair. By
re-arranging (recombining) the parents
genes (top) in reproduction, variety is
generated in the appearance of the
offspring, but no new genes are
involved.Now when these two dogs are
crossed, what new combinations of the
genes are possible in the resulting
offspring? The second row of Figure 1
shows this:The dog at the far left has
inherited its fathers short-hair gene and its
mothers short-hair gene. Result: short
hair.The two dogs in the middle have each

inherited a long-hair gene from one parent and a short-hair gene from the other parent. Result: medium-length hair (just like
the mother and father).The dog at the far right has inherited its mothers long-hair gene and its fathers long-hair gene.
Result: long hair.A casual observer, looking only at the outward appearance, i.e. unaware of what is happening at the
genetic level, might think: There were no long-hair dogs in the parents generation. This long hair is a new characteristic
evolution is true!But such a view is incorrect. The only thing this evolution has done is to rearrange existing genes. Theres
simply been a sorting out of pre-existing genetic information. Theres no new information here of the kind needed to have
turned pond scum into poodles, Pekingese, pointers and papillons.
R#2: Remove genetic information
What about natural selection, adaptation and speciation?
None of these represent the generation of any new microbes-to-mastiff genetic information either. In our hairy dog
example, if we were to send our
new population of dogs, some
with short hair, others with
medium or long hair, to an icy,
very cold location, we wouldnt be
at all surprised to see natural
selection at work, killing off any
dog that didnt have long hair
(Figure 2, Line 1). When the
survivors reproduce, the only furlength genes passed on to the
offspring are those that code for
long hair (Figure 2, Line 2).
Thus we now have a population
of dogs beautifully adapted to its
environment.
Biologists
encountering
our
ice-bound
population of dogs, observing
them to be isolated3 from other
populations of dogs, could argue
that
they
be
given
a
new species name.So here we
see natural selection, adaptation,
and possibly even speciation
but no new genes have been
added. In fact, theres been
a loss of genes (the genetic
information
for
short-and
medium-length hair has been
removed from the population).
Note that such examples of natural selection, adaptation and speciation are often portrayed as evidence for evolution, but
the only thing this evolution has done is to remove existing genes. If this population of exclusively long-hair dogs were now
forcibly relocated to a steamy tropical island, the population could not adapt to the hot climate unless someone reintroduced the short-hair gene to the population again, by back-crossing a short-or medium-length hair dog from elsewhere.
This is exactly the sort of thing that our crop and livestock breeders are doing. They are scouring the world for the original
genes created but which have subsequently been bred out (lost) from our domestic varieties/breeds of plants and animals
because of breeders artificially selecting certain characteristics, which means other features are de-selected (lost).
R#3: Ruin genetic information
In the above examples, we see that natural selection, adaptation and
speciation are real and observable. And that these simply demonstrate
the rearranging and/or removing of dog genes that were originally present
the beginnig.
Figure 3: Dogs with the floppy ear mutation, such as bassets, are much
more prone to ear infections (e.g. from food scraps) than dogs with erect
ears (they clearly cant hear as well either!)However, there are forms of dog
genes today which were not present at Creation but have arisen since. But
those have not arisen by any creative process, but bymutations, which are
copying mistakes (typos, we might say) as genes are passed from parents to
offspring. You would expect such accidental changes to wreck the existing
genes, and thats what happens. For example, the dog pictured in Figure 3
has just such a mutated gene, resulting in floppy ear syndrome. 5Dogs with
this genetic mutation have weaker cartilage and cannot lift up their ears. So
they just hang, floppy before dinner, and sloppy after itunless their owners
are diligent in cleaning them. Such regular attention to ear hygiene is necessary, as dogs with floppy ears are prone to
serious ear infections, which can even lead to hearing loss. 6 Not that their hearing was especially good anyway. As you
might expect, dogs with erect ears are far superior to floppy-eared dogs at detecting prey by sound. 7I can remember
reflecting on this when I was an atheist/evolutionist, and wondering how such floppy-eared dogs could have ever evolved
and survived in the wild. I now know that they didnt. Instead this mutation in the genes has arisen since the original very
good world . The floppy-eared mutation in dogs is but one example of how a post-Fall world is very much in bondage to
decay. So common is this mutational defect in modern domestic dogs that many people have navely come to think of
floppy-eared dogs as normal. But the first people, if they were alive today, would no doubt be shocked to see such
deformity. The original dogs, probably something like todays gray wolves, would have had erect, superbly functional,
ears.Why is this so important to consider, in the context of evolutionary claims that no intelligent designer was necessary?
Evolutionary biologists, when pressed with the facts about natural selection, will concede that natural selection by itself can
only remove existing genetic information. However, they argue that in tandem with mutations, natural selection would be a
creative process.But the floppy-ear mutation, for one, is a classic example of the widespread degradation of the genome
a downhill process. For microbes-to-man evolution to be true, evolutionists should be able to point to thousands of examples

of information-gaining mutations, an uphill process, but they cant.8 Mutations overwhelmingly ruin genetic information.
Therefore evolutionists looking to mutations as being evolutions engine do so in vain. 9 Thus they are left with no known
mechanism capable of ever turning microbes into muttsi.e. no way of climbing up the supposed evolutionary tree.Note
that while mutations degrade genetic information, sometimes an advantage arising from such degradation can outweigh the
disadvantage vis--vis survival. While a floppy-eared mutant mutt might not last long in the wild, under human carei.e.
with regular ear cleaningthe equation changes. And what about the key moment when a buyer is looking for the cutest,
friendliest pup in the pet shop window? Indeed, there is increasing evidence that the floppy-eared characteristic is strongly
associated with tameness.10,11 Little wonder then, that floppy-eared dogs are so common today. 12Conclusion: 3 Rs =
no new information = no evolutionThe above examples of changes in fur length and ear structure of dogs are not
evolutionary changes, though they are often claimed as such.Rearranging genes, Removing genes, and Ruining genes are
not the sort of genetic changes that could have turned bacteria into basset houndsever. These 3 Rs are repeatedly cited
as evolution in a host of other settings, too, e.g. in antibiotic and pesticide resistance, and in sticklebacks, beetles,
mosquitoes, worms, sheep, and codfish.13 But none of these are evidence of evolution. The 3 Rs could never add up to
mosquitoes, mesquite, mutts and man from microbes (let alone from molecules!).The evidence instead fits with the young
age account of a universal designer having created a multiplicity of kinds, each programmed to reproduce according to its
kind. Geneticists recognize that the diversity of dog breeds we have today could have arisen quickly, in recent history.14 As
weve seen in our fur length example, long hair and short hair can appear in just one generation, arising from the in-built
canine genetic variationvariation that was built-in to dogs at the beginning
The Island rulerecipe for evolution or extinction?
by Garry Graham
Biologists have for many decades observed and recorded that
animals isolated on islands away from mainland populations
evolve into smaller or larger species. Generally, smaller animals
tend to become larger, and larger animals become smaller when
isolated populations become established on islands. Biologists
have coined this phenomenon the island rule. Examples include
giant tortoises native to the Seychelles and Galpagos Islands,
Komodo dragons, miniature frogs, Madagascars giant hissing
cockroach, dwarf elephants, and various rodents, lizards and
snakes from islands around the world. In a recent study, a
species of lizard has been observed to evolve shorter legs over
a period of only six months when introduced onto an island
where it did not previously occur.1,2For the two most prominent
figures in the development of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin
and Alfred Wallace, consideration of the animals on islands
played an important role in developing their evolutionary ideas. 3For evolutionists, any changes that can be observed in
populations are good news. But does the island rule demonstrate the sort of evolutionary changes that have created
biologists from bacteria over millions of years? As creationists have demonstrated, diversification into species cannot be
claimed as evidence for evolution into new kinds of animals. Speciation arises from the interplay between inherent genetic
variety and natural selection and enables animal populations to adapt to changing habitat or climate. The field
of baraminology investigates the boundaries between the created kinds of organisms, and helps us understand the limited,
yet valuable role that speciation within kinds plays in biological diversity. 4Lets look a little more closely at what the island
rule really shows when changes to isolated populations are observed. The diagram below 5 demonstrates how a large
elephant can reduce in size, or a shrew can increase in size on an island. Changes in the size of sea snails can occur when
they form isolated populations at different depths, in similar fashion to the island rule.Notice something very important about
the changes occurring in these simple examples. The large elephant has been replaced by a smaller elephant when isolated
on the island, and the small shrew has become a larger size shrew on the island. But the elephant is still an elephant and
the shrew is still a shrew. There is absolutely no suggestion that a new form of animal will ever be created by changes
observed under the island rule. It is simply preposterous to use the island rule to support evolution in terms of the creation of
novel genetic information, increasing genetic complexity and diversity. It simply is not observed.Imagine for a moment the
elephant scenario. The genetic variety of the elephant naturally includes differences in size. Any population of genetically
diverse elephants will include individuals of all sizes, from large to small. If placed onto a smaller habitat such as an island,
selective pressures can gradually lead to smaller average size over a number of generationsbecause of factors such as
restrictions of food and possibly space for a given herd size. The genes for smaller size were already there, but were
selected because smaller elephants would be better able to survive. The possibility also exists that mutations could cause
stunted growth, through a reduction in growth hormone production, for example. 6What would happen, however, if the genes
for large size are lost from that isolated population? Would the population of elephants somehow be more genetically
diverse? Of course not! The population would be genetically impoverished. In fact, they would be liable to extinction if
moved off the island or if a large predator invaded the island. Their much smaller gene pool would make them less able to
adapt to environmental change. Can we therefore conclude that genetic loss, local reduction of genetic diversity and no
increase in complexity is proof that Darwinian evolution created all the life on earth? No!

Shrew
The same can be said for the shrew. The little
shrew would have natural variation in size.
Predation or other pressures on the mainland
may select for smaller size in the population
as a whole. Remove some to an island, and
the isolated population may become larger,
because the larger type may be better suited.
Perhaps an absence of predators and
competition for food would bring about the
size change. But evolution? Again, we see
only a reduction in genetic diversity, and no
increased complexity. Only pre-existing genes
are involved. They are still only shrews, since
shrews only reproduce more shrews.
Molecules-to-man evolution is not occurring. Natural variation
and natural selection have modified the population morphology,
but not produced anything truly novel. And if either the elephant
or the shrew are returned to their mainland habitat before genetic
diversity is permanently lost, they are likely to revert to the
original size distribution.Real life examples confirming this can be
readily seen in classic evolutionary icons. Charles Darwin used
the speciation of finches on the Galpagos Islands as evidence
for evolution. But he failed to realise that populations fluctuate
back and forth with changing climatic conditions, and no net
evolutionary progression actually occurs.7 Similarly, the famous
peppered moth, so often paraded as evolution in action, only
ever demonstrated that moth populations could adapt to their
environment (not to mention that aspects of the studies were staged!). 8A famous evolutionary paleontologist, the late
Stephen Jay Gould, used the geographical isolation principle, or island rule, to develop his own ideas of evolutionary
processes from which he coined the term Punctuated Equilibrium. He incorrectly suggested that the rapid changes in
isolated populations are where the bulk of evolution has occurred throughout history. He saw islands as our great
laboratories of evolution that were the driving forces of biological radiation. 9 In 1996 he wrote, evolutionary events are
concentrated in episodes of branching speciation within small, isolated populations.10But how can this be? As demonstrated
by the examples discussed above, if anything, the island rule offers a stronger explanation for extinction of organisms than
for evolutionary radiation. Ironically, in an essay on the study of land snails on the Tahitian island of Moorea, Gould reported
that they were driven to extinction in the 1960s, following the introduction of a predatory snail to control an agricultural snail
pest.9The idea that adaptations are quickly acquired by isolated populations in response to environmental conditions, which
leads to evolutionary radiation and increased diversity, is false. It is precisely the problem of small isolated populations of
low genetic diversity that threatens many organisms with extinction today. It is true that in some cases geographical isolation
on an island has enabled some species to survive, safe from predators, while their mainland cousins have perished. A good
example is the quokkas of Rottnest Island off Western Australia. However, history is also littered with examples of
extinctions of genetically isolated and vulnerable species. Of 23 Australian bird species that became extinct since 1788, 17
are from continental or oceanic islands! 11,12Also, geographic isolation results in a subset of the original complete population
reproducing locally. This subset will not have all the variety of genes from the parent population and will therefore display a
narrower range of features. This can result in a distinct variety of the animal or plant developing, if it can survive the isolation
(not having the full range of genetic variety, it may not be able to adapt). Such geographic isolation could have contributed to
the development of sub-types within the created kinds after the Flood.Modern instances of the island rule in action have
nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution, but only with the natural variation already present within the genes of the
pioneering animals.Isolated populations are more likely to suffer eventual extinction, rather than herald a new age of
increased diversity and radiation. Therefore, the island rule, while demonstrating natural variation inherent in a population,
offers no hope for evolutionists desperately needing a mechanism for the myth of Darwinian Evolution.
Molecular limits to natural variation
by Alex Williams
Darwins theory that species originate via the natural selection of natural variation is correct in principle but wrong in
numerous aspects of application. Speciation is not the result of an unlimited naturalistic process but of an intelligently
designed system of built-in variation that is limited in scope to switching ON and OFF permutations and combinations of the
built-in components. Kirschner and Gerharts facilitated variation theory provides enormous potential for rearrangement of
the built-in regulatory components but it cannot switch ON components that do not exist. When applied to the grass
family, facilitated variation theory can account for the diversification of the whole family from a common ancestoras
baraminologists had previously proposedbut this cannot be extended to include all the flowering plants. Vast amounts of
rapid differentiation and dispersal must have occurred in the post-Flood era, and facilitated variation theory can explain this.
In contrast, because of genome depletion by selection and degradation by mutation, the potential for diversification that we
see in species around us today is trivial.
Darwinian evolution
Figure 1. Potential for variation in modular regulatory control
systems. The hair dryer (A) and the vacuum duster (B) consist of
similar components, but one is wired up to blow air, the other is
wired up to suck air. The axolotl (C) is an adult salamander that
has retained its juvenile gills; if thyroxin is given at the right time,
it develops into a normal salamander (D) with lungs.Charles
Darwin will always be remembered for turning descriptive biology
into a mechanistic science. His famous 1859 book The Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life argued persuasively that
species are not immutable creations but have arisen from

ancestral species via natural selection of natural variation. Two main points contributed to Darwins success:he presented a
simple, testable, mechanical model that enabled other scientists to engage experimentally with the otherwise overwhelming
and bewildering complexity of life;unlike others, Darwin approached the subject from many different angles, examined all the
objections that had been raised against the theory, and provided many different lines of circumstantial evidence that all
pointed in the same direction.He went wrong in four main areas, however. First, he proposed an entirely
naturalistic 1 mechanism, but we now know that it must be intelligently designed. 2 Second, he extrapolated his mechanism to
all forms of life, but we will soon see that this is not possible. Third, he went wrong in proposing that selection worked on
every tiny advantageous variation, so it led to the continual improvement of each creature in relation to its conditions of
life.3 By implication, deleterious variations were eliminated. We now know from population biology that selective advantages
only in the order of 10% have a reasonable chance of gaining fixation. 4 The vast majority of mutations are too insignificant
to have any direct influence on reproductive fitness, so they are not eliminated and they accumulate relentlessly like rust in
metal machine parts. The machine can continue to function while the rust accumulates, but there is no improvement in the
long term, only certain extinction. 5Fourth, he proposed that reproductive successproducing more surviving offspring than
competitorswas the primary driving force behind species diversification. If this were true, then highly diversified species in
groups like the vertebrates, arthropods and flowering plants would produce more surviving offspring per unit time than
simpler forms of life. This is not generally truequite the opposite. The ratio of microbial offspring numbers per year
compared with higher organisms is in the order of billions to one.
Facilitated variation theory
Kirschner and Gerharts facilitated variation theory provides a far better explanation of how life works. In a companion
article,2 I showed that this requires an intelligent designer to create life with the built-in ability to vary and adapt to changing
conditions, otherwise it could not survive. This leads us to the important question of the limits to natural variation.The limits
of natural variation today are extremely narrow, being evident only at the variety and species level. History requires a far
greater capacity for diversification in the ante-diluvian world to be available for rapidly repopulating the Flood-destroyed
Earth, and quickly restoring the ecological balances crucial to human habitability. Baraminologists have identified created
kinds that range from Tribe (a sub-family category, e.g. Helianthus and its cousins within the daisy family), 6 to Order (a
super-family category, e.g. cetaceansthe whales and dolphins).7
Theoretical limits to natural variation
Scope for change in core structure
According to facilitated variation theory, the capacity to vary requires:
functional molecular architecture and machinery,
a modular regulatory system that maintains cellular function but provides built-in capacity for variation through randomly
rearranged circuit connections between machines and switches,
a signaling network that coordinates everything.
Most variation occurs between generations by rearrangement of Lego-block-like regulatory modules. Over this timescale,
we can emphatically say that no change at all occurs in the molecular architecture and machinery, because it is physically
passed in toto from mother to offspring in the egg cell.
Variation between generations must therefore be limited to the regulatory and signaling systems.
Scope for change in regulatory modules
The law of modules2 says that the basic module of information has to contain functionally integrated primary information plus
the necessarymeta-information to implement the primary information. This information has to be kept together so that the
module retains its functionality.Genes only operate when they are switched ON. Their default state is to remain OFF. Genes
dont usually work alone, but as part of one or more complexes. Even the several different exons (the protein-coding
segments) within a gene can participate in different gene complexes, some being involved with up to 33 other exons on as
many as 14 different chromosomes. 8 And genes are not just linear segments of DNA, but multiple overlapping structures,
with component parts often separated by vast genomic distances.9Sean Carroll, a leading researcher in developmental
biology says, animal bodies [are] builtpiece by piece, stripe by stripe, bone by boneby constellations of switches
distributed all over the genome.10 Evolution, he believes, occurs primarily by adding or deleting switches for particular
functions, for this is the only way to change the organism while leaving the gene itself undamaged by mutation so that it can
continue to function normally in its many other roles. Carroll considers this concept to be perhaps the most important, most
fundamental insight from evolutionary developmental biology. 11Diversification via Carrolls proposed mechanism consists of
rearranging the signaling circuits that connect up genes, modules and switches, while retaining functionality of both the
modules and the organism. Carroll tells us that gene switches are extremely complex, comparable to GPS satellite
navigation devices, and easily disabled by mutations, so if switches can be spliced into and out of regulatory circuits, then it
must happen via a cell-controlled process of natural genetic engineering (the law of code variation2).Regulatory areas within
gene switches are hotspots for genetic change. An average gene switch will contain several hundred nucleotides, and within
this region there will be 6 to 20 or more signature sequences. These signature sequences are similar to credit card PIN
numbersthey allow the user to operate the bank accountand they are easy to change. The result of such change is that
different signaling molecules will then be able to operate the bank account of natural variation.There are about 500 or so
tool-kit proteins that are highly conserved across all forms of life and that carry out a wide range of basic life functions. For
example, bone morphogenetic protein 5 (BMP5) regulates gastrulation and implantation of the embryo, and the size, shape
and number of various organs including ribs, limbs, fingertips, outer ear, inner ear, vertebrae, thyroid cartilage, nasal
sinuses, sternum, kneecap, jaw, long bones and stature in humans, and comparable processes in other animals including
the beaks of Darwins Galpagos finches.The signature sequences recognized by such tool-kit proteins are usually about 6
9 nucleotides long. A 6-nucleotide sequence can have 46 = 4096 different combinations of the nucleotides T, A, G and C, and
a 9-nucleotide sequence can have 49 = 262,144 different combinations. But there are 6 to 20 or more signature sequences
that can be recognized by the 500 different tool-kit proteins, which gives somewhere between 500 6 (~1016) to 50020 (~1054)
different possible combinations.An obvious limitation to change in regulatory circuits is that switches can only switch ON
functions thatalready exist. It is easy to switch OFF an existing function, but it is impossible to switch ON a function that
does not exist.Two examples of regulatory variation are given in figure 1. The hair dryer and the vacuum duster both use
similar materialsmotorized fan, plastic housing, power circuit and switch. In one, the control circuit is wired up to blow air;
in the other, the circuit is reversed, and the machine sucks air. A biological example is the axolotl, a salamander that has
retained its juvenile gills into adulthood. This can happen if there is an iodine deficiency in the diet, or if a mutation disables
thyroxin production. By adding thyroxin, the axolotl will develop into a normal salamander. Both these switch-and-circuit
rearrangements seem to be simple changes, but they are possible only because complex mechanisms of operation already
exist within the system.
Scope for change in signaling networks

While there is enormous potential for variation built-in to the circuitry that connects up regulatory modules, it is signals that
trigger the switches and their functional modules. What scope is there for diversification in signal networks?Signal networks
are compartmented. They operate as a cascade within each compartmentone signal triggers other signals, which trigger
other signals etc. Each compartment cooperates with its adjacent compartments so that the unity and functionality of the
organism is maintained, but they do not influence activities beyond their local neighbourhood.
Figure 2. Embryonic switching cascades
represented as a domino cascade. The
domino cascade is set up on the left so
that when the Start domino is toppled, the
sequential falling of dominoes will trigger
the next activity in the series, but also
trigger other developmental modules in the
outer circles, until the Stop button is hit.
Once the cascade is complete, an
organism does not need any of the
sequence again so it is permanently shut
down, as on the right where all the
dominoes have fallen and will not get up
again. There is no coded information in this signal network because everything that has to be done has been designed into
the pattern of dominoes. With no coded information, no mutations or recombinations can occur, so this kind of signal
network probably marks a limit to natural variation.The two examples I used to illustrate this point in the companion article
How Life Works2 were the propagation of plants from cell culture, and the regeneration of double-headed and double-tailed
planarian flatworms. In both these cases, a single signal molecule triggered a dramatic developmental cascade (shoot/root
growth in the former, and head/tail growth in the latter) that was completely independent of, but cooperative with, the other
half of the whole organism.Some signals are hard-wired into the cell, while others are soft-wired. An example of a hard-wired
signal occurs within theapoptosis cascade for dismantling cells and recycling their parts. In a normal cell, apoptosis is
extensively integrated with a wide range of functional systems and can be triggered by a variety of causes through a
complex signaling network. However, in human blood platelets the system is isolated from its normal whole-cell environment
and we can see it operating in a much simpler form.A complex of two proteins, Bcl-xL and Bak, performs the function of a
molecular switch. When Bcl-xL breaks down, Baktriggers cell-death.12 In a normal whole cell, homeostasis maintains the
balance between Bcl-xL and Bak, but platelets are formed by the shedding of fragments from blood cells and there are no
nuclei in them. Once the platelets are isolated from homeostatic control, Bcl-xLbreaks down faster than Bak, so the complex
provides a molecular clock that determines platelet life spanusually about a week. No signal is sent or received in this
hard-wired system, so there is no room for diversification.Hard-wired signaling networks are probably a major component of
stasis. We can visualize them by using a domino cascade model, illustrated in figure 2. In this case, embryogenesis is
symbolized as a series of events in the main circle, which trigger other peripheral cascades as they proceed. Each cascade
continues until it meets a STOP signal, at which point the whole circuit is shut down. A similar thing happens in individual
cells when they differentiate. Embryonic stem cells have the potential to become any cell in the body, but once the cascade
is traversed, all options but one are shut down.In contrast, a soft-wired system sends actual signal molecules, raising the
possibility of adaptive changee.g. sending a
different signal molecule. A recent study of red
blood cells investigated cell fate decision
makingwhether to proliferate, to kill
themselves or to call for help. This decision
lies at the very heart of homeostasis because
it determines the robustness and stability of
the organism in the face of change and
challenge.
Figure 3. Grass flower (spikelet) structure and
some common variations. Aconventional
spikelet on the tip of a branch. Bexploded
view of spikelet: a = lower glume; b = upper
glume; c = lemma; d = palea; e = ovary (black
oval)
with
bifid
filamentous
stigmas,
surrounded by 2 or 3 translucent lodicules and
3 anthers. Capex of lemma may elongate to produce a straight awn, or corkscrew several turns to produce a twisted
column with a straight or curved terminal bristle.The researchers discovered that they did not need to know the
detailedstructure of the decision-making system, just a knowledge of its network of signaling interactions was sufficient to
identify which components were the most important.13 This finding was confirmed in another study in which a wide range of
perturbations were applied to white blood cells and the effect upon the cell fate decision was examined. The decision came
not from any particular target of perturbation, but as an integrated response from many different nodes of interaction in the
signaling network. The authors suggested that computations were carried out within each node of the signaling network and
the combination of all these computations determined what the level of response should be from any particular
perturbation.14Does this indicate a potential for adaptive change? Or does it suggest a system that is designed to resist
change?The primary role of the signaling system is to coordinate everything towards the goal of survival. Life can survive
only by maintaining a balance between contradictory objectives. On the one hand, it has to achieve remarkable results as
accurately as possiblee.g. plants turning sunlight into food without the high energies involved killing the cell. On the other
hand, it has to do it in an error-tolerant and constantly variable manner to maintain its adaptive potential and its robustness
and stability.The solution to this dilemma is error minimization. All possible
routes will involve risks of error, but the optimal solution will minimize those
risks. A computer simulation study of regulatory networks found that using
an error minimization strategy leads to the formation of control motifs (gene
switching patterns) that are widely found in very different kinds of
organisms and metabolic settings.15 When applied to the noise in yeast
gene expression that results from the ON/OFF nature of signaling, it was
found to also be the case in real life. Genes that were essential to survival
exhibited the lowest expression-noise levels when compared with genes

that were not directly essential. The author concluded that there has probably been widespread selection to minimize noise
in [essential] gene expression. But there is a down sidenoise minimization probably limits adaptability.16
Figure 4. The grass inflorescence consists of (A) the basic unit of a single terminal flower (spikelet) on a short stalk
(pedicel) which is repeated in a terminal group of branches (B). This terminal group structure is then repeated on side
branches (C), with the lower branch(es) including further internal branching. This basic inflorescence type is called a
panicle.Since the goal of signal coordination is survival, I suspect that the large, interconnected signaling networks in all
forms of life contribute more to stasis than to change.
Practical limits to natural variation
It is impossible to describe the full range of natural variation across all life forms in a journal article, so I will focus just on
variation within the grass family (Poaceae), and between it and other families of flowering plants (Angiosperms).The grass
family comprises about 10,000 species in about 700 genera. Is it possible that maize, lawn grass and bamboo all arose from
a common ancestor? Baraminologists believe so.17
Grass morphology
The easiest way for us to conceptualize the extent of natural variation is through illustrations of morphological variations. We
need to keep in mind that much more than morphological variation is involved in speciation, but it can serve as a convenient
surrogate for our present purpose. The basic structure of a generalized grass flower (spikelet) is illustrated in figure 3.
Figure 5. Ordination and classification of specimens of the three
native Puccinellia species identified in Western Australia, based on 34
morphological characters. Principle Coordinates 1 and 2 provide a 2dimensional representation of the differences between the specimens and a
clustering algorithm identified groups of similar specimens (ellipses).
A common variation on the standard structure is the development of an awn
upon the apex of the lemma (or glume) in figure 1C. This transformation is
fairly straightforward. The apex of the lemma is extended into a long straight
awn, then a regulatory change causes the edges to grow faster than the
centre, which causes the base part of the awn to spiral around into a
twisted column, leaving a straight or curved bristle at the top.Grasses generally
have a multitude of spikelets, arranged into a terminal structure called
theinflorescence, as shown in figure 4.
Species-level variation in the Australian salt grass Puccinellia
Salt grasses of the
genus Puccinellia are
distributed
worldwide, from the
Antarctic to the Arctic, and they occur
right across southern
Australasia (Australia and New Zealand)
in
marine
salt
marshes, around the edges of inland
salt lakes and on
salinised pasture lands. They have a
quite
generalized
grass morphology, with no special
adaptations
for
dispersal, as many other grasses do, so
they may represent a
typical primordial grass.The most
widespread species,
found
right
across
Australasia,
is Puccinellia stricta.
When Edgar18 described the New
Zealand species in
1996 she noted some differences
between
Australian
and New Zealand populations of P.
stricta and suggested
that further detailed study was
warranted.
I
was
fortunately able to undertake that
study,19 with
results
that are quite typical of many
widespread
plant
genera. My study focused on the genus
in Western Australia
(WA), where three native species were
identifiedP. stricta,
P. vassica and P. longior. An ordination
and classification of
specimens based on their morphological
characteristics
is
shown in figure 5.
Figure 6. Ordination and classification of specimens of Puccinellia stricta from across Australasia. The group
labeled perlaxa had been identified as a subspecies of P. stricta. Four geographically isolated regions were sampled: WA =
Western Australia, SE Aus = South East Australia (Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales), Tas = Tasmania, NZ =
New Zealand. The axes of ordination and the ellipses of classification have the same meaning as Figure 3 and were based
on the same 34 morphological characters.The plot shows that all three species are well separated from one another, with
members of each species being more closely similar to members of their own species than to other species.I then needed to
know how our specimens of Puccinellia stricta compared to specimens of the same species from right across Australasia.
Loan specimens were obtained from other herbaria and the same analysis was carried out as for the WA specimens. A very
different plot resulted, as shown in figure 6.In this case, a new species was clearly separated out from the rest, while the
remainder spread broadly right across the ordination space. The group labeled perlaxa (occurring only in southeast
Australia) had previously been identified as a subspecies of stricta, but from this analysis it was clear that it warranted
species status, so we named it Puccinellia perlaxa.The big picture of the native Australasian species of Puccinellia that
emerged from this study was of a single widespread species, P. stricta, that varied in a continuous manner right across the
whole region, and then localized species with restricted distributions that could generally be explained in terms of local
ecological and/or geographical factors.Historically, therefore, it is most likely that the widespread species was the progenitor
of the all the other species. It has retained at least some of its capacity for variation, and certainly a greater capacity (wider
dispersion in the ordination space) than any of the other species that I studied.
Morphological variation in Australian Puccinellia

Figure 7. Panicle variations within Australian species

of Puccinellia. The contracted panicle with a variety of branch
lengths at A is typical. B has numerous spikelets crowded along very short branches, while C has very few spikelets on very
short branches, and D has few spikelets that are mainly on the ends of very long branches. Images were scanned from
dried herbarium specimens; in life, D would have had straight branches and a more symmetrical shape.
Figure 8. Variations in upper glume length (marked with black bars) in spikelets of some Australian species of Puccinellia.
Figure 9. Paleas from five different Australian species of Puccinellia. Note the variation in hair development on the margins,
ranging from glabrous (no hairs) on D, a few hairs near the apex of E, the top half of B with hairs and the lower region
glabrous, with A and C having hairs extending into the lower half.
Figure 10. Retrogression of Panicoid grass spikelets. The characteristic
condition in the Tribe is to have one terminal fertile floret subtended by one
sterile floret. The primordial condition at A has the sterile floret male.
Condition B has lost the anthers of the sterile floret. Condition C has lost the
palea of the sterile floret. Condition D has lost the lower glume. The series E,
F, G and H illustrate the same pattern of retrogression but with the spikelet
axis rotated in relation to its adjoining branch.
Figure 11. Transformation of a panicle into wheat. The side branches
of A are eliminated to give B, the number of spikelets is increased to form C,
then the pedicels are reduced to form D.
Australian Puccinellia species vary most markedly in their panicle
structure, a few of which are illustrated in figure 7.
Puccinellias have multiple florets per spikelet, ranging from 3 or 4
up to 10 or more. One feature that varies significantly in spikelet
structure is the length of the upper glume, illustrated in figure 8.
The palea also varies significantly, particularly in the extent of
hairs on the margins, as shown in figure 9.
Genus-level variations in Tribe Paniceae
The grass family is divided up into Tribes of genera that (ideally)
reflect their common ancestry. The largest Tribe is Paniceae, and
Hfliger and Scholz have suggested that the spikelet variations
within
this
Tribe
follow
a
fairly
simple
pattern
of retrogression from the original Paniceae spikelet,20 as
illustrated in figure 10.
Sub-family variation within Poaceae
Argentinian researchers Vegetti and Anton have shown that if we begin with a panicle as the primordial grass inflorescence,
then every other generic form can be derived simply by adding, subtracting, shortening or lengthening the components of
the panicle.21 I will take just three types of transformations that represent different sub-family groups within Poaceae
wheat, maize and silkyhead lemon grass.
Wheat
The hypothesized transformation of a panicle structure into the reduced seedhead of a wheat plant via the Vegetti-Anton
theory is illustrated in figure 11.
Maize
Figure 12. Transformation of a panicle into maize. The middle branches of the panicle A are replaced with leaves and leafy
bracts, and the lower branches are transformed into
a spike (like wheat, Figure 9) to form B. The upper
spikelets lose their female parts, and the lateral
spikelets lose their male parts to form C. The male
spikelets multiply, and the female spikelets elongate
their pollen receptors to form a tassel that emerges
from the enveloping leafy bracts, to formD.
Transformation of a panicle into the compact
seedhead of maize is more complex, but still
conceivable, as illustrated in figure 12. The
primordial panicle could have been divided by the
panicle branches being switched OFF in the midsection, and leaf modules being turned ON. A leaf
within the inflorescence is called a spathe leaf.
Apical dominance is a common mechanism in all

plants for repressing growth below the apex until conditions are appropriate. This normally controls the proliferation of fertile
seeds within grass spikelets. It represses female organ development more strongly than the male parts, so in many grasses
the apical florets within a spikelet will be either male or sterile, and only the lower florets (those furthest away from the
dominating apex) will produce fertile seed. This mechanism is already in place to suppress female organ development in the
top branches of the maize plant, making them all male. But the lower branches of the inflorescence are now far distant from
the apex, so apical dominance is eliminated and the female organs grow uninhibitedly, perhaps out-competing the male
organs and suppressing them altogether. Leaf and bract growth in the lower parts is stimulated and they cover the female
spike entirely. This causes the female florets to lengthen their pollen receptors so that they can reach the open air and
receive wind-dispersed pollen, making the silky tassel at the end of a corn-cob.
Silkyhead lemon grass
Figure 13. Transformation of a primordial panicle into the spatheate panicle of Cymbopogon obtectus. The branching
pattern in A is reduced to a repeating set of branches in which a sessile fertile spikelet with an awn occurs at each
secondary branch point, accompanied by a pedicellate awnless sterile spikelet (B). Pairs of these branched structures are
subtended by a spathe leaf, from which they emerge at flowering time (C) to produce the complex mature panicle
(D).Transformation of the panicle into silkyhead lemon grass (Cymbopogon obtectus) can be hypothesized by reducing the
pedicel of alternate spikelets so that they occur in pairsone pedicellate, the other sessile. The pedicellate spikelet retains
apical dominance and is sterile or male, and the sessile spikelet is fully fertile, but it also develops an awn on its lemma (see
figure 3). The paired branching structures occur also in pairs, and a leaf growth module is switched ON within the
developing inflorescence to produce a spathe leaf surrounding each pair of branched structures. Hairs are normally present
in many parts of the inflorescence, and are usually short, but in Cymbopogon obtectus, the hairs are abundant and long,
producing a fluffy white silkyhead at flowering time, as illustrated in figure 13.
Origin of the angiosperms
Within the grass family, diversification from a common ancestor seems to be fairly straightforward, and could have occurred
via numerous rearrangements of parts that were already present in the primordial grass ancestor. But can we continue this
process back to a common ancestor with daisies, orchids and all other flowering plants?A recent review of the subject was
entitled After a dozen years of progress the origin of angiosperms is still a great mystery. 22 The progress referred to was
the enormous effort put into DNA sequence comparisons, in the belief that it would give us the true story of lifes origin and
history. While such comparisons have proved of great value in sorting out species and genus relationships, the results for
family relationships and origin of the angiosperms has often been confusing and/or contradictorythus the remaining
mystery.Recent discoveries of fossil flowers show that angiosperms were already well diversified when they first appeared
in the fossil record. The anthophyte theory of origin, the dominant concept of the 1980s and 1990s, has been eclipsed by
new information. Gnetales (e.g. Ephedra, from which we get ephedrine), previously thought to be closest to the
angiosperms, are now most closely related to pine trees. To fill the void, new theories of flower origins have had to be
developed, and Identification of fossils with morphologies that convincingly place them close to angiosperms could still
revolutionize understanding of angiosperm origins.22
Conclusions
Theoretically, the greatest scope for natural variation appears to lie in the almost infinite possible permutations of the
KirschnerGerhart Lego-block regulatory module combinations, and these could rapidly produce the enormous
diversification implied by the young age history. In contrast, there is no scope at all for change in the machinery of life from
one generation to the next because it is passed on in toto from the mother in the egg cell. Signaling networks appear to be
limited in their scope for diversification, particularly those that are hard-wired (designed into the system) into compartments
and cascades that have symmetry and functional constraints. The elaborately interconnected signaling networks are very
robust in the face of perturbation, and provide a crucial component of stasis. There is some potential for variation in the
signaling molecules that are sent, but error minimization limits its functional scope.From a practical point of view,
diversification of the whole grass family from a common ancestor is conceptually feasible via switching ON and OFF the
original component structures within a primordial grass. It is not possible to switch ON components that dont exist, however,
so this mechanism cannot be extrapolated to include a common ancestor between grasses and other angiosperms such as
daisies and orchids.Flowering plants display an enormous amount of differentiation and dispersal (between 250,000 and
400,000 species in 400 to 500 families worldwide) and appear only in the upper levels of the fossil record. Most of this
diversification appears therefore to have happened rapidly, possibly in the post-Flood era. A possible reason for this is that
the flowering plants were originally planted in the Garden of Eden and radiated worldwide mainly after the Flood.23
This is not Darwinian evolution. It is intelligently designed, built-in potential for variation in the face of anticipated
environmental challenge and change. The word evolution is still useful in describing processes of historical diversification,
but its Darwinian component is now only a minor feature. In contrast to Darwins proposed slow development of variation,
the evidence supports a vast amount of rapid differentiation in the past, degenerating into only trivial variations todaya far
better fit to KirschnerGerhart theory and the young history.
Galpagos with David Attenborough: Evolution
by Russell Grigg
Published: 18 April 2013 (GMT+10)
Galpagos with David Attenborough is the title of a three-part Sky 3D TV series
that was shown in Australia with the revised title, David Attenboroughs
Galpagos. Here we examine the third episode,1 in which Sir David claims that
Galpagos is a crucible where evolution proceeds at extraordinary speed. And
we also test his claim that the discoveries on Galpagos inspired an idea that
changed our understanding of life on Earthevolution And in particular,
Charles Darwins evolution by natural selection.
What evolution is and what its not
Whether or not evolution has occurred on Galpagos (or anywhere else on
Earth for that matter) depends very much on what is meant by the term
evolution. The theory that creationists oppose is the idea (and consequent
atheistic worldview) that all living things on Earth have arisen from a single
source (which itself came from non-life). The key issue is the type of change
required. For example, to change microbes into marine iguanas would require
massive successive increases in the genetic information of the genome.
However, none of the examples of change over time that Attenborough calls
evolution in this series involve the addition of new genes. Rather, they all

involve sorting and/or loss of existing gene information. Hence they do not support Darwinian (i.e. microbes-to-marineiguana) evolution.When evolutionists see adaptation taking place and call it evolution, they are guilty of equivocation. Small
changes of this nature do not make microbes-to-man a fact.Changes of behaviour, as a species learns to adapt to a new
habitat, also is not Darwinian evolution. If such adaptation means an animal can no longer breed with its previous fellows,
i.e. if speciationoccurs, this too is not Darwinian evolution, because this involves a sorting of existing information, not the
acquisition of new genetic information.2 In fact, such adaptation and speciation among the original created kinds is an
integral part of the young age worldview. See Q. & A. Speciation.Likewise, natural selection is not evolution, but a culling
process, choosing from what is already there and exterminating unfavourable variations. Several authors wrote on this
before Darwin; of these, creationist chemist and zoologist Edward Blyth (18101873) had three major articles published
in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837.3 Note too that Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-inventor of modern
evolutionary theory, challenged Darwin re the latters misuse of the term. 4 And the finding of a new species does not prove
that evolution has occurred; different species within a created kind has been part of the creation model since the time of Carl
Linnaeus (17071778), and that is the only type of speciation that is observed.
Galpagos tortoises living apart are not evidence for evolution
Earth Observatory 8270 and NASA GSFC; Wikimedia commons/M.Minderhoud.
Click to enlarge.
Attenborough shows viewers the crater on the
island of Isabela, where the razor-sharp lava
has formed an impassable physical barrier for
the giant tortoises, dividing their territory into
two, and he says: So two tortoise populations
that were once one, must now live apart.
Then: If there is any significant difference,
now or in the future, between their two
territories, the tortoises may eventually
become two different species.
This has not yet occurred, but if it did, it would
not be Darwinian evolution because, as
explained above, such speciation as a result
of adaptation to a new habitat involves
a loss of genetic information or at most a
sorting of existing information.
Darwins finches are not evidence for
evolution
Concerning
the
Galpagos
finches,
Attenborough tells viewers: We now know
that the ancestral Galpagos finches arrived in
these islands about two million years ago.
To set the record straight: we know no such thing. According to the young age model, the Galpagos finches most likely
were descendants of South American mainland finches, but these were descendants of those who srvived the Flood. So the
finches came to the Galpagos some time after the Flood, not two million years ago.
Charles Darwin visited four of these islands over a period of five weeks, when H.M.S. Beagle visited there in 1835.
Concerning this, Attenborough says:
It was his collection of these undramatic little birds, the finches, which provided him with the most substantial evidence for
his great theory. Darwin, when he returned to England, brought back with him a wide variety of specimens of all kinds,
and he spent years studying his collections. He had a range of finches from several of the islands, and he noticed one
particular way in which they differed. They had beaks of different sizes. Why? An idea grew in his mind .
To set the record straight: Darwin actually knew very
little about the birds he collected on the four islands he
visited. His biographers, Desmond and Moore, write:
He remained confused by the Galpagos finches,
believing that they fed indiscriminately together,
unaware of the importance of their different beaks. He
still thought his collections contained finches, wrens,
Gross-beaks, and Icteruses (blackbird relatives).5It
was English ornithologist John Gould who realized that
Darwins mixed bag of birds was in fact a unique flock
of finches.6 Darwin had not labelled his finches by the
island of collection, but others on the expedition had
taken more care. From them he was able to establish
that the species were unique to different islands. As to
these birds and their beaks being evidence for
evolution, Darwin did not mention these finches or their
beaks even once in his major work on evolution, On the
Origin of Species. So finches and their beaks
were not the origin of the Origin.Darwins drawings of
four finch beaks from his Journal of Researches 2nd ed.,
1845, p. 379. Modern long-term research has
established that the beak size within the species changes as the food supply changes.Desmond and Moore say that a single
sentence in the 1845 2nd edition of his Journal of Researches, was as much as he would ever say on finch evolution. 7 In
this work, under a picture of four different finch beaks and a brief description of them, Darwin wrote: Seeing this gradation
and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of
birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends.8The term Darwins Finches was not
used by anyone until it was thought up by Percy Lowe in 1936, and popularised by David Lack in 1947 in his book Darwins
Finches.9Finch beak type (prevalence) on a particular island happened like this: birds with beaks that enable them to eat the
type of food available on any island are the ones that will best survive and propagate on that island. This is an example of
natural selection, a sorting process that gives no support to evolutionthe birds (in this case finches) have not become

non-finches. Also, an 18-year study by Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant showed that a new species of finch could
arise in only 200 years, which inadvertently supports the young age model of rapid speciation, seecreation.com/darwinsfinches. This means that a mere thousand years or so would be enough time to allow for all the observed speciation.
Another problem with using these finches and their beaks as evidence for evolution is that the variation is cyclic. Evolutionist
Jan Komdeur, Professor of Avian Evolutionary Ecology, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Studies, University of
Groningen, speaking on the Darwin documentary film Darwin: The Voyage that Shook the World, says:The finches in the
Galpagos change rapidly, but the species doesnt change, it is the morphology [i.e. body form] that changes rapidly. So first
of all we thought these were different species, but actually theyre the same species. The phenotype [i.e. observable
characteristics] of the Darwin finches is cyclic. It stays within certain boundaries. So some years you have finches with big
beaks depending on food environments, and the other years you have the same species of finches with thin
beaks.Such built-in adaptability to changing food conditions is not evolution in action. Note too that this latter data is the
result of observation over several years, and so would not have been seen by Darwin, as he was there for only five-weeks in
1835. Also see later re beak reversal due to the presence of
humans.
Giant Galpagos tortoises are not evidence for evolution
Attenborough now resumes his discourse on the giant tortoises.
He tells viewers that on Espaola island there is virtually no
edible vegetation except for the fleshy leaves and flowers that
grow at the top of the tall prickly pear cactus, Opuntia. And only
those tortoises with peaked shells and long necks could reach
them. And he says:
So they were the ones that survived and produced young. Over
many thousands of generations and millions of years, the shell
shape of the Espaola tortoise became more and more
exaggerated. Now, the peak at the front of the shell is shaped like
a saddle. Such a change didnt happen just on Espaola
different islands had their own versions. Eventually, there were 15 different species on the islands, all descended from a
single founder.
To set the record straight: no one knows how many tortoises reached the different Galpagos islands from South America in
the four-and-a-half millennia since the Flood, let alone in the alleged millions of years claimed by Attenborough and his
fellow evolutionists. But just suppose there was a single founder (which would have had to have been a pregnant female),
this one would have had all the genetic information for all the tortoises seen today. That is, the 11 types of giant tortoises
left in the Galpagos, down from 15 when Darwin arrived.10
Wikimedia commons/Avenue
A dome-backed, short-necked, giant Galpagos tortoise.
Concerning their shell shapes, the larger dome-backed, short-necked offspring could have survived in the humid highlands
where there was plentiful vegetation. However, the smaller saddlebacked, longer-necked offspring probably survived better
on the dryer grass-free islands because they could reach the tall cactus vegetation, whereas the dome-backed offspring
would have starved.11 These are nice examples of natural selection in operation, just like the finches, but this sort of thing
will not change a tortoise into a non-tortoise (a different kind of animal)evolution.
As to Attenboroughs alleged many thousands of generations and millions of years, all the tortoises can hybridize (i.e.
interbreed).12 CMI geneticist, Dr Rob Carter points out in our Darwin documentary film Darwin: The Voyage that Shook the
World that, because the major Galpagos islands are only about 50 to 65 km (30 to 40 miles) apart, over millions of years
you would expect species to migrate from island to island again and again and again and again, with all sorts of
hybridization and blurring of the species lines. Why then, our film asks, do we still see such differences from island to
island? The obvious answer speaks strongly against evolutions millions of years.
How did the Galpagos islands form?
Attenborough asks: Why should the environments of the islands be so different? And he replies:
In the 3 million odd years since this island emerged above the surface of the ocean, it has drifted in a south-easterly
direction by about 60 miles (95 km). A giant hotspot, rising from the earths molten core, began to build the Galpagos,
four million years ago. But, as the island drifted away from it, other volcanoes replaced it, one after the other. But then, as
each moved away, eruptions ceased. So a group of islands appeared one after the other.
This is what his fellow evolutionists generally believe, but no one saw it happen. It may well have been quite different. And
indeed, the creationist explanation is that these islands would have formed after the Flood by volcanic action, within a
moderate time frame, similar to the way Surtsey Island formed off the coast of Iceland from 1964 to 1967. This is explained
in depth in our response to his first episode in this series, see creation.com/galapagos-origin.
The behaviour of lava lizards is not evidence for evolution
Male lava lizards do push-ups to establish their territory and attract
females.Attenboroughs next claim for evolution is the change in the
behaviour of animals, and he directs viewers attention to the small
lava lizards that grow to a maximum size of 1 foot (30 cm). We are
told that each island has its own distinct species, which differ not so
much in the way they look as the way they behave. The males
compete with one-another for territory and for females by doing pushups. These vary in the number, the intensity, and the speed at which
the lizards do them, and how high they bob their heads. Attenborough
says: The responses vary from species to species. In other words,
each species has its own language of gestures. Now, because
they have developed different gestures, they cant interbreed, even if
they meet. Theyre separated by a language barrier.
To set the record straight: Tze Keong Chow of the University of Michigan writes: Push-up displays are used to ward off
intruders, as well as courtship communication. Change of skin color can communicate the mood of the lizard from fear to
aggression.13 As all seven sub-species do this, obviously all seven species know what the push-ups mean. In other words,
they all do have a similar language! Whether the seven sub-species can interbreed does not appear from the literature to
have been investigated to date. Be that as it may, they are all still lava lizards. They have not evolved into anything else, like
birds, or even into the larger iguanas.
Galpagos snail species are not evidence for evolution

Attenborough says: New technology now enables students to investigate the workings of evolution in ways that Darwin
could hardly have ever imagined. He then shows viewers X-rays of several different tiny snail shells (about 1 cm long) and
says that their shape is different enough to define them as separate species. These live in different habitats, such as black
lava rocks, sandy beaches, dark caves, leafy forests, well watered areas, and dry areas.
However, these X-rays show very little that Darwin could not have seen with a good magnifying glass (if he had looked).
They do not even demonstrate that the sub-species arose on the Galpagos, as no evidence is offered as to how many
species or how few arrived from South America, or whether there were some that preceded any of the others, and if so
which. Nevertheless Attenborough makes the gratuitous claim: In other parts of the world evolution usually proceeds in a
slow gradual way. It can take millions of years for a new species to appear. But in Galpagos its been happening in the
evolutionary blink of an eye.
This is a non-sequitur.14 In any case, formation of sub-species does not establish any form of Darwinian evolution, as
against the recent Flood-migration model, which entails speciation, not just the formation of sub-species.
Lack of large predators is not evidence for evolution
Attenborough tells us: Galpagos for its size has more unique species than anywhere else on Earth, and all have appeared
in the islands comparatively short history. And he asks: Why did such a great number appear so quickly? His answer is
the absence of large predators, and he says that because of this: Time that would be spent hiding from attackers can now
be used to find food, find mates, and raise young and so produce more young, which hastens the progress of evolution.
However, this is a fallacy, even from an evolutionary point of view. There are lots of species that are at the top of the food
chain in their habitats, and this doesnt produce more speciation, which Attenborough continues to confuse as evolutionary
change. E.g. lions, rhinos, hippopotamuses, crocodiles, sharks, eagles, hawks, and so on.
He continues:
There is no more impressive example of that than Fernandinas iguana colony. With no significant predators around, these
herbivores produce lots of young; so many that their problem is not how to defend themselves, but how to find enough food
to support their great numbers. So they ventured into the sea itself to graze seaweed on the sea floor. The lack of big
predators has had an effect on all the animals of the Galpagos. They reproduce freely, so populations increase rapidly. And
so, consequently, does evolutionary change.
Population increase due to lack of predators has had nothing to do with speciation, as claimed.
Oops! Attenborough must have forgotten what he said in the second episode of this series, concerning the very first iguanas
that arrived in the Galpagos. In that episode he said: To survive, these iguanas had to eat the only kind of leaf that was
available, seaweed . So the initial eating of seaweed had nothing to do with the numbers! And since then, population
increase due to lack of predators has had nothing to do with speciation, as claimed.
Have humans affected the course of evolution on Galpagos?
We are told that Scientists are now trying to analyse the impact of human beings on the course of evolution in the islands.
It is claimed that the medium ground finch in its natural setting has both small and large beaks, caused by the type of foods
they eat, and is on the verge of dividing into two separate species. However, this has not happened, as Attenboroughs
guest, biologist Andrew Hendry, explains:
It is as if the two variants are here merging back into one. The presence of human beings has stopped this finch from
evolving. They feed a lot on human food, ranging from rice to fruit to grains to potato chips. Feeding on those types of
different foods, it doesnt really seem to matter what your beak size is any more. So it seems like humans have caused a
speciation reversal; theyre fusing back together again as a result of human influences.
Speciation reversal, yes. Evolution, no.
A new pink iguana is not evidence for evolution
Viewers are told:
New species are still being discovered. One was found just 35 miles (55 km) north of Alcedo on the giant, little-visited
volcano Wolf . A completely new and unknown species of reptile. A pink iguana. Genetic studies of the hundred or so
individuals that make up this tiny population have shown that it diverged from its land iguana cousins more than five million
years ago but has remained unknown to science until now.
How could it have diverged more than five million years ago on islands that supposedly didnt begin to form until four
million years ago? This is just one of many indications that the millions of years claimed by evolutionists for everything about
the Galpagos is just-so story-telling, a product of their imagination, and not facts.
Conclusion
Variation within created kinds has been seen on the Galpagos, but nothing that supports the view that all life on Earth
came about by mutations and natural selection, with one kind of organism changing into an entirely different kind, over
millions of years. Rather, the data from the Galpagos make excellent sense within the recent migration worldview.15
Galpagos with David Attenborough: Adaptation
by Russell Grigg
Published: 9 April 2013 (GMT+10)
Galpagos with David Attenborough is the title of a 2013 three-part Sky 3D TV
series that was shown in Australia with the revised title David Attenboroughs
Galpagos. In this, the second episode,1 Sir David discusses the way animals
have adapted to the varying conditions on the Galpagos islands. He labels
various islands as old, middle-aged, and young, but the millions of years
claimed by evolutionists for all this to have happened are not needed in the
creationist model.Attenborough shows viewers the crescent-shaped island of
Tortuga,2 which he says is the last fragment of an extinct volcano, and he goes
on to say that each island:
Is born on the bottom of the sea and rises up through the waters to emerge as a
volcano. But then after a million years of eruptions, volcanic activity ceases.
Two million years after its first appearance, the island is approaching middle
age, it has a moist climate, and is covered by forest. It begins to sink under its
own weight of ash and lava. Its battered by erosion and, after four million years,
its near the end of its existence. Low lying and arid, with little rainfall, its
surrounded by beaches of soft sand. The waves and rain [sic] continue to take
their toll, until all that is left is a craggy outcrop of rock. Today there are islands
in the Galpagos archipelago that illustrate every stage in this history.

Earth Observatory 8270 and NASA GSFC; Wikimedia commons/M.Minderhoud.

Click to enlarge.
In our response to his first program in this
series, titled Origin, we showed how the
recently formed volcanic island Surtsey (near
Iceland) mimics most of the features of the
Galpagos islands, but all within a few years
after Surtsey rose from the sea in 1963. Note
that Surtsey stopped erupting in 1967. There
is no way that anyone can show that any
island has experienced a million years of
eruptions, as Attenborough claims above!
In the last 50 years, there have formed on
Surtsey wide sandy beaches, gravel banks,
impressive cliffs, soft undulating land,
faultscarps, gullies and channels, and
boulders worn by the surf, some of which
were almost round, on an abrasion platform
cut into the cliff.3 Millions of years were not
necessary for these features to form, either on
Surtsey or on Galpagos. See:
Surtsey, the young island that looks old

Surtsey still surprises

Likewise, since Surtsey stopped erupting in 1967, erosion has caused the island to substantially diminish in size (see later).
A large area on the south-east side has been eroded away completely, while a sand spit called Norurtangi (north point) has
grown on the north side of the island. Again, millions of years were not necessary for this erosion to take place, either on
Surtsey or on any of the islands that make up the Galpagos.
Wikimedia commons/D. Gordon E. Robertson
Marine iguana on Santiago island.
Marine iguanas are not evidence for evolution
Attenborough introduces these reptiles by telling viewers that their ancestors almost certainly lived in the jungles of Central
America, where they are vegetarians. Then he says that a long time ago a few were swept by favourable currents out to the
ocean and pitched up in the Galpagos. To survive, these iguanas had to eat the only kind of leaf that was available,
seaweed, of which there was an endless supply under the water. So, he says:
They had to swim.
They even learned to dive.
They acquired the ability to hold their breath for up to an hour.
Their claws strengthened so they could cling to the rocks on the seabed.
Their snouts became flatter to help them graze.
Their teeth became sharper to grip the slippery seaweed.
Such learned behaviour and variation within a species are not the result of biological evolution, which is about the changes
in genes that would be required to turn microbes into marigolds, mice, and musicians; and prokaryotes into professors.
However Attenborough does make one claim for evolution, he says that because these iguanas ate nothing but seaweed
they evolved a special gland in their nose [to] sneeze the excess salt from their blood.
The Galpagos land iguana Conolophus subcristatus also appears to possess salt glands, 4 as do (elsewhere) crocodiles,
sea snakes, marine turtles and some seabirds. The salt disposal mechanisms in these animals are different, and this poses
a huge problem for evolutionists in explaining how these salt disposal features evolved not just once but several different
times in different creatures and in different locations.In addition to being the residence of the marine iguana, the Galpagos
Islands are home to seven species of lava lizards (genus Tropidurus) and two species of land iguana
(genus Conolophus).5 The iguanas have similar enough genetics to produce hybrids. This suggests that they thus all belong
to the same original created kind.6According to the young age worldview, these animals were created complete with all the
features within their bodies that He knew they would need to survive in their various habitats, and to adapt to their various
circumstances (including salty diets).
El Nino does not promote evolution
Attenborough tells us that every three to seven years the extreme and irregular weather condition known as El Nino
decimates the food supply of the Galpagos marine iguanas, and this causes as many as 90% of them to perish. He then
claims:
Iguanas have evolved a special ability that enables them to survive the famine. Their bodies shrink. The iguanas can
actively reduce their skeletons over just a few months by as much as 20%. They lose not just fat and muscle, but bone.
This amazing ability to reabsorb bone in times of hardship is unique to these reptiles.
However, these marine iguanas have not evolved into non-iguanas. The shorties are just as much marine iguanas as their
starved-to-death parents were. In all vertebrates, bones are constantly being restructured to oppose stresses. This involves
a fine balance of the activity of bone-depositing cells (osteoblasts) and bone resorbing cells (osteoclasts). There are natural

variations in the speed of these processes. In an environment exposed to famine, natural selection would select the
individuals that had greater rates of bone resorption and depositing. See:
Bone building: perfect protein
Bridges and bones, girders and groans
Symbiosis is not evolution
Attenboroughs next example of evolution is on Santa Cruz island when the climate changes and the eco-system is
exposed to the equatorial heat. He says:
Wikimedia commons/Haplochromis
Scalesia trees on Santa Cruz island.
Some trees, however, have evolved a way of protecting
themselves. The [Scalesia tree shown] has developed a
mutually beneficial relationship with the lichen that grows on
it. The lichen shields the tree from the sun, preventing it from
getting scorched. And the tree provides the lichen with
moisture and nutrients. But if the weather gets really sunny,
then the lichen shrivels and stops taking nutriment and
moisture from the tree, but at the same time still prevents it
from getting sunburnt. And when the moisture returns, the
lichen can grow back. So plant and lichen make the best of
the two extremes of climate.
This is an excellent example of the biological phenomenon
known as symbiosis (together-living), but symbiosis is not
evolution. No increase in information is involved. Real evolution would require changes that increase genetic information,
while non-information-increasing changes such as the one shown are part of the creation model. 7 As Australias top
scientist, Dr Raymond Jones says of the symbiotic relationship in cattle rumen: The animal needs the microbes and the
bugs need the animal. Its a good example of design. 8 So
this evidence, claimed by Attenborough to support evolution,
actually supports the creation model.
Wikimedia commons/David Adam Kess
One of the hundreds of lava tube tunnels on Santa Cruz
island.
Blind spiders are not evidence for evolution
Subterranean animals live in the network of hundreds of
tunnels on Santa Cruz island called lava tubes.
Attenborough introduces these by saying: Here the speciestransforming power of the Galpagos is as active as
everywhere else. And we are further told that there are
species unknown to science. Viewers are shown an
amblypygidhalf scorpion, half spider, a millipede that has
lost all its colour, and we are told that:
Spiders too haunt the lava tubes. And just like the tortoises
and iguanas, these creatures have evolved into many
different species. There are 90 of them, all unique to the
Galpagos. The spiders dont just differ from island to island.
They do so dramatically even within a single lava tube. Some that have been here for a long time are blind and feel their
way through the cave. A few have lost their eyes entirely. But living just centimeters from them are more recent colonist
species that still retain their eyes.
However, speciation is an important part of the creation model. Speciation and adaptation are not evolution in the bacteriato-barristers sense. SeeSpeciation Q & A and Evolution in action or Evolution inaction.
Furthermore, blind cave spiders are examples of downhill or information-losing mutations causing devolution, not
evolution. Such a degenerative process could not generate seeing eyes in the first place .Consider a spider which, because
of a mutation, acquires a defective gene for eye development. Such a defect would be passed on to all of its descendants.
Above ground, such a mutation would very quickly be selected against, as any spider inheriting it would be less likely to
find prey and evade predators. But in a totally dark environment, blind spiders are not at a disadvantage to their sighted
fellows, because eyes are no longer an asset. They can easily be injured in darkness, e.g. by sharp rocks, allowing the entry
of potentially lethal bacteria. On average, the eyeless spider will be more likely to survive and reproduce. It would not need
many generations before all the spiders in that environment were of the eyeless type.9
Atheists are fond of using blind troglobionts (cave-dwelling organisms) as evidence for evolution.. 10 In fact, as shown above,
creationists would have no problem with arch-atheist Richard Dawkins explanation:
Evolutionists on the other hand, need to come up with an explanation for the loss of eyes where they are no longer needed.
How does losing its eyes benefit an individual cave salamander so that it is more likely to survive and reproduce than a
rival salamander that keeps a perfect pair of eyes, even though it never uses them?Well, eyes are almost certainly not cost
free. Setting aside the arguably modest costs of making an eye, a moist eye socket, which has to be open to the world to
accommodate the swivelling eyeball with its transparent surface, might be vulnerable to infection. So a cave salamander
that sealed up its eyes behind tough body skin might survive better than a rival salamander that kept its eyes.But there is
another way to answer this question most mutations are disadvantageous, if only because they are random and there are
many more ways of getting worse than getting better. Natural selection promptly penalizes the bad mutations. Individuals
possessing them are more likely to die and less likely to reproduce, and this automatically removes the mutations from the
gene pool. Every animal and plant is subject to a constant bombardment of deleterious mutations: a hailstorm of attrition. It
is a bit like the moons surface, which becomes increasingly pitted with craters due to the steady bombardment of
meteorites. With rare exceptions, every time a gene concerned with an eye, for example, is hit by a marauding mutation, the
eye becomes a little less functional, a little less capable of seeing, a little less worthy of the name of eye. In an animal that
lives in the light and uses the sense of sight, such deleterious mutations (the majority) are quickly removed from the gene
pool by natural selection.But in total darkness the deleterious mutations that bombard the genes for making eyes are not
penalized. Vision is impossible anyway. The eye of a cave salamander is like the moon, pitted with mutational craters that

are never removed. The eye of a daylight-dwelling salamander is like the earth, hit by mutations at the same rate as cavedwellers eyes, but with each deleterious mutation (crater) being removed by natural selection (erosion).11
Millions of years not needed to erode Galpagos islands
We are told that the island of Espaola is nearing four million years old, and its forests have gone. Presumably we are
meant to deduce that one statement is proof of the other. However, Attenborough offers no evidence that Espaola ever had
forests. He continues:
Millions of years of erosion have created beaches of soft sand, and they suit some animals very well. [Such as Galpagos
sea lions, and nesting waved albatrosses shown.] The many habitats of Espaola and all aging Galpagos islands were
created by the erosive power of sea and weather, but erosion can have only one final result. Destruction. So a Galpagos
island worn down by the waves and the weather eventually reaches the last stage of its existence. After millions of years
sustaining life, all that remains of it above water is a rocky curving cliff, like Tortuga. [Shown.]
Top: NOAA; Bottom: Wikimedia commons/Worldtraveller
Top: Surtsey shortly after it began erupting in 1963.
Bottom: Surtsey in 1999. Notice the many old-looking
features on this young island. By 2002, it had eroded
and subsided to half its maximum size.However,
millions of years are not needed to erode a volcanic
island to water level. In the years following the eruption
from the seabed of Surtsey, measurements revealed
that the island was slumping vertically and, in the 24
years of observations from1967 to 1991,12 had lost 1
metre of its original height of 174 metres. (Espaola is
currently 200 metres high.) By 2002, Surtsey had
shrunk to 52% of its maximum size in 1967.13
Attenborough goes on to tell us that The remains of
Galpagos islands stretch for hundreds of miles across
the Pacific seabed. However, in the young age
worldview, these erupted towards the end of the Flood,
as the ocean basins were established.
Conclusion
Attenboroughs purpose in this episode appears to have
been to inculcate a time frame of millions of years (he
mentions this no less than eight times) for the
Galpagos islands, and to present the animals and
plants there as evidence for evolution. In this he is
following the evolutionist, anti-creationist and liberal
theologian Rev.
Post-Flood mutation of the KIT gene and the rise of white coloration patterns
by Jean K. Lightner
Identifying mutations and patterns of their appearance and impact is important in furthering the young age model. Genes
affecting coloration are relatively easy to identify and several have been well studied. Here, variation in a gene affecting the
development and movement of pigment cells, KIT, is examined. This complex gene codes for a complex protein important in
a number of pathways. Many mutations have been identified in each of the species studied. Interesting examples of
epigenetic modification and reversions have been documented in mice. This gene has shown up in surprising places in cats
and dogs. Some mutations result in pleiotropy, although this is variable depending on genetic background, type of mutation,
and location of the mutation. Mutations also result in interesting variety including white animals and white spotting
phenotypes.
Horses with roan coats have white hairs
evenly intermingled throughout any other
color. It has been mapped to the KIT locus.
Previously, creationist studies have pointed
out the importance of evaluating genetic data
to determine the types of mutations which
have likely occurred throughout history. This
will contribute to a deeper understanding of
the role mutations play and better inform
apologetic arguments as it further builds the
young age model. We dont have enough
information to know the genetic variability that
existed at creation. We are not told how many
animals were created in each kind. However,
we do have an idea of the genetic variability
that could be expected after the genetic
bottleneck at the Flood. Unclean animals,
such as pigs, horses, and mice, survived the
Flood as single breeding pairs. Thus, up to
four alleles for any particular locus could have
been present. For humans, a maximum of 10
alleles could have made it through unless the
people carried mutations.Genes affecting coat color are relatively easy to discover and study since they obviously affect the
appearance of the animal. So far, well over three hundred genes have been identified as affecting coat color in
mammals.1 Some of these, such as the MC1R2 and ASIP3 genes, have been fairly well studied and useful information has
been obtained by examining mutation patterns at these loci. Mutations in these genes affect proteins involved in the
signaling pathway for pigment production and explain a large amount of the color variation in mammals. Other genes

affecting coloration are involved in pigment production or development (i.e. regulating the development and migration of
pigment cells during embryogenesis).
The KIT locus
One locus important in embryogenesis, KIT, has been associated with white coat patterns in several mammalian species
and piebaldism in humans. The white areas are depigmented due to the absence of melanocytes, the cell type which
produces pigment.KIT has also gone by several other names including c-kit, v-kit Hardy-Zuckerman 4 feline sarcoma viral
oncogene homolog, stem cell factor receptor, mast cell growth factor receptor, and CD117.4 It encodes a receptor tyrosine
kinase involved in the development and homeostasis of several cell lines including melanocytic (pigment), hematologic
(blood), mast, and germ cells. 5 This explains why heritable loss-of-function mutations sometimes have pleiotropic effects,
not only resulting in white color patterns, but also anemia and/or infertility. Some of the stronger mutations cause a dominant
white phenotype which is lethal in the homozygous condition. Activating (gain-of-function) mutations, which are generally
somatic and not heritable, have been associated with progression in certain cancers. 6The KIT gene is rather complex
consisting of 21 exons in a 70 kb region. Most of the exons are relatively short (<300 bp). The exception is the final exon
which not only codes the terminal portion of the receptor, but also includes a 2,147 bp non-coding sequence that follows.
This complex organization of the gene reflects the complex nature of the protein receptor it produces.Extracellularly the
receptor is made up of five immunoglobulin-like domains. Each is coded by one or two exons with the boundaries of the
exons defining the boundaries of these domains. The receptor makes a single pass through the cell membrane and contains
an intracellular kinase catalytic region divided by a hydrophilic insert. Most of the 10 exons coding the intracellular portion
correspond to specific structural elements, such as -helices or -sheets. 7 Both mice and men express two isoforms of this
membrane-bound receptor8 from alternative splicing; these isoforms differ somewhat in their signaling
characteristics.9Expression of KIT and its ligand, sometimes referred to as stem cell factor, occur in waves during
development and have intricate homeostatic patterns in the adult. Ligand binding induces activation of tyrosine kinase
through dimerization of receptors.6 This subsequently influences a variety of pathways downstream. The pattern of
downstream activation is dependent on numerous other cellular factors. Thus, the receptor does not behave as a simple
on/off switch, but instead as an inducible and malleable scaffold upon which multiple cellular regulatory mechanisms can be
modulated.10
Variability in the KIT locus
Variability in the KIT locus will be examined with the following questions in mind. Is there evidence for mutation in this gene?
If so, what type(s) of mutations occur and what effect do they have on phenotype? Are the mutations most likely pre- or
post-Flood? Are there any particularly unusual patterns that exist in regard to these mutations (e.g. in type, timing and/or
location)?
Pigs (Sus scrofa)
KIT resides on the short arm of chromosome 8 in the pig (SSC 8p12). At least eight different alleles have been identified
(table 1).11 The wild type (i) was identified in the European wild boar and most colored domestic European breeds. The
belted phenotype (IBe) of the Hampshire was mapped to this locus and is believed to be the result of a regulatory mutation.
This dominant allele, which produces a white belt around the shoulders and front legs, is carried in the homozygous state
with no apparent ill effects.
Table 1. Summary of KIT mutations in pigs associated with white or partial white phenotypes
ALLELE

PHENOTYPE

BREED

MUTATION(S)

INHERITANCE

wild type

European wild boar

NA

IBe

white belt

Hampshire

unknown

dominant

IP

patch

Pietrain

gene duplication

semidominant

I1

white

Large White

IP allele with splice mutation in one copy

dominant

I2

white

Large White

I1 allele with an additional duplication of the normal dominant

gene

I3

white

Large White

I1 allele with an additional duplication of the copy dominant

with a splice mutation

RC1

white

Chinese
Rongchang

White V84M, R173K, V893A

recessive

RC2

white

Chinese
Rongchang

White V84M, V893A

recessive

The patch allele (IP), a semidominant mutation resulting from a gene duplication, produces a phenotype of white and colored
patches that are separated by sharp borders. There are three related dominant white alleles (I1, I2 and I3). The first was
discovered to have the same gene duplication as the patch allele with one copy containing a splice mutation. The splice
mutation is the result of a G to A substitution in the first nucleotide of intron 17 which leads to skipping exon 17. 12 The
second and third alleles contain an additional duplication of the copy without and with the splice mutation,
respectively.13 Despite the fact that dominant white alleles in other species can be lethal in the homozygote, these very
popular white pigs are generally homozygous and show no ill effects.Two additional alleles have been identified in the
Chinese White Rongchang. These lacked the gene duplication and differed from the sequence in European pigs by up to 10
nucleotide substitutions. Three amino acids are affected (V84M, R173K, and V893A) from exons 2, 3, and 19 respectively.
The first was considered worthy of further investigation in potentially being associated with the recessive white phenotype in
these Chinese pigs.14Since pigs are unclean, a maximum of four KIT alleles would have been carried by the pair on the Ark.
The number of alleles in domestic pigs is at least twice this, indicating that new alleles have arisen post-Flood by mutation at
this locus. Researchers identify mutations as a change in nucleotide sequence relative to the wild type, which in this case is

the European wild boar. In reality, the wild boar itself may carry mutations, but there are other details that can sometimes
help to identify alleles carrying mutations. Alleles responsible for impaired migration of melanocytes, resulting in white
coloration, can logically be inferred to carry mutations. This would include the mutations found in European domestic pig
breeds, but not necessarily all polymorphisms in the Chinese White Rongchang. Most likely all of the mutations affecting
coloration are post-Flood since these alleles dont appear to be widely distributed in pigs. If the alleles were older and
existed at the time of the population bottleneck, a much wider distribution would be predicted.There is an obvious bias
toward gene duplications in European pigs. Four alleles contain gene duplications, suggesting at least three separate
duplication events affecting the germ-line, thus making them heritable. It was suggested that the initial duplication acts as a
dynamic mutation, increasing the chance of a subsequent event. Increased sequence homology resulting from the
duplication is believed to increase the probability of additional rounds of gene conversion, unequal crossing-over, and
subsequent rearrangement.15
Horses (Equus caballus)
KIT resides on the long arm of chromosome 3 in the horse (ECA 3q). 16 There are over 15 alleles; 14 of which are associated
with some degree of depigmentation (white or white spotted phenotype). 17 Roan horses are characterized by white hairs
interspersed with pigmented hairs throughout much of the body. This dominant phenotype is assumed to be lethal in the
homozygote. It has been mapped to the KIT locus, although the causative mutation has yet to be identified. Interestingly,
some mRNA transcripts from a roan Belgian horse contained a 79 bp L1 element between exons 1 and 2. This resulted in a
frame-shift and a non-functional protein. However, this L1 insertion was found in both roan and non-roan horses, although it
was more common in the former.18The Tobiano color pattern typically consists of large white patches on the body and limbs
which often extend across the dorsal midline. It is common among American Paint Horses and is found in other diverse
breeds as well. Although no differences exist in the coding region of KIT, similarity was noted between this phenotype and
several spotting patterns in mice that involved chromosomal rearrangements near this gene. Subsequently, a large
paracentric chromosomal inversion was identified about 100 kb downstream from KIT which is suspected to disrupt
regulatory sequences for the gene resulting in this dominant white spotting pattern. This allele was identified in Tobiano
individuals from 12 different breeds, indicating an ancient origin. Homozygous individuals are phenotypically
indistinguishable from heterozygotes; both are fully viable.19The Sabino white spotting pattern involves white patches on the
face and legs which may extend up to the belly. Sometimes the belly and midsection have a more diffuse scattering of white
hairs similar to the roan phenotype. One allele causing this phenotype was discovered with a T to A substitution in intron 16.
This resulted in many transcripts missing exon 17. Homozygotes had more pronounced expression of the defective
transcript and a white phenotype, but were fully viable. Also, heterozygotes that carried a second allele for a different
spotting pattern, such as Tobiano, were white as well. 20There are eleven additional alleles that have been identified in
horses with white or partial white phenotypes, all of which arose within the last 100 years. Three of these involve splice
mutations in an intron, two involve a deletion in an exon resulting in a frameshift and premature stop codon, four involve
non-synonymous substitutions which change the amino acid (missense mutation), and two involve non-synonymous
substitutions which replace the amino acid with a stop codon (nonsense mutation). Some of these are associated with a
dominant white phenotype which is believed to be lethal in the homozygous state. While none of the mutations were found
in the homozygous state, not all resulted in a dominant white phenotype. Furthermore, in four cases only one white horse,
presumably the founder animal, was tested. It remains to be seen which of these alleles may allow for viable
homozygotes.17Considerably more than four KIT alleles are present in horses, indicating an increase in alleles due to postFlood mutation. Of the 14 alleles associated with depigmentation, and thus most likely the result of mutation, the origin of 11
were documented in the last 100 years. The other three appear to be older as they have a wider distribution in domestic
horses. Still, it is likely that they are post-Flood since they do not appear to be present extensively in the equine baramin
(which includes donkeys and zebras).
Mice (Mus musculus)
In laboratory mice Kit21 is on chromosome 5 (MMU 5). There are 97 alleles, 66 of which arose via spontaneous
mutation.22 These alleles, only some of which have had the underlying mutation identified, show a variety of phenotypes and
pleiotropic effects. Only a few will be discussed here.The dominant white spotting allele (W) in heterozygous mice results in
fully viable and fertile adults with a white belly spot, white feet and tail tip. It was noted that in the early post-natal period
these mice have unusual blood values. This allele in the homozygous condition is usually lethal due to severe macrocytic
anemia. Few homozygotes are born alive, and those normally die within a day or two. The very few that survive to adulthood
are black-eyed, white, severely anemic, and sterile. The difference in viability of homozygotes has been attributed to the
different genetic backgrounds in which it occurs.23 The allele is attributed to a G to A substitution at a splice donor site in
intron 10 which results in exon skipping in the transmembrane region. 24,7A viable dominant white spotting allele exists (Wv)
where a white belly spot, white feet and tail tip are also seen along with significant dilution of the remaining coat pigment.
Heterozygous mice are usually viable and fertile, but slightly anemic. In the homozygote the lifespan is near normal; they
are black-eyed, white, less anemic than dominant white (W/W) mice, and may be semi-fertile. 23 This allele carries a single
missense (T660M) mutation.25 A number of other alleles were found that result in a similar phenotype to W (Wa, Wj, Wx)
or Wv (Wb, We).23Initially it appeared that mutations in mice had a similar effect on all three tissue types: melanocytic,
hematologic and germ. However, mutations appeared that soon showed this was not always the case. For example, the
fertile white mutation (Wf) appears to be the result of a missense (R816W) mutation in this gene. It is associated with
anemia and pigment defects, but mice are fertile even in the homozygote (if it survives; there is an increased postnatal
fatality rate).26 In contrast, an induced mutation (Y719F), which alters the binding site for the p85 subunit of PI 3-kinase, has
a negative effect on spermatogenesis and oogenesis, yet no observable pigment or hematopoietic defects.27Several alleles
have been identified where the mutations involve major rearrangements in the 5' regulatory region of this gene. W57 carries
an 80 kb deletion in the 5' region; homozygotes have an irregular white band on the trunk, a white head spot, very mild
anemia, and normal fertility. The white banded (Wbd)28 and sash (Wsh)29 alleles arose separately by spontaneous mutation
involving a large 5' inversion affecting the orientation of numerous upstream genes. Heterozygotes carry a white band or
sash on the trunk; homozygotes exhibit black eyes, white fur with possible residual ear and snout pigment, with normal
fertility and red blood cell parameters. All three alleles are associated with mast cell deficiency from a lack of KIT expression.
Interestingly, the Wsh allele is associated with increased Kit expression in dermatomal cells during embryonic development
which is believed to cause the pigmentation defects.30 This is in contrast to W57 where KIT expression is down regulated in
early trunk melanoblasts.28 Several tissue specific control elements have been identified in this upstream region. 30A cryptic
promoter has been identified in exon 16 which is active in post-meiotic germ cells in the testes of mice. This cell specific
promoter is only active during a short temporal window during spermatogenesis and results in a third gene product: a
truncated protein which lacks the extracellular, transmembrane and first tyrosine kinase domains. 31 This truncated protein is
suspected to play a role in fertilization since it has been observed to trigger parthenogenetic completion of meiosis II and
pronuclear formation when microinjected into mouse eggs.32Reverse mutations are considered to be rare in mammals, but

12 mutations affecting pigmentation in mice show unusual phenotypic instabilities. One of these, the viable yellow at
the Agouti locus, has been examined in previous creationist literature. 3 Seven of these mutations are at the KIT locus
(Wa, WJ2, W37, W42, Wei, Wv = W55, Wrio). Mice heterozygous for the Wrio mutation are mostly white with some scattered
pigmented hairs. In a French study, 3.6% of the heterozygotes exhibited strongly pigmented spots on a typical mutant
background nearly devoid of pigment cells. Melanocyte cell lines were established from six independent reversion spots.
Three of these appear to have undergone somatic reversion via mitotic recombination. One showed an increase
in KIT expression and response to KIT ligand despite retaining a Wrio/+ genotype. The remaining two failed to respond to Kit
ligand. While the underlying mechanism for phenotypic reversion was not demonstrated in the last three cell lines, the
authors suggest that enhanced KIT expression, compensatory mutation, and/or another receptor tyrosine kinase in a similar
pathway could compensate for KIT mutations on some genetic backgrounds.33There is evidence that epigenetic inheritance
can occur at this locus. Unlike the epigenetic inheritance described at the Agouti locus,3 this does not appear to be
associated with DNA methylation. It occurs in offspring of mice heterozygous for a targeted gene mutation (KITtm1Alf), which
contains a lacZ insertion in the first exon. The homozygous wild type offspring retain, to a variable extent, the mutant
phenotype of white feet and tail tip from a marked decrease in mature mRNA. Additionally, continued expression of full
length KIT mRNA and increased expression of the truncated KIT mRNA during the post meiotic phase of sperm formation
were observed in mice heterozygous for the mutant gene and in paramutated mice. These gene products were detected in
mature sperm as well. Suspecting that the presence of this RNA might induce the mutant phenotype, researchers
microinjected total RNA from heterozygotes into fertilized eggs which induced the mutant phenotype about half the time.34
Humans
In humans KIT resides on chromosome 4 (4q12). Loss-of-function mutations at this locus are associated with a condition
known as piebaldism, a dominant disorder characterized by patches of white skin on the forehead, abdomen, and/or limbs.
Thus far, nearly 50 different alleles have been identified in people exhibiting piebaldism including: 28 missense mutations, 5
splice mutations, 9 small deletions, 4 large deletions, and two small insertions. 35 The extent of depigmentation tends to
correlate with the region where the mutation occurs. Generally, mutations affecting the extracellular region of KIT are milder
while those affecting the intracellular region are more severe. 36 The explanation for this is that mutations in the intracellular
region generally prevent the receptor from transmitting the signal while retaining the extracellular site used to bind its ligand
and induce dimerization.37 In other words, these mutant receptors can tie up normal receptors because they can still form
dimers with them; this results in a dominant negative effect. Mutations affecting the extracellular region appear to prevent
the mutant receptor from forming dimers and only haploinsufficency results. Unlike similar mutations in the mouse, anemia
and fertility problems are not associated with piebaldism in humans. 38Gain-of-function mutations have also been identified
in KIT. Many of these are somatic mutations associated with sporadic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Most of these
mutations occur in exon 11 which codes the juxtamembrane domain of KIT. This intracellular region precedes the first
tyrosine kinase domain and is believed to be important in dimerization. Less commonly, specific mutations in exons 9, 13
and 17 have been identified. These regions code for portions of the extracellular region, first tyrosine kinase (TK) domain,
and second TK domain, respectively.Germline gain-of-function KIT mutations have been identified in a dozen families and
are associated with multiple GISTs. Mutation in the juxtamembrane domain is present in eight of these families. Among the
remaining families mutations have been identified affecting the extracellular region, the first TK domain, and the second TK
domain. Patients in some families also exhibit hyperpigmentation in certain regions of the body and/or mast cell tumors. 39 A
maximum of 10 alleles would be expected to make it through the Flood in humans. Considering both gain- and loss-offunction heritable mutations, more than 60 alleles have been identified to date. All are rare and would be post-Flood. While
the data in mice tended to emphasize the importance of genetic background on the severity of the phenotype for any
particular mutation, the human data highlights the importance of the location of the mutation in understanding its influence
on phenotype.
Other interesting patterns
KIT has a propensity to show up in unusual places. For example, an acute transforming feline retrovirus, Hardy-Zuckerman
4 feline sarcoma virus, was identified with the oncogene v-kit in its genome. This virus induces multicentric fibrosarcomas in
the domestic cat. Compared to the cellular form (often called c-kit) there are some deletions at either end of the gene as well
as a few point mutations.40KIT has also been identified on the B chromosomes in the fox and raccoon dog. B chromosomes
are supernumerary chromosomes, often rich in repetitive DNA, present in the karyotypes of some species. This was the first
instance of a coding gene identified on a B chromosome. It is possible this gene could be transcribed as it includes a
significant 5' region where transcription regulatory sequences would be expected to reside.41
Conclusion
KIT is an amazingly complex gene important in a number of critical pathways. Clearly there has been an increase in the
alleles at this locus for the species examined here. The vast majority of these alleles are clearly the result of mutation given
how they affect the function of the receptor. There is considerable diversity in the types of mutations found at this locus.
Unlike the previously studied receptor involved in coloration, the MC1R, KIT mutations are more likely to have pleiotropic
effects. Pleiotropy is affected by genetic background and the location and type of mutation.Pleiotropy was best documented
in mice. There may be several reasons for this. First, laboratory mice are often highly inbred. Possibly some lines carry other
mutations impairing their ability to compensate for the loss of KIT. Rodents in general seem to have a propensity for rather
rapid genetic change, and this may come at a cost of being less able to compensate for future mutations. Second, mice are
relatively easy to study in detail and some of the documented pleiotropy could be from increased scrutiny of these laboratory
animals. It was interesting that pleiotropy was virtually absent in pigs, where gene duplication involving KIT was identified in
many alleles.Interestingly, the number of human KIT alleles identified is comparable to the number documented for
human MC1R alleles.42 Many of these alleles are quite rare, but were identified because of color differences. While there are
suspected advantages to some mutant MC1R alleles in certain environments, no similar situation has been proposed
for KIT alleles in humans.43 The lack of documented pleiotropy for most humanKIT mutations suggests that other factors are
able to compensate for the loss of KIT. It is also possible that mild pleitropy associated with loss-of-function KIT alleles may
be identified with further scrutiny.One final observation about KIT mutations is their association with interesting variety. White
horses have been admired throughout history and are important in the model. White sows are very popular because of their
high productivity and good mothering ability. White coloration in animals and a white forelock in humans certainly add to the
variety and beauty found in natre.
The paradoxical urinary concentrating mechanism
by Charles Soper
Mammals and some birds concentrate urine (and thus conserve water) by a compact mechanism composed of several
necessary and interdependent properties. It is an excellent example of irreducible complexity, a system which fails if only
one component is removed. Its genesis poses a serious problem for gradualists. This is well illustrated by the 8-year

resistance to adopting the current model of urine concentration by the leading renal physiologist of the time. He was a
celebrated evolutionist, and opposed the model chiefly on the grounds that it violated gradualist principles.
*

Items with an asterisk are defined in the glossary at the end of this article.

Figure 1. Countercurrent exchanger. Passive heat flow in an arm or a

leg preserves core temperature and a sharp temperature gradient
from core to periphery.
Our current understanding of how the kidney concentrates urine is
founded on the countercurrent hypothesis proposed by Hargitay,
Kuhn and Wirz in 1951. 1 However, the hypothesis was by no means
readily accepted at first. On the contrary, the great renal physiologist
Homer Smith, was opposed to the idea until eight years later, when, in
the face of accumulating evidence, he conceded defeat. Darwinian
evolution was of special interest to him, and he believed it to be
foundational to explaining renal function.2 As he recounts, it was his
adherence to strict gradualism which led to his considerable
resistance to the new theory.3 Curiously, an examination of the
evolution of renal function, marking the centenary of Homer Smiths
birthday, bypasses this.4
Darwins challenge
Darwins theory of evolution requires each modification of structure or function to be slight, and for each change to be
justified by an advantage for survival. He adhered strictly to Carolus Linnaeuss maxim Natura non facit saltum (nature
doesnt make leaps).If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been
formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. 5He carefully qualifies this
statement with three conditions under which relatively abrupt modifications might be observed. These are: firstly, the
specialization of an organ possessing two functions into one function only (citing Hydras ability to respire and digest from
the same surface); second, the modification of one of two organs both performing an identical function to a separate
function (e.g. the simultaneous respiration of oxygen from water via the gills, or from air via the swimbladder, the latter
putative converting to primitive lungs); and finally, the acceleration or retardation of the period of sexual reproduction in
relation to ordinary maturation. Richard Dawkins restates this basic claim as the holy grail of Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. 6 On
this basis of gradual steps, he even aspires to account for the evolution of the eye.
The countercurrent* concentrating mechanism
Reptiles and amphibians are able to excrete nitrogen-based waste products via their kidneys, but are unable to concentrate
urine. Concentration is the unique property of mammals and some birds by virtue of an extraordinary concentrating system.
Its mechanism is counterintuitive and complex. Before examining its simplified essence, we review a more familiar, related
device, the countercurrent exchanger. Consider, for example, the system of heat exchange in an arm or a leg on an icy day
(fig. 1). Blood coursing from the heart into the arteries is at core temperature, but as it passes down the arm, it cools rapidly.
By the time it reaches a gloveless hand, it may reach temperatures similar to the environment. As the blood passes back
through the veins, it warms again rapidly, and by the time of its arrival at the shoulder, while still less than core temperature,
it is much warmer than the air around. This conservation of valuable core heat is facilitated by an intimate relationship
between the arteries and the vein network. Heat is exchanged from the arteries (leaving the heart) to the veins (as they
return). The result is a sharp gradient in temperature down the arm. There is a hairpin loop, with flow running into, and out of
it, and an exchange of energy between its two limbs. In this situation, all the transfer is passive, or downhill.
Figure
2. Countercurrent
concentrator, showing
transport and permeability characteristics.
Countercurrent exchangers* of a different kind form a
vital part of the kidneys concentrating mechanism, but
its
driving
force
is
a
countercurrent
concentrator*(originally, but less helpfully, described as
a multiplier). Unlike an exchanger, whichpreserves an
existing
gradient
by
passive
transport,
the
concentrator generates a gradient by active transport.
The transport that concerns us in the kidney is not of
heat, but of salt and water. The lining of the tubules of
the kidneys is equipped with a remarkably varied array
of ion pumps and channels, each with a specific
function and location, some of which are still being
discovered and defined.7 The arrangement of these
pumps and channels is complex, as are their
interdependent functions, but to understand the
countercurrent model, it is only necessary to grasp
some
fundamental
principles.
The
transport
characteristics are set out in figure 2. The descending
limb of the loop is permeable to water and salt, which
for our purposes means the electrolytes sodium and
chloride. The lining of the ascending limb is largely impermeable to salt and water. However, it possesses a system of
pumps which result in the active removal of salt from the tubule.It is difficult at first to see how active salt transport out of an
impermeable tube should lead ultimately to a higher concentration gradient. After all, what takes place within the lumen of
the ascending tube is dilution, which is why this part of the nephron* is often called the diluting segment. However, the
looped arrangement enables salt pumped from the ascending limb to pass into the permeable descending limb, which leads
to an incremental increase in salt gradient as the fluid in the loop reaches the tip. To help picture this mentally, consider a
loop with these characteristics filled with, and surrounded by, saline at a particular concentration. As the fluid is driven
through the loop, the gradients slowly change, first in the ascending limb in response to the pumps and then in the
descending limb in response to local increases in salt concentration. This series of events is illustrated in figure 3. In life, the

two microscopic limbs of the loop are long and intimately intertwined; therefore the length of the axis of the loop is vastly
greater than distance between its two limbs.

Figure 3. Progressing axial concentration gradient with countercurrent flow and active transport
The driving force for the concentrator, or single effect as the original paper describes it, is the energetic pumping of sodium
and chloride from the ascending limb of the loop. In the figure, a hypothetical maximum gradient of 200 mmol/l is generated
between the lumen of the loop and the surrounding fluid. As filtrate runs through the loop, the first event is a progressing
dilution of fluid as it rises up the ascending limb. Progressively, salt pumped from the ascending limb accumulates in fluid
around it and then by passive diffusion in the descending limb. Salt is passively concentrated in the fluid descending in the
loop. Then as it flows past the hairpin bend, it, too, is progressively diluted inside the loop by the salt pumps in the
ascending limb. This accumulation of salt in the interstitium* and in the descending limb gives rise to an axial salt gradient
from the base to the tip of the loop. Eventually, as salt diffusion dissipating this gradient matches the pumping mechanism
which generates it, a steady state is reached.The loop is also coupled with the final pathway of urine (the collecting duct *)
before it is excreted (fig. 4). By varying the water permeability of the wall of the collecting ducts, fluid running inside it, up the
concentration gradient generated by the loop, can be concentrated. This water permeability is controlled by the action of a
hormone called vasopressin (VP). If VP is present, permeability is switched on and water is drawn out of the duct by the
concentration gradient generated by the adjacent loop. If VP is absent, permeability is not activated, water remains in the
duct and dilute urine is excreted.
An obstacle for gradualism
Figure 4. The coupling of the collecting duct with the
nephron loop enables removal of water from urine before
excretion. The concentration gradient generated by the
loop is denoted by shading. Water permeability in the
collecting duct is under the control of the hormone
vasopressin (VP).
It seems impossible to account for the urinary
concentrating mechanism by numerous, successive,
slight modifications, even after taking each of Darwins
qualifications into account. Urine concentration requires
the simultaneous presence of several contrasting
properties in different parts of the nephron loop. Can
anything other than a large and precise leap be
conceived to account for its existence? Four major
contrasting properties, each essential to any utility of the
whole, are evident: its biologically eccentric hairpin loop
structure, a salt- and water-permeable descending limb, a
salt- and water-impermeable ascending limb, combined
with uphill active salt pumping, which is confined to the
ascending limb.How could a structure derived from
straight reptilian nephrons gradually progress towards a
long, hairpin-looped configuration, after a small-stepped
Darwinian manner, unless there was an adaptive
advantage in doing so? What use could this be if not to
concentrate urine? Could urine even begin to be
concentrated until this process had progressed to very
near similarity of shape to a mammalian nephron? How
could the descending and ascending limbs progressively acquire contrasting water permeability characteristics, despite the
fact that such properties would be of no adaptive advantage until an axial concentration gradient had been established?
What selection benefit is there if the ascending limb of the loop, as distinct from other portions of the nephron, progressively
accumulated considerable potential for ionic transport until all the rest of the concentrating mechanism was in place? If the
descending limb also shared this marked active ionic transport, then the necessity for a clear distinction between the two for
both water and sodium permeability is only heightened. However, multiple nephron loops with all the other necessary

properties but insubstantial active salt transport in the ascending limb would be completely futile for urine concentration.
Nephrons with little difference in water permeability between the two limbs, despite every other necessary property, would
again serve no purpose, particularly to the loop, other than to dissipate energy and thereby become a liability. A nephron of
reptilian configuration with all the appropriate transport and characteristics, both active and passive, would achieve nothing
other than generate valueless, transient ion fluxes, at the cost of its possessor.The real difficulty is that none of these quite
different and necessary properties appear to confer any distinguishing selective value unless all are found together
simultaneously, and found to be substantially present; substantially enough, that is, to begin to subserve the concentration of
urine, thus providing a selection advantage to its possessor. A slight tendency towards the demonstration of any, or all, of
these properties by a reptilian nephron will not generate any axial gradient, until a discrete state of quite advanced similarity
in all four aspects to the mammalian nephron is attained. If one aspect lacks, urine concentration will utterly fail.Such a
commitment to gradualism undergirded Homer Smiths considerable reluctance to adopt Kuhn and Hargitays model. As he
puts it:
I still do not like it: it seems extravagant and physiologically complicatedthough so is the whole glomerular filtrationtubular reabsorption pattern . Least of all however, do I like to see the squamous epithelium of the thin segment freely
permeable to water (if not to sodium also) in the descending limb, only to acquire water impermeability and active sodium
transport at the tip of the loop for no better reason, apparently, than the circumstance that it has turned a corner.2
This comment begs the question, is evolution such a valuable key to understanding nature, as we so often hear, or has it
become a blinker, blinding even the brightest of minds from perceiving the intricacies of the Designers handiwork? Has it
become a presupposition to be defended in spite of the evidence?Nor do these four principle characteristics constitute the
only foundation of the mechanism. The coupling of the loop with the collecting duct is also essential to concentrating urine
prior to its excretion, with its variable water permeability under the control of VP. Without this control mechanism, urine
concentration would lack regulation, water balance regulation would become impossible, and the device would become a
dangerous liability. Similarly, maintenance of the concentration gradient in the loop requires that the blood supply matches
and follows the course of the loop exactly. The capillary network around the loop in this way acts as a countercurrent
exchanger, similar to the arrangements of the blood supply in the arm for preserving core heat. This enables the capillary
contents to match the osmolarity of the loop, in some desert rodents reaching levels of up to 35 times plasma levels. These
arrangements in some species realize remarkable intricacy.8,9 These blood vessel exchangers must also be sufficiently
configured to allow for reasonable efficacy, right from the outset. Otherwise, any axial gradient would immediately disperse
by downhill transport from isosmotic* blood.10
Gradualistic counterexamples examined
To defend the possibility that the looped nephron might have evolved gradually from mammals, two examples are
sometimes cited. The first is the looped tubules found in the kidneys of two species of lamprey, Lampetra
fluviatilis and Petromyzon marinus,11,12 which have been claimed as evidence of a vertebrate antecedent for the loop of
Henle. The claim is dubious. Briefly, micropuncture studies in the former showed no change in electrolyte concentration in
the ascending limb of the loop, and although tubular fluid osmolarity falls by 13%, this appears mainly due to non-electrolytic
osmolar transport,13 more characteristic of an earlier portion of the nephron than the loop of Henle*. The ascending limb, in
contrast to its descending partner, reabsorbs water, which destroys the possibility of generating a concentration
gradient.13 The length of the loop, at 1.1 mm seems too short compared even to simple avian nephrons 14 and the renal
perfusion rate too slow to enable countercurrent concentration.15 Therefore, these loops, and other looping structures akin to
them, such as those found in the dogfish, Triakis scyllia, do not serve as a useful functional paradigm for Henles loop, 16 and
are not observed widely in kinds closer to birds and mammals.The second example is the smooth transition of forms
between the reptilian (straight) and mammalian (looped) nephrons found in the kidney of Gambels quail, Lophortyx
gambii.14 This might be used to indicate that however the avian nephron did attain an advanced state, it most likely did so
by small, discrete alterations. Yet even its modest concentrating ability, at 2 to 3 times plasma osmolarity, is dependent not
on the transitional nephrons, but on the longest-looped mammalian nephrons (still short by mammalian standards). The
situation has an analogy in mammals, in which nephron length varies considerably in the same kidney. Short-looped
nephrons depend on, and augment, the concentrating work of longer-looped nephrons.8 Without denying a contribution from
intermediate reptile/mammal nephrons in the quail, their small assistance is wholly dependent on a pre-existent
osmotic* gradient, generated and maintained by the longer, more-advanced nephrons. A kidney entirely composed of
intermediate nephrons of an attainable kind would not concentrate, despite considerable energy expenditure. It is therefore
no basis upon which to assert the gradual modification of structure, when adaptive utility to the whole organ, or rather whole
creature, is obligated for every new investment. Evolutionary gradualism appears far too thrifty for this. It is too short-sighted
a workman to justify its reputation as a watchmaker, a visionary engineer capable of crafting improbable marvels.
Conclusion
Can any distinctive purpose for which Henles loop exists be proposed, other than urinary concentration, which might
obviate these difficulties? If not, here is another argument as to why the presuppositions of neo-Darwinism require profound
revision.
Glossary
Collecting duct:

The final common pathway for filtered fluid before its excreted as urine.

Countercurrent:

A looped system in which two flows run side-by-side in opposite directions as they flow through the
loop.

Countercurrent
concentrator:

A device which generates a solute concentration or energy gradient along the axis of a
countercurrent loop, by a combination of loop properties, including active transport in the limb that
exits the loop.

Countercurrent
exchanger:

A device which preserves an existing gradient by passive (downhill) energy or mass exchange
across the two limbs of the loop.

Interstitium:

The extracellular tissue and space surrounding the loop.

Isosmotic:

An equivalent solute concentration to mammalian plasma (about 280 mOsm).

Loop of Henle:

The mammalian nephron loop, named after its first describer.

Nephron:

A unit composed of the structures which filter and modify urine. A human kidney contains about
one million of them.

Osmotic:

The property of a solute concentrate arising from the tendency of solutes to flow down their
concentration gradient. Osmosis is capable of generating considerable hydraulic pressure across
a semipermeable membrane.
Vampire moth discovered
by David Catchpoole

According to National Geographic News, entomologists may have caught

evolution in the act.1 They have reportedly found a previously
undocumented population of vampire moths in far-eastern Russia. The
moths look just like a fruit-eating moth species,Calyptra thalictri, which
lives in central and southern Europe.2 But the Russian population of moths
sucks blood! Entomologists say it looks like the bloodsucking moths have
evolved from purely fruit-eating ones.Film footage1 shows researchers
offering their hands to the moths, which the moths accepted, drilling their
hook-and-barb-lined tongues under the skin. One researcher can be heard
saying Its starting to hurt as a moth began sucking her blood. The bloodsucking can go on for several minutesin fact, the researchers reported
that some moths sucked for more than 20 minutes!Entomologists say that
this discovery suggests that the Russian population of moths could be on
an evolutionary trajectory away from other Calyptra thalictri populations.1
However, contrary to the researchers claim, this is most
certainly not evolution at work.1 Behaviour modification is not
evolution! The moths are still moths. The vampire moth is more aptly
viewed as yet another example of how a creature that is normally herbivorous can turn to non-plant food sources when it
suits, as has happened with many creatures.38
Lizards moving from eggs to live birth: evolution in action?
by Shaun Doyle
Published: 18 November 2010(GMT+10)
The lizards Saiphos equalis, Lacerta vivipara (pictured)
and Lerista bougainvillii are the only three lizard species
known that have the capacity for both oviparity and viviparity.
Lizards reproduce in an amazing variety of ways. Some lay
eggs (oviparity) and some bear live young (viviparity). Most
species rely mostly on egg yolk for nutrition during
embryonic development; a few have next to no yolk and rely
completely on a placental connection to the mother. Some
lizard placentas even compare with the complexity of
mammalian placentas. Some species can vary the timing of
birth. There are a rare few species that even have variety in
their reproductive mode.National Geographic recently reported on one of these rare few species that have differing
reproductive modes between populationsone of only three in the worldthe yellow-bellied three-toed skink Saiphos
equalis.1,2S. equalis is a small skink located mainly from the mountains to the coastline of New South Wales, Australia.
Smoke and mirrors
National Geographic portrayed these skinks as evolving from egg-laying to live birth:
Evolution has been caught in the act, according to scientists who are decoding how a species of Australian lizard is
abandoning egg-laying in favour of live birth. 1This is mere smoke and mirrors; theres no evidence S.
equalis is abandoning oviparity. No oviparous populations of S. equalis are showing signs of changing reproductive mode.
There is a difference in reproductive mode between populations that appears to be related to differences in climate, but
individual skinks are stable; they dont change reproductive mode throughout their lifetimes even when climates change.3
Even if some populations of S. equalis were genuinely making a transition from one reproductive mode to another, the
species as a whole is not moving in that direction; only certain populations.
All your eggs in one basket?
Evolutionists believe this is a transition from oviparity to viviparity because of the way they interpret observations about
lizard paleontology and biology. Oviparous organisms appear lower in the stratigraphic column than viviparous organisms,
and evolutionists interpret this geologic column as a time sequence of millions of years of evolution, so they believe
oviparity came before viviparity. They believe the current variation in birthing practice in lizards is related to a general trend
to move from oviparity to viviparity. As a result, evolutionists state that viviparity has evolved independently in reptiles nearly
100 times, and that squamates (lizards and snakes) account for the vast majority of such events. 1,4 S. equalis becomes a
prime example because both reproductive modes exist within the one species, and oviparity in S. equalisis somewhat
intermediate in form between normal lizard oviparity and viviparity.There is however a another option: many types of lizard
(including S. equalis) originally had the capacity for both reproductive modes, but due to natural selection most
subsequently lost the ability for one or the other. This is consistent with the post-Flood dispersion of the kinds. Evolutionists
dont generally consider this possibility because its a process of information segmentation and loss, which gives no support
to microbes-to-microbiologists evolution, and also gives no chronological priority to oviparity.From this, we would expect to
see much variation in the mode of birth/placental complexity in lizards because they originally had the information for
numerous modes of reproduction. As described above, there is a multitude of reproductive methods among lizards.5

We would also expect most species to have only one reproductive mode because as the lizards spread from the ark after
the Flood, genetic bottlenecks would have given rise to rapid diversification under natural selection. We find that most lizard
species around the world are eitheroviparous or viviparous, but not both.2,6We may, however, expect to see a few species
that retain the diversity, but not many, since we would expect most to have specialized after the genetic bottleneck of the
Flood. Since there are only three known species of lizard that retain diversity in reproductive mode (S. equalis,2,7 Lerista
bougainvillii,8 and Lacerta vivipara9), this is also consistent with the young age model.
Is it an intermediate form?
Viviparous populations of S. equalis retain eggs to the later stages of embryonic development, whereas most oviparous
lizards lay their eggs much earlier.5 Therefore, evolutionists have a point that S. equalis is significant for understanding
mechanisms of reproductive variation among lizards because it represents an intermediate form on the oviparityviviparity
spectrum of lizards. However, this does not necessarily mean that since S. equalis is an intermediate form that it is evidence
for the evolution of viviparity de novo. This intermediate form can also be interpreted as a parallel of an ancestral form in (at
least some) lizards that had the potential for both oviparity and viviparity. Polarization between reproductive modes
occurred, as Smith and Shine pointed out, because the intermediate form is not reproductively stable long-term. 5 But this
favours natural selection from an ancestrally large gene pool rather than the repeatedde novo creation of viviparity because
specialization and information loss is the norm in biologyit is commonly observed.The only transition that may possibly
arise is if the skink populations are on the whole transitioning from the warmer coastal climates to the colder mountain
climates. The skinks from within contiguous populations dont show variety in birthing practice with changing climate. Natural
selection likely weeded out the variety in birthing method in individual populations, though the individual populations are still
not yet reproductively isolated from one another.Natural selection involves only a sorting (often involving a loss) of genetic
information, which adds nothing new. As a population becomes more specialized via natural selection, it is less capable of
adapting to changing conditions in the future. The problem is that evolution requires vast amounts of new information to be
constantly added to the biosphere.Moreover, de novo creation of viviparity requires the production of new regulatory
systems which could only evolve via many information-adding random mutations. However, experimental science is hardpressed to find examples of random mutations that produce new information, where neo-Darwinism requires many. 10 We
also see an inexorable trend of genetic deterioration caused by near-neutral mutations that will eventually lead to the
extinction of all multi-cellular life.11,12 Molecules-to-man evolution expects the exact opposite of what we see happening in
biology, so the de novo creation of viviparity via evolution is highly unlikely.
Conclusions
Despite what evolutionists think they are seeing, theyre really just seeing one more example of natural selection, which is
not microbes-to-man evolution.
The evolution of the horse
by Mats Moln
The horse series has long been a showcase of evolution. But in reality, this series is the best argument that can be
presented against evolution from the fossil record. 1 Creationists have various opinions on whether the horse series is in fact
made up of different created kinds. This article addresses some of the current problems, and concludes that the horse
series probably comprise three different created kinds, not including all animals that have been
labeled Hyracotherium. Hyracotherium itself appears to contain several different created kinds such as animals similar to
tapirs.
Horse fossils have been found in sedimentary strata at the beginning of the Tertiary period during a time-span called the
Eocene (approximately 50 million years ago, according to uniformitarian dating). They are usually
labeled2Eohippus or Hyracotherium (see figure 1).
Illustration by Jan Nord
Figure 1. Evolutionary tree of the horse constructed by
George Gaylord Simpson in 1951. The tree was later
simplified5, but has recently become even more
branched and confusing with the addition of more
members as a result of new fossil finds (see ref. 2).
Possible evolutionary gaps are here marked with a
question mark. Equus = modern horse. View larger
imageAccording to the theory of evolution, it is possible
to follow horse evolution through millions of years: how
the horse slowly became larger and stronger (figure 1),
lost many of its toes (figure 2), and how its toothstructure changed when it moved from a diet of broadleaved plants, shrubs and trees (browsing) to eating
hard, dry grass (grazing) (figure 3).3,4Horse evolution is
believed to have been driven by a cooling and drying
climate. Early horses supposedly lived in humid forests
full of plants rich in foliage. Their toes, four at the front
and three at the rear, sprawled out at different angles
which helped them from sinking in the marshy ground.
As the climate became drier, foliage plants disappeared
and huge grass fields formed. This forced grazers to
become better runners to be able to escape their
predators.All horses resemble each other so much that
they have been classified in the same familyEquidae.
Because of this close similarity it can therefore often be
difficult to discern any differences through the study of
fossil skeletons alone. Another caution in identifying
vertebrate fossils is that the variation in structures even
within a genus of living animals can often be so great
that it overlaps with the variation in other groups; e.g.
there is much analogy in the tooth structure between
different carnivores, even when the animals are not

classified in the same genus (or sometimes not even the same family). The most important diagnostic differences between
different groups of animals are often in the construction of the soft parts. Many findings of fossil horses furthermore only
consist of teeth or parts of jaws.
Groups of horses
In the horse series, it is possible to discern certain animals that
could represent created kinds, even though we only have access
to fossil skeletons. The following facts seem to support such an
interpretation.
In the horse series there are at least two evolutionary gaps
a) The
first
gap
occurs
at Epihippus8
Only sparse fossil pieces have been found of this animal, and
they resemble those of the earlierOrohippus, Eohippus and other
formerly-identified hyracotherid species.9
b) The second gap occurs in or just after the group Parahippus 10
The
early Parahippus species
are
supposed
to
resemble Miohippus and Mesohippus while the latter ones are
supposed to look like Merychippus; this is only partly supported by
the
fossil
findings.11Furthermore,
the
fossil
material
for Parahippus is incomplete.12 It would probably be possible to
classify the different parts of Parahippusas belonging to two
different animalsMiohippus (figure 4) and Merychippus.13 This
latter result can also be inferred by the work of Cavanaugh et
al.,14 as Parahippus showed similarities to 14 of 18 species of
horses. Therefore, the Parahippus step in the horse series
appears to be a mixed up group of unrelated fossils.
Illustration by Jan NordFigure 2. The legs of horses, which are
taken as support for evolution. The left leg in each pair in the
picture is from the front, and the right leg is from the rear.6
Since 1989, the monophyly of Hyracotherium have been
challenged 9
In 1992, the genus Hyracotherium was reclassified as five animals
belonging to different families of which only one group was
regarded as having anything to do with horses.15 More recent
research has reclassified these animals into ten different genera
and at least three families, of which many are not supposed to
have anything to do with the horse series but are similar to e.g. tapirs (family Tapiromorpha). 9 One Hyracotherium species
(angustidens) has been renamedEohippus, and all the other Hyracotherium species except one, have been given new
genus names. The single animal still retaining the nameHyracotherium (leporinum) is no longer in the horse series but is
regarded as belonging next to the Palaeotheriidae, which resemble tapirs and rhinoceros.
Early horses have been preserved in strata from the same evolutionary age as several later horses
Hyracotherium/Eohippus and Orohippus do for instance appear in the fossil record at the same time
as Epihippus. Mesohippus and Miohippus appear together with Merychippus and Parahippus. Almost all other horses (with
a possible exception of one or two)Parahippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equusand possibly also Miohippusare
represented at the same time during much of the period when they have been found as fossils. 16 (But especially in the
newer evolutionary schemes, different names have been given to very similar animals, giving the appearence of evolution
as well as providing fame to their discoverers; see examples in Froehlich 2002 9 and MacFadden 20054). Fossils
ofHyracotherium (sic) have also been found very high up in the strata (Pliocene), but these findings have been rejected as
reworked (i.e. eroded and deposited at a later strata) in spite of the fact that the geological observations do not show any
signs of disturbance.17 Thus, the fact that most of the horses lived almost at the same time undermines their proposed
evolution.
Transitional forms between horses with teeth designed for browsing (Parahippus) and those with teeth for
grazing (Merychippus) are rare13
Illustration by Jan Nord
Figure 3. Tooth construction in leaf-eating (the
two on the left) and grass-eating horses (the two
on the right).7
Teeth on browsing (leaf eating) horses have
closed, very narrow roots with small holes for
their blood supply and nerves; i.e. these are teeth
that wear down as the animal gets older. Teeth
on grazing (grass eating) horses have an open
root with many blood vessels which supply the
teeth with lots of nutrients so they can keep
growing during the entire life of the animal; this is
termed hypsodonty, meaning high-crowned teeth.
This change of tooth structure from bunodont
(low-crowned with rounded cusps) to hypsodont
(high-crowned)
is
not
just
supposed
microevolution, but a complete change in
design, even though it may not seem to be much
of a new thing for those not acquainted with tooth
construction.18 There is no evidence for any
change of one tooth structure to another, even
though it has been suggested by some
authors.19 Some animals ate both grass and
foliage,3,4 but this does not help to explain the
transformation of one kind of teeth to the other.

Three completely different animals

The animals that have been interpreted as different horses are therefore, with the above facts at hand, easily identified as
belonging to three completely different animal kinds, instead of various horse intermediates which supposedly evolved from
one and the same original ancestor. The created kinds, not counting all Hyracotherium members that have been removed to
new families, should therefore more or less correspond to the following three groups (note that not all the newly named
horses and not all members of the side groups are mentioned below):Eohippus (and many fossils that were formerly
labeled Hyracotherium, but are classified into
the
family Equidae with
new
genus
names9), Orohippus and Epihippus.Mesohipp
us, Miohippus, certain Parahippus and
probably most of the horses branching out
from these three groups. (The horse series
has been rearranged and many new genera
have
been
added;
e.g. Neohipparion, Nannippus and
the Hipparion clades have been moved close
to Parahippus and away from Merychippus,4 in
contrast to figure 1, so we can not be sure if
the classification/grouping of all the fossils is
correct. But the horses branching out
from Merychippus in figure 1 are still classified
in the subfamily Equinae, and are therefore
combined in group three, below. But all these
details cannot be dealt with in this article).
Figure 4. Two horses, Neohipparion (right) and Miohippus (left) from the Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles.
Merychippus and those horses branching out from this group, includingPliohippus and all later horses (including
the Hipparion clades). (Note that in the recent revisions of horse evolution there are two different genera with the
name Merychippus: I and II. Merychippus is therefore thought to be polyphyletic, i.e. it is believed to have evolved twice.
These two genera have been placed on different evolutionary lines. Genus I is in the original place leading to Equus, as
seen in most horse evolution diagrams. Genus II has been moved away from the line leading to Equusit is
contemporaneous with Parahippus during most of its extension in timeand it is believed to be ancestor to
the Hipparion clades as described by MacFadden 2005.4)The animals in group 3 are all classified in the same subfamily
Equinae.20Although, Cavanaugh et al.10 discovered that the fossil animals could be sorted into subfamilies, they disregarded
this finding and instead constructed their own horse evolution tree. It would not be difficult to create a similar tree by simply
arranging any number of unrelated living animals in a series from small to large (figure 5).
No horse evolution
The Cavanaugh, Wood and Wise hypothesis, 14 that the horse series (including the genus Hyracotherium) shows real (postFlood) microevolution (or linear/progressive variation) is, based on the above results, untenable as there is no progression
in horse evolution (except maybe locally) and the data show a mixture of various horse-like animals. Moreover, the
Cavanaugh et al. paper14 was based mainly on statistical data from one 1989 source (and some discussions from more
recent creationist journals), and it did not qualify the differentHyracotherium finds. Also, the Froehlich paper9, which
reclassified all the Hyracotherium species, was published in February 2002, about a year before the deadline of the
Cavanaugh 2003 et al. ICC paper.14 This lack of clarity regarding the Hyracotherium finds has also not been addressed in an
article by Wood in 2008,21 even though Wood referred to a 1992 book by MacFadden 22 who stated that Hyracotherium was
not one single animal but instead several genera belonging to different families. Whitmore and Wise in 2008 even
use Hyracotherium to establish an early post-Flood date, and this non-horse animal is mentioned as the first member in the
horse series.23
Illustration by Jonathan Chong
Figure 5. From left to right, Eland, Gnu,
Bushbuck, Gazelle and Dik-dik. Even animals
alive today can be arranged into a
hypothetical
evolutionary
series,
since
variations in the skeleton within one group of
animals often overlap with the variation in
other groups within the same family. This does
not prove, however, that any individual animal
has evolved into another.Froehlich,9 who
completely
renamed
most Hyracotherium species and placed them
in different genera and families, used
statistics, but also provided criticism to the way statistics can be misused in this case. But, at any rate, one cannot use
statistics on design or on a limited amount of data (which in these cases are mostly teeth and jaws) to find out how evolution
supposedly occurred, as the above authors have done. 9,14 Statistical analysis in this case does not take into consideration
function or completed/designed living entities, but can only compare small differences (see also more critical points in
Froehlich9). In this case, most of the statistical analysis has been carried out on the small differences in tooth
enamel/structure and jaws, and very little work has been done on other parts of the body. This does skew the interpretation
of the data in a similar way as if, for example, we would conduct statistics on 75 differences on the outside appearance of
the eyes of octopuses and humansthe analysis would probably show that we evolved from octopuses.Although it is easy
to discuss and criticize single finds, or a single place where fossils have been found, according to all the available data there
appears to be three groups of animals that closely correspond to the subfamily groups of Equidae, and only the subfamily
Equinae appears to represent horses. The discussion about post-Flood and Flood criteria, based on horse evolution by e.g.
Cavanaugh et al. 200314and Wood 200821, must therefore rest upon criteria other than the purported post-Flood
microevolution of the horse resulting from a changing environment, as proposed by the common evolutionary story (see
other criteria for Flood boundaries in Oard 2007 24). There were also no real environments where these animals could have
lived, only large desertsmost fossils are found in sedimentary deposits which show evidence of being from the Flood, but
there is no evidence of a plant cover which could feed large herds of animals, and no proper soil. 25 There is also no support
for changes in environment, as evolutionists and Cavanaugh et al.14 and Wood21 insist on based on speculative

interpretations.In the case of the horse, it could be body size that governed how quickly the animals sank, were transported
and buried, and then sometimes eroded and redeposited, during the Flood or in the close aftermath of the Flood. This would
have been before the continental environment had become habitable again and living animals repopulated it. Small animals
with similar construction commonly disintegrate and sink quicker than large animals, and smaller bones are also more easily
transported by currents after having reached the bottom. Also, during post-Flood catastrophes, living animals could have
been buried together with reworked, dead, unfossilized or partially fossilized animal remains buried during the Flood.
Conclusion
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. 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 one has explained how new, specialized kinds of teeth could have supposedly evolved, and it appears rather to be a
case of intelligent design instead of microevolution (variation within a kind, as suggested by various creationists) or
macroevolution (new kinds of organisms, as suggested by evolutionists).
The Cavanaugh et al. (2003)14 hypothesis of intrabaraminic variation of all animals that belong to Equidae (or animals that
they did put into Equidae, even if the evolutionists put some of them in different families) is not well supported by the
available evidence and ought therefore to be abandoned.
Addendum
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 10 3,000,000. He believed, however, that natural selection would be able to solve this
problem.26 But this faith did not help him in the end, and will not help any other evolutionist either, as this calculation is based
on the origin of positive mutations, even before natural selection would start to work. If all electrons in the universe (about
1080) would have participated in 1012 reactions every second, during the 30 billion years which evolutionists have put as the
upper age limit of the universe, there would still not have been more than c. 10 110 possibly interactionsstill a long way from
the Huxley calculation.1
Karyotypic and allelic diversity within the canid baramin (Canidae)
by Jean K. Lightner
Previous studies suggest that all dog-like creatures (canids, family Canidae) belong to a single created kind. As unclean
animals, all modern canids are descendants of two canids preserved on the Ark during the Flood. This pair of canids would
have carried a limited amount of genetic diversity. They would be expected to have had a fairly uniform arrangement of
chromosomes (low karyotypic diversity) and up to four different versions of any particular gene (allelic diversity). Today there
is considerably more karyotypic and allelic diversity within the canids. The patterns imply that more than random mutation
and natural selection are involved; instead, certain genetic components appear designed to change and numerous designed
mechanisms may be involved in driving many of these changes. This suggests that animals were designed to be able to
undergo certain genetic mutations which would enable them to adapt to a wide range of environmental challenges while
minimizing risk.

Table 1. List of canid species and their normal diploid (2n) number which were included in a phylogenomic analysis by
Graphodatsky et al.7
There is a need to more fully describe intrabaraminic (within kind) variation on a genetic level for understanding the basis for
the variety we see within baramins today. It has been pointed out that the majority of mutations are near neutral. 1 Yet
intuitively, I would expect random (chance) errors in such a complex system to be more consistently disastrous unless the
system was designed to change.2 If genetic systems were designed to allow for such changes, then mutations (changes in
the nucleotide sequence of DNA) are not necessarily just errors or accidents. On the contrary, some mutations may be
directed to allow animals to adapt in the present fallen world. By examining intrabaraminic genetic diversity, we should be
able to discover a clearer picture regarding the role of mutations in the development of the diversity found in animals
today.Previous baraminic studies have identified all canids (family Canidae) as belonging to a single baramin. 3Since they
are unclean animals, all living canids would have descended from a single breeding pair preserved on the Ark about 4,500
years ago.4,5 This historical information is important because it suggests there was a limited amount of diversity present in
canids at that time. Today, this family is represented by 34 species that are widely distributed around the world. 6 There are
considerable data available on the karyotypic and allelic diversity in protein coding genes for several of these species. A
brief overview of the data is presented here.
Karyotype
The family Canidae exhibits the most highly rearranged karyotypes* of any family within the order Carnivora. Normal diploid
numbers vary from 34 for the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) to 78 for the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) and dhole (aka Asiatic
Wild Dog; Cuon alpinus) (table 1). The Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) is polymorphic for a centric fusion; diploid numbers of 49

and 48 are found in individuals carrying one or two copies respectively of this fusion. Phylogenomic analysis suggests that
82 may have been the ancestral karyotype. Within the 10 species that have been studied in detail it appears that
approximately 80 rearrangements have occurred. This includes numerous fusions, both centric and tandem, fissions,
pericentric inversions and/or centromere transpositions.7 Several paracentric inversions, and even whole arm (telomere to
centromere) inversions, have been implicated based on the differences in loci order among species (figure 1).8,9
Figure 1. Diagrams depicting some of the chromosomal
rearrangements reported within the canid baramin. Such
rearrangements often result in the loss of relatively small
portions of DNA. Fusions (top row) involve combining two
distinct chromosomes to form one; to become stable, one
centromere must then be silenced. Inversions (bottom
row) involve reorienting a portion of DNA within an existing
chromosome. There also is evidence that the amount of
heterochromatin can be adjusted. These types of
rearrangements are too complex to be the result of purely
chance events. While rearrangements do involve some
risk, they probably also have purpose, such as adaptation
in a fallen world.Evidence of similar rearrangements is
present within other baramins and even within some
species.1012 Detailed studies of rearrangements in
ruminants strongly suggest that numerous designed
mechanisms operate to repair breaks, silence an extra
centromere, adjust amounts of heterochromatin and
possibly alter the position of the centromere. 13 The fact that such rearrangements often become fixed within a species
suggests that they may be beneficial under certain circumstances. However, fixing these rearrangements also likely required
a small population, since it is difficult to fix even beneficial mutations in a large population. 14 Thus, rearrangements should
not be viewed as a major genetic accident from which animals occasionally may recover. Instead, the presence of multiple
designed mechanisms enabling translocations to occur while maintaining viability of the animal suggests that such
rearrangements are likely helpful for adaptation in the present fallen world. This is not to say that such rearrangements are
without risk. For example, many heterozygous carriers experience some decline in fertility. Occasionally there are more
serious results with infertility and/or serious chromosomal aberrations in the offspring. 13 Furthermore, these types of
rearrangements certainly dont explain the origin of chromosomes.The red fox and both subspecies of raccoon dog carry B
chromosomes as part of their normal karyotype. 7These small, supernumerary chromosomes can vary in number both within
as well as among individuals. Generally their numbers are low, with three to five being typical for the red fox. 15 They usually
contain significant amounts of repetitive sequences and, until recently, it was thought that they did not contain any protein
coding genes. However, the canid B chromosomes have been found to contain the KIT gene, which encodes a
transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptor involved in the proliferation, migration and differentiation of hematopoietic,
melanoblast, and primordial germ cells. Adjacent sequences were detected, including the RPL23A pseudogene and, in the
raccoon dog only, a portion of the more distal KDRgene. This suggests that the B chromosomes were derived from an
autosome in a common ancestor and have been lost in other lineages descending from this ancestor. Further studies need
to be done to determine if the KIT gene of B chromosomes is actually transcribed.16
Major histocompatibility complex genes
The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) consists of a number of genes involved in immune function and which are
known for high allelic diversity. Several dog leukocyte antigen (DLA) genes have been evaluated for polymorphisms. As of
2006, there were 90 alleles recognized for DLA-DRB1, 22 for DLA-DQA1 and 54 for DLA-DQB1, with more expected to be
discovered.17 High levels of polymorphism are generally considered a sign of a healthy population, although some dog
breeds and wild mammals have low MHC diversity with no apparent ill effects. The DLA genes are on dog chromosome
(CFA) 12.18 Some DLA haplotypes are associated with various canine autoimmune diseases such as primary immune
mediated hemolytic anemia, polyarthritis, hypothyroidism and diabetes. 19 However, it is important to recognize that these
haplotypes do not cause disease directly; instead, they may be risk factors that affect the likelihood of disease development.
As suggested previously, there is risk in maintaining sufficient variability to adapt in the present fallen world.
Dopamine receptor D4 gene
There are two portions of the dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene that are variable in dogs. The first is in exon 1 where the
two known alleles differ by a 24-base pair (bp) indel. 20 Interestingly, humans also are polymorphic in this region with a 12-bp
duplication and a 13-bp deletion having been identified.21 The latter is particularly intriguing as it is found in 2% of the human
population and is not associated with any known disease; yet the frameshift is predicted to result in a truncated, nonfunctional protein.22
Figure 2. A representation of the variable
number tandem repeat (VNTR) patterns in
exon 3 of the dopamine receptor D4
(DRD4) gene for seven dog alleles (after
Hejjas et al.23). The nonrandom pattern of
mutation suggests designed mechanisms
are involved in this mutation. The
variability in this region appears to have
some influence on personality and
behaviour.The second polymorphic region
is found in exon 3. There are eight alleles
that have been identified in dogs.20 A
number of these have been identified in
wolves. The alleles differ by variable
number tandem repeats (VNTRs) of 12-and 39-bp (figure 2). A similar pattern has been observed in humans, where a 48-bp
segment is repeated from 2 to 10 times. These variations are believed to influence behaviour because certain alleles have
been shown to be associated with the novelty-seeking personality trait in humans, primates and dogs.23 VNTRs have been
identified in exon 3 of the DRD4 gene of nearly all mammals examined except rodents. The length of the repeated segments
varies among taxa, but is consistently a multiple of three.24This bias of indels, particularly VNTRs, in base pairs that are
multiples of three does not appear to be explicable by natural selection. If essentially random, approximately one-third of

indels should be multiples of three unless a frameshift, which often results in a premature stop codon and a nonfunctional
protein, is lethal or significantly detrimental. It does not appear that frameshifts in DRD4 would be subject to such selection
pressure, since a frameshift mutation is carried by a number of normal humans and knock-out mice. 20,22 Furthermore,
variability in this gene appears to contribute to variability in personality. The number of alleles in canids (greater than eight,
as the raccoon dog has a separate allele identified 25) is greater than the maximum of four alleles expected in the pair of
canids on the Ark. Humans also carry more alleles than can be attributed to the first man and woman. This suggests that
this gene was designed to vary in a rather unusual way to enhance variability in personality and perhaps other traits as well.
Olfactory genes
Olfactory (smell) receptor (OR) genes are seven transmembrane receptors. While 1,094 OR genes have been identified in
the dog,26 the canine repertoire of odorant molecules is significantly greater than this. This appears to be from a complex
combinatorial code. Odorant molecules can bind 20 or more ORs depending on their concentration. ORs can bind more
than one odorant molecule. Through interpretation of the complex signalling patterns, dogs are able to detect an incredibly
wide array of individual odorants and a large number of mixtures. 27In one study, 16 OR genes were examined in 95 dogs
from 20 different breeds. All genes were polymorphic ranging from two to 11 alleles per gene. There was an average of one
change per 920 sequenced nucleotides, which is much higher than most coding sequences and a random sampling of noncoding sequences. Of the 98 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified, 55 resulted in an amino acid change and
30 of these involved changes to a different amino acid group. These changes were found throughout the protein (figure 3),
mostly in variable or highly variable regions within OR genes. However, two come from highly conserved regions, one in
transmembrane (TM) 3 and the other in TM7. 28Five of the 16 genes had an allele with a disrupted open reading frame.
These were from one of the four indels identified or an SNP introducing a stop codon. Pseudogenization of OR genes is
fairly common. In poodles, 18% of ORs are pseudogenes while 20.3% (or 222/1094) are in the boxer. Interestingly, 17 of the
OR pseudogenes in the poodle were not found in the boxer, and 22 of those found in the boxer were not found in the
poodle.28It may be premature to assume there is no purpose in mutation or pseudogenization within OR genes. 29There is a
tremendous amount of redundancy in OR genes which may have been designed to allow for future specialization. For
example, a study involving Drosophila sechellia, a highly specialized vinegar fly that feeds solely on fruit from Morinda
citrifolia, a shrub which strongly repels related species of flies, suggests that pseudogenization of ORs and gustatory (taste)
receptors has occurred nearly 10 times faster than in the closely related species D. simulans. For those genes which
remained intact, D. sechelliaappears to have fixed non-synonymous substitutions at a consistently higher rate than
synonymous substitutions compared to the same genes in D. simulans.30 Therefore, the ability of OR genes to be modified
or pseudogenized may be an important design element introduced by a intelligent designer.
Conclusion
Figure 3. Two-dimensional diagram of an
olfactory receptor (OR) indicating positions of
55
non-synonymous
single
nucleotide
polymorphisms (SNPs) and their allele
frequencies in dogs, as identified by Tacher et
al.28 * indicates the SNPs found in highly
conserved regions of the OR genes. There are
1,094 OR genes that have been identified in
dogs.The two canids preserved on the Ark
would be expected to have carried a fairly
uniform karyotype and up to four alleles for
non-duplicated genes. This brief examination
of present-day karyotypes and several groups
of genes indicates that significant diversity has
arisen since the Flood. Several different lines
of evidence suggest that many of these
mutations may have some benefit to the
animal.
For
example,
intrabaraminic
chromosomal comparisons have implicated
numerous designed mechanisms which control chromosomal changes in a way that maintains viability of the animal. The
fact that such mechanisms appear to be operating suggests there is purpose to chromosomal rearrangements. The fact that
different karyotypes often are fixed in different species within a baramin seems to support this concept as well.
The various genes examined here appear to handle mutations very well. In fact, it is generally believed that the high allelic
diversity in the MHC genes is important for a healthy population. The redundancy in ORs and the pattern of mutation and
pseudogenization in these genes suggests that these genes were designed to vary so that animals can adapt to different
environments. Finally, the striking non-random pattern of VNTR mutations, all in lengths divisible by three, when there is no
known selection that could produce this non-random pattern, strongly suggests that in some instances there are designed
mechanisms driving mutations. The patterns seen here suggest that animals were designed to be able to undergo genetic
mutations which would enable them to adapt to a wide range of environmental challenges while minimizing risk.
Climbing Mt Improbable evo devo style
by David White
Evolutionary champion Richard Dawkins provides an intriguing analogy for how the
evolutionary process workshe likens it to climbing a mountain, Mount
Improbable.1 Many structures in living things are so complex, he concedes, that the
likelihood they could arise by chance is absurd (like scaling a mountain in a single
leap).2 But, according to Dawkins, if we climb the mountain in incremental steps (of
gene mutation filtered by natural selection) we can reach the summit without any
need to invoke a creator. This evolutionary mechanism is known as neo-Darwinism.
And even though it has been enthusiastically taught for many years, numerous
evolutionary biologists now concede that neo-Darwinism is not sufficient to climb
Mount Improbable. This doesnt mean they are accepting defeat. As we shall see,
evolutionary biology is itself evolving.
A new paradigm in evolutionary biology: evo devo

About three decades ago I was only a single cell (a fertilized egg), but now Im a galaxy of cells (over 100 trillion) typing
this article. As I developed in utero, different cells took on different tasks. Some started forming eyes, other cells became
cardiac muscle, and so on. But how did the different cells know how to carry out this highly orchestrated task? This
mystery of embryonic development has puzzled scientists for centuries. But it wasnt until biologists discovered a set of
developmental genes (known as Hox genes) in 1983, that the black box of embryonic development finally began to be
opened.Hox genes are developmental genes that guide overall body architecture. A single mutation in a Hox gene can
dramatically change an organism. For instance, consider the mutant fruit fly that has legs in the place of its antennae!
Although this condition obviously disadvantages the fly, these types of changes have excited many evolutionists, because
they think they might provide clues as to how radical new body designs could evolve.As more developmental genes have
been discovered, a whole new field of inquiry has sprouted that attempts to merge developmental and evolutionary biology.
The result is Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo Devo). The basic principle driving Evo Devo is that if embryonic
development is re-programmed, improbable structures like limbs, wings and new body designs might arise.
Diverse organisms, similar genes
Hox genes are part of a broader group of developmental genes that
have many varied roles. Some of them mark out the geography of the
embryos body. Others play key roles in the development of structures
like limbs, eyes and hearts. But the most astonishing thing about Hox
and other developmental genes is that they are shared across the
animal kingdom. Organisms as diverse as leeches and lawyers are
built using the same developmental genes! This discovery has come
as such a shock that one of the worlds most eminent biologists, Sean
Carroll3, confessed: no biologist had even the foggiest notion that
such similarities could exist between genes of such different
animals.4But why are evolutionists so surprised? Well, its simply
because creatures that supposedly diverged millions of years ago
shouldnt share the startling similarity in developmental genes that
they do. For example, evolutionists allege that humans once shared a
common ancestor with fruit flies. However, since we diverged so long
ago, any similar genes we shared shouldve been scrambled beyond
recognition by almost countless generations of mutations. This is why
Ernst Mayr, a man once described as the worlds greatest living
evolutionary biologist stated, the search for homologous [similar] genes is quite futile except in very close relatives. 5 But
this is wrong. Not only do we share similar developmental genes with fruit flies, but also with almost every other creature on
the planet!So how has this changed the way scientists view evolution? Well, since very different animals are made using
similar genes, Evo Devo proponents contend that the driving force of evolution is not changes in (protein coding) genes, but
changes in regulatory DNA (genetic switches) that control the genes. 6 In other words, the evolution of form is not so
much about what genes you have, but about how you use them.7 Yet this contradicts what neo-Darwinists have long told us
According to the modern theory (called neo-Darwinism), changes occur in organisms by mutations of genes8 [emphasis
mine].
Building a baby
Many of the shared developmental genes are part of genetic switches that regulate other genes. 9 During embryonic
development these genetic switches initiate the cascade of gene expression that builds various structures. For example,
the Pax-6 developmental gene is part of a genetic switch that induces eye development. When Pax-6 from a mouse was
inserted into a fruit flys genome, fruit fly eye structures were formed. The mouse gene was so similar to its fly equivalent
(even though these creatures supposedly diverged over 500 million years ago) that it induced the fly program for eye
development! Likewise, the Distal-less gene forms part of a master switch for limb development and theTinman gene
(named after Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz) is part of a master switch for heart development. So embryonic development
involves a vast array of master genetic switches that turn on the right program in the right place.
Evolution of genetic switches?
Since changes in genetic switches are now being hailed as the key to evolution, Evo Devo proponents have been keen to
highlight adaptations caused by such changes. Probably the most cited example involves stickleback fish. Normally, these
fish have long spines projecting from their body. On the lake bottom, these are a disadvantage because dragonfly larvae
latch onto them. However, some varieties have adapted to their environment. Due to a mutated genetic switch, they dont
develop pelvic spines, so they are much better at evading the grasp of predators. 10 However, these sorts of changes are
really devolution, not evolution, because a genetic switch has been corrupted, preventing the expression of a key spinebuilding gene (Pitx1) in the pelvic region. This showcase example of evolution via genetic switches hasnt inspired
prominent evolutionists like Jerry Coyne (University of Chicago), either: these examples represent the loss of traits, rather
than the origin of evolutionary novelties.11,12

Furthermore, Jerry Coyne remains unconvinced that changes in genetic switches are the key to evolution: the evidence for
this critical hypothesis, however, rests more on inference than on observation or experiment. 11 But despite his Evo Devo
skepticism, Dr Coynes belief in evolution shows no sign of wavering.
Urbilateriayour long lost relative?
Since common developmental genes are shared across the animal kingdom, evolutionists think they must have originated
before the different animal groups embarked on their separate evolutionary pathways. So the last common ancestor of
people and snails must have possessed them. This hypothetical creature, which evolutionists tell us lived over half a billion
years ago, has been dubbed Urbilateria (i.e. the ancestor of all animals with two-fold symmetry). 13Urbilateria was certainly
ahead of its time. It supposedly possessed many key developmental genes for complex improbable structures like limbs,
eyes and heartsbut it allegedly lived long before evolution had invented limbs, eyes or hearts! No wonder Sean Carroll
muses, it is intriguing to ponder just what so many genes were doing in Urbilateria. 14 Remarkably, these evolutionists now
insist that much of the genetic program for building complex animals existed long before the animals did! The genetic
potential was in place for at least 50 million years, and probably a fair bit longer, before large, complex forms
emerged.15 Statements like this inadvertently give the impression that evolution has foresight! But Dawkins himself insists
that nature, unlike humans with brains, has no foresight. 16 And if genomes are supposedly shaped by the demands of
their environment over time, why should nature write a complex genetic program 50 million years before it is needed?Thus,
the discovery that the animal kingdom is built using the same developmental genes does not support the notion that all life
has descended from a common ancestor (although this is how it is commonly reported). 17 Ironically, though, the data fits
nicely with the proposal that a single designer used a common blueprint to build the animal kingdom, rather than there
being many creators. Indeed, in most cultures, a designer using the same underlying design in a variety of applications
would bring him great honour, showing his mastery over his designs.18A recent New Scientist article cautioned its readers: If
you want to know how all living things are related, dont bother looking in any textbook thats more than a few years old.
Chances are that the tree of life you find there will be wrong. 19 As we have seen, it doesnt seem to matter what sort of
problems the data raises for evolutionists (or how much it offends past predictions) the idea that all living things have
descended from a common ancestor is not negotiable. Even questioning this idea is regarded as scientific heresy.20
Facilitated variation: a new paradigm emerges in biology
by Alex Williams
Facilitated variation is the first comprehensive theory of how life works at the molecular level, published in 2005 by systems
biologists Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart in their book The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwins Dilemma. It is a very
powerful theory, is supported by a great deal of evidence, and the authors have made it easy to understand. It identifies two
basic components of heredity: (a) conserved core processes of cellular structure, function and body plan organization; and
(b) modular regulatory mechanisms that are built in special ways that allow them to be easily rearranged (like Lego blocks)
into new combinations to generate variable offspring. Evolvability is thus built-in, and the pre-existing molecular
machinery facilitates the incorporation of new
DNA sequence changes that occur via
recombinations and mutations. The question of
origin becomes especially acute under this new
theory because the conserved core processes
and the modular regulatory mechanisms have
to already be in place before any evolution can
occur. The new molecular evidence shows
virtually all the main components of neoDarwinian theory are wrong.
Figure 1. The Distal-less gene is generally
used in insect embryo, leg and wing
development and has a switch for each of
these functions (e.g. the fly, top panel). In
butterflies (bottom panel), it has an extra switch
that turns it ON to produce wing spots. Gene
switches are easily disabled by mutation so
this rules out a mutational origin for new

switches.Scientific literature is currently drowning in information about the molecular mechanisms of life, but most people
are unable to appreciate what it all meansso vast is the amount, so highly specialized in each reported study, and so
obscured by the necessary but incomprehensible jargon. The publication in 2005 of the first comprehensive and easily
readable theory of how it all worksMarc Kirschner and John Gerharts The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwins
Dilemma1thus marks a great milestone in the history of biology. Kirschner is Professor of Systems Biology at Harvard
Medical School and Gerhart is Professor of Systems Biology at UC Berkley Medical School.2In this article, I shall show how
Kirschner and Gerharts theory signals the emergence of a new paradigm in biology by contrasting it with origin-of-life
experiments and neo-Darwinian theory, and will augment it with some more recent research findings.
Life and non-life
To appreciate what life looks like at the molecular level we need some background understanding of the gap between life
and non-life, and how originating events may have filled that gap. According to neo-Darwinian theory, life evolves in small
steps. Genes produce organisms, and mutations in genes produce changes in organisms. Those changes that survive the
sieve of natural selection provide the required small steps that turn one kind of life into another. Population biology
experiments are claimed to have validated this theory for many different kinds of genetic traits.Extrapolating this theory
backwards, life must have also arisen in small steps via natural chemical events in the environment. Nobel Prize winning
biochemist Christian de Duve has clearly summarized most of the necessary events in his book, Singularities: Landmarks
on the Pathways of Life.3 There is, yet, no experimental evidence for a stepwise neo-Darwinian originating mechanism, so
de Duves singularities are what we might colloquially call brick walls.Living organisms have two main components: (a)
enzyme-mediated biochemistry and (b) information-based regulatory processes. Which came first? De Duve favours an
enzymes first model because the information-based systems are so optimal and specialized that he believes some process
of selection was needed to separate out the spectacularly clean (100% purity) components from the dirty gemisch (impure
mixture) of the environment.However, physicist Hubert Yockey has studied information in biology for 50 years and
persuasively argues that because life has no reverse code for transferring information from proteins to RNA or DNA then it is
impossible for life to have arisen in a proteins first scenario. The information must have come first. The simplest code would
have been a binary (two-letter) alphabet but all life works upon a more complex four-letter alphabet, so Yockey concludes
that the question of origin is undecidable.4 This is not a necessary conclusion however, and appears to be no more than a
ruse to avoid the uncomfortable conclusion that life may have been intelligently designed.
Life in molecular detail: the new paradigm
Against this background, we can now look to the summary model of how life works as given by Kirschner and Gerhart (I
shall refer to it as the KG model). They identify two major components:
conserved core processes of cell structure, function, and body plans;
core processes are regulated in modular ways (like Lego blocks) that can be easily rearranged into new combinations, to
be used in new times, places and amounts to generate variable offspring.
Evolvability is thus built-in. The existing modular structure and its regulatory systems facilitates the incorporation of changes
in DNA sequences (produced by recombinations and mutations) into functionally viable offspring that can adapt to new
environments. KG theory is claimed to be a largely complete molecular explanation for how natural variation and natural
selection produce all the variety of life on EarthDarwins theory, according to the authors, is now a validated whole.
A new view of heredity
Neo-Darwinists view heredity as being all about genetics. For example, the official journal of the Genetics Society is
called Heredity. But genetics is all about change and we have discovered so many ways in which organisms can change
that we are now faced with a huge unanswered question: how do they manage to stay (approximately) the same, generation
after generation? As the late Stephen Jay Gould maintained throughout his career in paleontologystasis, not change, is
the major feature of natural history.5Neo-Darwinism has no answer to this challenge for two reasons: (a) genes and
chromosomes can be mutated at any and every position so there is no limit to the potential for change, and (b) the agents of
change (mutations and environment) are beyond the organisms control.But KG theory does give us an answerthe
conserved core processes remain the same during reproduction. When a mother passes on an egg cell to its offspring, that
cell contains everything required by the offspring in its architecture and machinery. The DNA sequences provide for the
manufacture of more raw materials for the embryo to go through its development process, but the actual architecture and
machinery itself is provided by the mother. The new outer membrane of the embryo is just that of the mothers cell extended
with more of the same material. The new cytoskeleton is just the mothers cytoskeleton extended with new material. The
new organelles are the mothers organelles that replicate independently of the chromosomes. The new membranes are the
mothers membranes extended with more of the same material.During the early stages of embryogenesis, the new
chromosome set is entirely shut down and all the groundwork of the embryo is laid by thousands of different RNA types
supplied by the mother. Only after this groundwork is laid does the new chromosome set become active and the mothers
RNAs are degraded and recycled.The variability that is built-in to this heredity process is the modular gene regulation and
signaling networks. A suitable analogy might be a house and its network of power, plumbing and communications channels
and interfaces. The wiring and piping are built into the house structure, but there are numerous interface points to which a
wide variety of household appliances can be attached, detached and rearranged. It is the combination of devices plugged
into this network that provides the variation, and the house with its plumbing and wiring system that provides the stasis. To
what extent the house itself can be varied is yet to be determined.
Conserved core processes
Chapter 7 of Kirschner and Gerharts book summarizes this subject so I will simply quote selectively from it. My additions or
summaries are in square brackets:
Conserved core processes [typically consist of] several protein components [on average about 5, maximum probably about
300], conserved in their [amino acid] sequence. Their function is to generate the phenotype from the genotype. These
processes arose historically in a few intermittent waves of innovation.
On the lineage towards humans, these innovations include:
the processes in the first bacteria [all the machinery in a bacterial cell],
[the processes in] the first eukaryotes [all the machinery in a eukaryote cell],
[the processes in] the first multi-cellular organisms [cooperation between cells, specialization of structure and function of
different cells, and integration of specialized cell complexes into functional organs and organisms],
[the processes in] large bilateral body plans in metazoans (including chordates and vertebrates),
[the processes in] neural crest cells in vertebrates [which allow diversification of the head region],
[the processes in] limbs in the first land animals,
[the processes in] the neocortex [the key region of brain development].

Most evolutionary change in the metazoa [multi-celled animals] since the Cambrian has come not from changes of the core
processes themselves or from new processes, but from regulatory changes affecting the deployment of the core processes.
These regulatory changes alter the time, place, circumstance and amount of gene expression
The core processes are built in special ways to allow them to be easily linked together in new combinations these special
properties include:
(a) Weak linkage, a property particularly of signal transduction [detection and response] and transcription [copying]. the
response is maximally prepared and ready to be triggered [by a GO or STOP signal].
(b) Exploratory behavior, a property of [cellular processes and populations of organisms] the capacity to generate an
unlimited number of outcome states [which are] built to be receptive to the [selective] agent [that will serve] as a stabilizing
force, selecting one state among the large number of states generated.
(c) Compartmentation, a property of embryonic spatial organization and cell type control. [Compartmentation has] facilitated
a large increase in the complexity of anatomy and physiology without a corresponding increase in the complexity of the
conserved core processes.
Generation of variation is facilitated principally by:
reducing the lethality of mutations,
reducing the number of mutations needed to produce novelty, and
increasing the genetic diversity in the population by suppressing lethality [and thus allowing the mutations to be stored and
inherited].Robustness [is] at the centre of our theory the conserved core processes are built [robustly] to give sufficient
outputs despite altered conditions and inputs. [The properties] of robustness, flexibility and versatility are [needed] to enable
the core processes to work together the organism as a whole is a poised response system It responds to mutation
by making changes it is largely prepared in advance to make. Genetic variation or mutation does not have to be creative;
it only needs to trigger the creativity built into the conserved mechanisms.All the special properties of the conserved core
processes had to evolve before regulatory evolution could escalate, for if the components of different processes were to
interfere with one another in the new combinations, such expression would afford no benefit.Facilitated variation assumes
the availability of [the conserved core processes]. The evolution of these processes and properties would seem to be the
primary events of evolution, requiring high novelty. Once the conserved processes were available, though, the possibility
of variation by regulatory shuffling and gating of these processes was unleashed, and shuffling and gating were much
simpler than inventing the processes.The main accomplishment of the theory of facilitated variation is to see the organism
as playing a central role in determining the nature and degree of variation We think the organism is so constituted that its
own random genetic variation can evoke complex phenotypic change.Further relevant comments from Chapter 8 include:
evolvability is the greatest adaptation of all Variation is facilitated largely because so much novelty is available in
what is already possessed by the organism (pp. 252, 273).The theory of facilitated variation opens up a new set of
questions about the origins of the conserved core processes [they] may have emerged together as a suite, for we know
of no organism today that lacks any part of the suite. The most obscure origination of a core process is the creation of the
first prokaryotic cell. The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world of today that we
are left baffled by how it was achieved (pp. 253, 256).
Invisible anatomy
Kirschner and Gerhart coined the term invisible anatomy to describe the regulatory circuits that produce the visible
anatomy. To construct an adult from a zygote, the zygote must first build a phylotypic embryoa mass of cells with highly
conserved form, which is the same right across its phylum. This philotypic stage is divided into numerous, largely
independent, 3-dimensional compartments within which different gene switching networks are wired up in different ways
appropriate for the unique developmental cascade that will subsequently occur in each compartment.But the signal network
is not instructive, it is permissiveit does not tell the circuits what to do, it merely releases or represses the already built-in
abilities of cells to do whatever needs to be done. Humans have about 300 compartments in their phylotypic embryo. That
means there must be least 300 different circuitsdevelopmental programs for body segmentsthat can be activated or
repressed in every cell.
Switching networks

Figure 2. Gene switches are

extremely complex devices,
comparable in their complexity
and precision to a Global
Positioning
System
(GPS)
satellite
navigation
device.
Part (a)shows the essential parts
in the switch, which begin with
the signal inputs A and B, and
end with the gene product in the
form of protein. Part (b) shows
some (not all) of the signal
systems
involved
in
programmed
cell
death
(apoptosis). Just as the GPS
device integrates the information
from many different satellites, so
the gene switch must integrate
the information from many
different
signal
cascades.
(Part (b) from Bell25).
The main difference between
neo-Darwinian and KG theory is
that the former views genes as
having a continual effect on
organisms,
whereas
the
molecular reality is that genes
only work when they are
switched ON. This is a profound
difference. Everything in KG
theory flows from this fact.
Evolution occurs not primarily by
changing DNA sequences, as
neo-Darwinists assume, but by
rearrangement
of
switching
circuits.
Gene switches are sections of
DNA on the chromosome usually
near to where the gene is
situated (figure 1). One gene
may be involved in ten or more
stages in development and it will
have a separate switch for each
stage. Sean Carroll, a leading
researcher in this field, says,
animal bodies [are] builtpiece
by piece, stripe by stripe, bone
by boneby constellations of
switches distributed all over the
genome [emphasis
added].6Evolution
occurs
primarily by adding or deleting
switches, for this is the only way
to change the organism while
leaving
the
gene
itself
undamaged by mutation so that
it can continue to function
normally in its many other roles.
Carroll considers this concept to
be perhaps the most important,
most fundamental insight from evolutionary developmental biology. 7
Figure 1 illustrates evolution-by-switch-addition by showing how butterfly wing spots are produced by adding a new wingspot switch to an existing gene Distal-less that is already involved in development of the insect embryo, leg and wing. 8Gene
switches are very complex devices. Carroll compares them to a Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite-navigating device
that integrates information from many different satellites to calculate the correct output in a given situation. Gene switches
likewise give exquisite geographic specificity [from the built-in logic] the makeup of every switch is different [and] the
physical integrity of switches is very important to normal development. If a switch is disrupted or broken by mutation, then
the proper inputs are not integrated. 9The reason why genes only work by being either fully ON or OFF is very easy to
understandbecause a part-formed transcript would become useless junk in a crowded cell. Only fully formed transcripts
are useable, and when they are not wanted, the gene needs to be turned OFF so that it will not clog up the heavily crowded
cell with unwanted transcripts.Figure 2 outlines the components of a gene switch that uses negative feedback as its control
mechanism. The molecules involved in switches are called transcription factors and can be activators (that send a GO
message) or repressors (that send a STOP message). If a repressor is repressed then STOP STOP = GO.
Uri Alon at the Weizmann Institute has researched switches and signal networks and found two main types:10
Switches associated with signal reception and response, which act over metabolic time scales of seconds. These
include: single factor regulation, negative autoregulation, positive autoregulation, feed-forward loops (FFL) of both positive

and negative kind, multi-output FFLs that regulate numerous genes simultaneously, single-input modules, and dense
overlapping regulons that can regulate one or hundreds of output genes, and they can have one or hundreds of inputs from
various sources.Switches associated with development over the lifetime of the organism. These include: positive
feedback loops, negative feedback loops, diamond networks, multi-layer diamond networks, and feed-forward loops that
combine into large networks.Switches are readily disabled by mutation, so Alon addressed the question of whether systems
such as FFLs evolved from duplication of an ancestral FFL. The answer appears to be no, because apparently homologous
genes are usually regulated by transcription factors that are so different that they are classed into completely different
families. Evolution must have converged independently on the same regulation circuits over and over again.
This is perhaps explained by the fact that
transcription networks seem to rewire rapidly: it takes only a few mutations to remove the binding site of a regulator in a
given promoter, and thereby lose an arrow in a network. Hence, even closely related organisms often have different network
motifs to regulate a given gene, provided that they live in different environments One hypothesis is that the network[s] are
selected according to the computations that are required in the environment of each species. 10This latter finding seems to
agree with KG theory, that switching circuit modularity provides the major source of natural variation. Another important
confirmation of the concept is the Savageau demand rule. This experimentally observed rule is that frequently needed
genes tend to be regulated by activators, while rarely needed genes tend to be regulated by repressors. It has been shown
that a strategy in which errors are minimized leads to the Savageau demand rule. 11 That is, errors (mutations and imprecise
biochemical reactions) are minimized in the search for useful circuit combinations.
Embryonic switching patterns
We are now in a position to illustrate embryogenesis, in broad outline, as a series of switching events. The geography or
ground-plan for each organism is established during the early divisions of the zygote. Important geographical factors
include:
Inside (endoderm and mesoderm) and outside (ectoderm)
Head (mouth and brain end) and tail (anal end)
Left and right (in bilateral animals)
Front and back (in bilateral animals).
These geographical circuits are positive feedback loops that shunt irreversibly into, for example, tail OFF and head ON
mode. The comparable circuit in the tail end shunts irreversibly into the tail ON and head OFF state. In all descendents of
these cells, later instructions will pass through these circuits so that, for example, when the instruction is given to build a
limb, the state of the geographical circuits will ensure that a forelimb is produced at the head end and a hind limb is
produced at the tail end.Within our group of bilaterians, the vertebrates, further circuitry is linked up within this threedimensional ground-plan so that by the phylotypic stage all the embryos look remarkably similar (drawings of which
Haeckel infamously fudged to make look even more similar than they really are). The similarity is no coincidence, however,
because all vertebrate embryos are patterned by exactly the same set of genes, as shown in figure 3. All the genes up
to hox6 regulate brain and head development, and those from hox7 to cad regulate spinal cord and body development.By
this stage, the vertebrate embryos consist of about 300 largely independent compartments, and further development occurs
according to a separate switching cascade in each compartment. The body-patterning genes shown in figure 3 create these
compartments via single-input circuits that have multiple thresholds of interaction with the ground-plan circuits (insideoutside, head-tail, left-right, front-back) and the body differentiating genes (those that produce limbs, ears, ribs, etc.).
Autopoietic control
Life is controlled by coded information. The overall purpose of that information appears to be survival, and in particular,
survival via variable reproduction. KG theory says that organisms are built to vary, and it could not be any other way
because brittle life, like Paleys metal watch, would malfunction under the first impact of either internal or external
impediment. Rather the organism as a whole is a poised response system [ready to make] changes it is largely prepared
in advance to make (KG, p. 226).
Figure 3. At the phylotypic stage, embryos of
all vertebrates are organized into independent
developmental segments by the same set of
conserved core genes, operating in the same
sequence from head to tail. The names of the
genes are listed in order for the fish, frog, bird
and mouse embryos. Human embryos are
organized in the same way. (Redrawn from
information in Kirschner and Gerhart, p. 268).
But protein-coding information of DNA is
clearly not the only information operating in
cells. A gene only gives the linear sequence of
amino acids in a protein, yet its key function is
the result of its 3-dimensional shape, not its
linear sequence. Many different amino acids
could substitute into the linear sequence
without reducing its functionality, but the 3-D
shape is very tightly constrained, yet cannot
be predicted from its linear sequence. Proteins
can fold in numerous different ways, so there
must be extra information somewhere else
that guides the folding process. Special
molecules called chaperones guide the folding
process, so there must be folding information
built-in to the chaperones. They can also
detect and correct mis-folded proteins, and they can detect when a protein is mis-folded beyond repair and have it marked
for degradation and recycling.Autopoietic decision making during embryogenesis is of the if then kind familiar to
computer programmers. Embryonic cells make decisions based upon three kinds of information: (a) instructions from the
mother (mRNAs in the egg cytoplasm), (b) conditions within the cell itself, and (c) information from its immediate neighbours.
Thus, if a cell has all its specialization circuits in OFF mode, and it has its polarity circuit in an ON state, and it has only one
neighbouring cell, then it concludes that it is in the two-cell state of embryogenesis so it will divide and switch ON its bilateral
circuits but keep all its specialization circuits in OFF mode.

At a later stage, if there are no longer any instructions from the mother, and the cells specialized liver circuit is ON and all its
neighbours are liver cells, and the embryogenesis circuitry is OFF and the fetal circuitry is ON, then the cell will divide and
reproduce an identical copy of itself to allow the liver to grow in size until birth stage.In later life, the autopoietic system will
ensure that maintenance and repairs are carried out to keep the cell functioning properly. But when the telomere clock says
that time has run out, it will trigger a release of cytochrome c from the mitochondria into the cytoplasm which will set the
apoptosome into action to dismantle the cell and recycle its contents.12
Evidence supporting the theory
Figure 4. In neo-Darwinian theory, genes produce
organisms, and mutations in genes produce new
kinds of organisms. In facilitated variation theory,
genes are used by cells to construct organisms,
and mutations in genes are used by cells to
produce variations in progeny. The crucial
difference between the the theories is the central
role of the cell, rather than the genes, in producing
the organism.The primary difference between neoDarwinism and KG theory is that the former puts
genes in control of heredity and thus evolution,
while the latter puts the cell in control. Figure 4
illustrates this crucial difference.The molecular
evidence is clearly in favour of cell control. A recent
intensive study of transcription activity in a 1%
sample of the human genome found an astonishing
amount of unexpected activity. Virtually the whole
genome is transcribed, in both directions (both strands of the DNA double helix), in multiple copies (on average 5 in gene
regions and 7 in non-gene regions) that overlap by an average 10 to 50 times the size of a typical gene. The best predictor
of where and when this transcription takes place is just one factorchromatin structure. 13Chromatin is the complex of DNA
and protein that super-coils the long thin DNA into short fat chromosomes, and it must be uncoiled in order for transcription
to occur.The same conclusionthat chromatin structure lies at the heart of transcription activitywas arrived at via study of
the relationship between chromatin and nuclear pores.14 In eukaryotes, chromosomes are housed in the nucleus, and
access to and from the nucleus is very closely controlled via special structures called the nuclear pore complex (NPC).
Transcription only occurs at the inner opening of these NPCs. The relevant chromosome must be brought to a pore and the
transcription site correctly aligned. The DNA is unwound from its scaffold proteins, then the histone coils are twisted around
to expose the copy region, the double-helix is unzipped, and the transcription machinery produces an RNA copy of the DNA.
The transcript is checked for accuracy and corrected if necessary (or degraded if faulty beyond repair) then the RNA is
tagged for export out through the NPC and to its destination in the cell. The DNA is then silenced again by being zipped up
and rewound onto its histone and scaffold protein chromatin structures. So DNA is normally in a form analogous to a closed
book. When the cell wants some information it opens the book, copies the relevant section, and then closes the book again.
DNA does not control this processit is kept in storage until it is needed. The cell is clearly in control.The second major
difference between KG theory and neo-Darwinism is in the way genes act upon organisms. In the classic case of Darwins
Galpagos finches, neo-Darwinian theory explains the variation in finch beak size and shape via mutations and natural
selection acting repeatedly over a long period of time. Many small changes must occur independently in the upper and lower
beaks, in the adjacent skull, and in the head muscles, to coordinate and order them all into the necessarily viable
intermediate beaks of the birds that need to survive throughout the period of divergence.In contrast, recent experimental
work suggests that just two regulatory changes are involved. The bone morphology protein BMP4 when expressed earlier or
later in embryogenesis causes broad or narrow beak development,15 and more or less of the calcium regulator
proteincalmodulin produces long or short beaks, respectively.16 Gerhart and Kirschner17 cite this as experimental validation
of their theory. The whole craniofacial developmental process is compartmented and coordinated by a modular regulatory
system that can be easily rewired with a few regulatory mutations (KG, p. 236) to produce new features that are readily
integrated into the already-prepared, robust, conserved-core-process-based system. Field observations confirm that such
changes take place rapidly across just a few generations.18
More neo-Darwinian errors
The neo-Darwinian genetic theory of heredity assumed that characteristics of organisms are coded on genes with roughly a
one-gene-to-one-character correspondence. As organisms evolved to greater complexity, more genes were added via gene
duplication and subsequent independent mutation of the extra copy into useful new characters. 19 More complex organisms
were thus expected to carry more genes than less complex ones. Furthermore, lineages that diverged early in the history of
life would have mutated at virtually every locus, making them quite unlike at the genetic level. This led Ernst Mayr to state in
his 1963 book Animal Species and Evolution the search for homologous genes [derived from the same ancestor] is quite
futile except in very close relatives.20
These predictions have all been dramatic falsified by molecular discoveries:
There is no one-to-one correspondence between genes and characters. Most genes are pleiotropicthey affect many
different parts and stages of life. And all but the most trivial characters are determined by large numbers of genes50% to
80% of the entire genome is required for many bodily functions in vertebrates. 21Genetic information structures are not linear,
but interleaved, producing multiple overlapping transcripts. Moreover, the exons (DNA segments that directly code for
protein segments) in a gene are not specific to that gene but can participate in modular fashion with up to 33 different genes
on as many as 14 different chromosomes.22There is no correlation between organism complexity and gene number. Rice
and crayfish carry more genes than humans.Homologous genes occur right across the spectrum of life. About 20% of the
human genome is homologous with bacteria, about 50% is homologous with eukaryotes (fungi, plants, animals), about 80%
is homologous across the animal kingdom, and about 99% is homologous across all the vertebrates, leaving only about 1%
that is uniquely human.23 About 500 genes are immortal and have not changed at all in their key functional sequences
across the whole history of life. 24One of the most serious errorsthat will need a lot of undoingis the vast amount of
molecular taxonomy that has been based upon the idea that junk DNA provides us with a record of past mutations and thus
acts as a molecular clock. We now know that non-protein-coding DNA ismore active in the cell than genes. According to KG
theory, molecular taxonomy can only work correctly by comparing hidden anatomies across taxa, not DNA sequences. To
understand hidden anatomy we will have to find the regulatory code. New aspects of gene regulation are being reported
daily, but so far, no one has been able to put together the complete code for a whole organism.
Conclusion

Lets stand back consider the big picture of how life works at the molecular level.Life consists of conserved core
processes and modular regulatory circuits. All the special properties of the conserved processes had to be in place before
regulatory evolution could take place. Where did they come from? They may have emerged together as a suite, for we
know of no organism today that lacks any part of the suite.The novelty and complexity of the cell [the most important
conserved core processes that has modular regulatory circuitry built-in] is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world of
today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved.A living organism is a poised response system [that] responds to
mutation by making changes it is largely prepared in advance to make. Genetic variation or mutation does not have to be
creative; it only needs to trigger the creativity built into the conserved mechanisms. It could not be otherwise, because
invariable life would soon become extinct.
Creative frogamandering
by David Catchpoole
Frogs like to hop, salamanders like to walk. But what did this
creature do? The above illustration is how the general public
saw the frogamander confidently portrayed in news and
popular science reports.4,6,7But is that how the creature
dubbed Gerobatrachus hottoni really appeared?Are frogs
and salamanders of the same originally created kind, or
different? As far as Im aware, creationists have not
definitively addressed this question, not having had any
particular need to do so.1For evolutionists, however, its a
very different story. Evolution ascribes common ancestry to
all living things, so evolutionists have a pressing need to find
fossil examples of intermediates to be the common
ancestors of various organisms, ultimately leading back to
the mooted single-celled ancestor(s?2 ) of all life.
But the needed intermediates have proved, for 150 years
now, to be elusive3which is why, for example, even just the
supposed evolutionary origin of amphibians alone
(Lissamphibia: frogs, salamanders and caecilians) has been
a matter of longstanding debate4 and one of the most
controversial questions in vertebrate evolution.5So its hardly
surprising that the discovery of a fossil said to have a
mixture of frog and salamander features, and claimed to have set to rest one of the greatest current controversies in
vertebrate evolution,6 has been enthusiastically embraced by proponents of evolution. (E.g. well-known Australian science
populariser Dr Karl Kruszelnicki.)The new fossil has been named Gerobatrachus hottoni (elderly frog). Its a perfect little
frogamander, said lead researcher Assistant Professor Jason Anderson of the University of Calgary. He told National
Geographic: It had an overall amphibian gestalt. You know, kind of a froggy salamander-y sort of look. 7And thats just
how the illustration that featured in various media outlets 4,6,7 portrayed it (figure 1). But didGerobatrachus hottoni really look
(and walk) like that?The fossil itself is almost perfectly complete, one news outlet 4 reported Anderson as saying.
But National Geographic News7 was more circumspect, warning that John Bolt, curator for fossil amphibians and reptiles at
The Field Museum in Chicago had urged caution in interpreting the fossil specimen. (Note that John Bolt is an evolutionist
himself.) Bolt said that it is difficult to say for sure whether this creature was a common ancestor of frogs and salamanders,
given that there is only one known specimen of Gerobatrachus, and an incomplete one at that. 7Going back to the original
paper in Nature to resolve this apparent contradictioni.e. whether the fossil is almost perfectly complete4 or an
incomplete one7reveals that the research teams original wording was:The 110-mm-long specimen (Fig. 1) is preserved
fully articulated in ventral [bottom] view, and is missing only the stylopods, zeugopods, and ventral portions of the skull and
pectoral girdle.5Note that their Fig. 1 in the Nature paper is not the illustration that appeared in the popular media
(reproduced in our figure 1 above). No, that frogamander illustration does not appear anywhere in that research paper.
Instead, their Fig. 1 shows a photograph of the fossil in the rock, along with an adjacent interpretive outline drawing of the
bones evident in the fossil. Theres a curious lack of any legs in the fossil evidence (apart from portions of two feet at one
end of the fossil). You might wonder what the missing stylopods and zeugopods might be in this otherwise almost
perfectly complete fossil. Prominent evolutionists Neil Shubin, Clif Tabin and Sean Carroll define them thus:The tetrapod
limb consists of three distinct compartments: a, the stylopod (upper arm and thigh); b, zeugopod (lower arm and calf);
andc, autopod (hand and foot).8Thus, the Gerobatrachus hottoni fossil missing its stylopods and zeugopods is actually
missing its legs! One wonders if the likes ofScienceDaily, National Geographic and other science news outlets actually
realized that? Perhaps they would not quite so readily have published the confident-looking artists image of the
perambulating frogamander if theyd known that the legsnot to mention the pectoral girdlewere missing. Hence no-one
can tell from the fossil remains of Gerobatrachus hottoni how, or even if, it might have walked (hopped?). So no-one can
say for sure what sort of amphibian it might be.John Bolt, the aforementioned evolutionist who urged caution in interpreting
the fossil made a couple of other interesting comments, too. The fossil is said to be 290 million years old, and Bolt observed
that it is remarkably like the modern amphibians. 7 Of course, evolutionary stasis does catch evolutionists by surprise, and
Bolt added:The most astonishing thing to me about this study is that this animal is far more froglike than I would ever have
expected from its age.Nothing this nonprimitive has ever been described from this age. Its just amazing. 7Its not at all
amazing when one realizes that millions-of-years ages dont stack up with closer inspection of sedimentary strata and the
fossils within.
Colourful creature coats
by Jean Lightner
Animals display a wide variety of coat colours. These colours result from a pigment called melanin. There are two types of
melanin: one that results in a yellow-to-red colour (pheomelanin) and another that results in a brown-to-black colour
(eumelanin). Most animals can produce both, and a number of different genes (instructions found in DNA) regulate the
relative amounts of these two forms of melanin and their distribution.

Sometimes genes can be changed by a process known as a mutation. A mutation is basically a mistake in copying a gene
and results in a new allele (variant form of the gene). How it affects the animal depends on where it occurs. Mutations that
occur in one specific gene have interesting effects on animal coat colour. 1 This gene codes for a protein that works like a
switch.2 Normally, a hormone3 switches it on to produce more of
the darker eumelanin, while another protein4switches it off so
more pheomelanin is produced.One type of mutation messes up
the switch. In this case the animal cannot produce eumelanin,
even when it is signalled to do so. The yellow/red colour of
Golden Retrievers, Yellow Labradors, and Irish Setters results
from one such mutation.5 A different mutation with a similar effect
causes the chestnut colour in horses. A number of other animals
have this type of mutation as well. These are called loss-offunction mutations because the animals lose the ability to
produce eumelanin. They are usually recessive, meaning that if
the other of the pair of alleles is the normal type, the mutant allele
has no effect; it is hidden. This means that animals with light coat
colour must have a gene pair of two mutant alleles, one being
inherited from each parent. If one of the alleles is the normal
form, the colour will be normal, not light.A second type of
mutation in this same gene results in pigment production that is
always switched on. In this case the production of eumelanin is ongoing, regardless of the signals being received. This type
of mutation has been found in cattle, sheep, mice, and chickens. 6 It is sometimes called a gain-of-function
mutation7 because the animal produces more eumelanin than it would normally, resulting in very dark / black colouring.
However, this term is misleading because the animal has lost its ability to
control eumelanin production. These mutations are typically dominant;
only one mutant allele is necessary for the animal to be affected.
Since this gene affects only the colour of an animal, mutations in it are well
tolerated,8 meaning that it does not affect the animals ability to survive.
Therefore, it is no surprise to find that dozens of different alleles have been
found for this gene.9 These mutations are all downward changes, where a
complex pathway has been disrupted. None are examples of onward,
upward change that evolutionists imagine have occurred throughout history.
What we see fits the young age history where an universal designer made
everything very good and these downward changes in the well-designed
biochemical pathways of living things began after mankind rebelled against
him.While the mutations discussed here may be well tolerated, thousands
of others result in disease. They remind us of the fallenness of the creation,
where everything is now in bondage to decay.

MIGRATION
Migration after the Flood
How did plants and animals spread around the world so quickly?
by Dominic Statham
Published: 12 March 2013 (GMT+10)

The young age model provides a better explanation for the observed patterns of biogeography than evolution.
This article is about biogeographythe study of where on the earth we find the different kinds of plants and animals. It is
also about two competing views of Earth history:
the secular, evolutionary ancient Earth view
the young age Earth view.
The secular, evolutionary, ancient Earth view
According to this, the earth is billions of years old, and natural processes have been slowly changing the earths continents
and slowly changing life on Earth over many millions of years. If we go back a couple of hundred million years, so were told,
the earth looked like this. All the continents were together in one great continent they call Pangaea. And the world we see
today, were told, formed as this single land mass split up, as the continents we know today slowly drifted apart. (See
repeating animation below.)
Credit: Ron Blakey, NAU Geology

The separation of the continents

As this was happening were toldas the continents were slowly drifting apart over millions of yearsdinosaurs went
extinct, reptiles evolved into birds and mammals, non-flowering plants evolved into flowering plants and, of course, apes
evolved into people. So the evolutionists tell us, when we study biogeography we discover lots of evidence supporting this
view. Indeed, theres a mountain of evidence they say, from biogeography, showing that evolution is true; and a mountain of
evidence confirming that the continents split apart millions of years ago, separating the various plants and animals that lived
on the earth around that time.When we go to Africa, we find leopards, rhinoceroses, giraffes and gorillas. In America, we

dont find any of these. Instead, we find raccoons, jaguars, armadillos and opossums. When we go to Australia we find
marsupials like kangaroos. (See here.) Evolutionists claim that the reason we find these different animals on these different
continents is that they evolved in the different parts of the world. So, they say, gorillas are found in Africa and not America,
because they evolved in Africa and not in America. Armadillos are found in America, because they evolved there and not
anywhere else.Evolutionists also claim that strong evidence for evolution can be found from studying the biogeography of
islands. For example evolutionists make much of the different species of finches found on the Galapagos Islands. One of the
prominent features of the Galapagos finches is their different beak shapes, and of particular significance is that the finches
have beaks best suited to the kind of food found on the islands where they live. Some have strong stubby beaks for crushing
hard seeds; others have thinner beaks for probing flowers or fishing insects from the crevices in trees. And so the story goes
and theres much to be said for itone original species flew to these islands from the mainland and, over time, diversified
into all the different species. This is often termed speciationwhere a number of different species come from one original
species.Actually, much more impressive examples of speciation can be found on the Hawaiian Islands, right out in the
middle of the Pacific. Around 500 unique species of fruit fly can be found here. Also, Hawaii is home to more than 1,000
different species of snails and slugs, species that, again, are found nowhere else in the world. Evolutionists claim that what
we see on the Galapagos and Hawaiian islands provides absolutely irrefutable evidence supporting their theory of
evolution.Within mammals, there are two main groups: the placentals and the marsupials. 1 Placental mammals, such as
humans, complete their embryonic development in the womb, joined to the mother by a placenta. Marsupial mammals, such
as kangaroos, have a very different reproductive system, where the mother carries and suckles her young in a pouch at the
front of her body. (See here.) We can see here a few more placentals on the left and a few more marsupials on the right.
There are around 140 species of marsupial in Australia, most of which are not found anywhere else; according to
evolutionists, theres a very straightforward explanation for this. Youve guessed itthese marsupials evolved in Australia!
According to Professor Richard Dawkins, The pattern of geographical distribution [of plants and animals] is just what you
would expect if evolution had happened2 and Jerry Coyne, who is Professor of Biology at the University of Chicago, had
this to say: The biogeographic evidence for evolution is now so powerful that I have never seen a creationist book, article or
lecture that has tried to refute it. Creationists simply pretend that the evidence doesnt exist.3
The young age Earth view
Many creationists believe that there was, originally, one great continent.There would have been much geological activity,
volcanism and ground movements. Probably a majority of creationist scientistsnot all, but probably a majoritywould
agree that the continents we see today did split apart from the one original land mass. And they would say that this
happened at the time of the Flood, when all this geological activity was going on. Of course, they wouldnt say this happened
slowly, over millions of years, but rapidlynot by continental drift, but continental sprint. And its important to note that,
according to this view, the movements of the continents would have occurred beneath the flood waters. So we wouldnt have
had living populations of plants and animals being split by this continental separation.During the Flood, the whole of the preflood world was destroyed. So the world we see today grew up after this global catastrophe, and over the last 4,500 years or
so. Plants left floating on the surface of the waters would have recolonised the areas where they finally settled, after the
flood waters receded, and the animals would have migrated to the places they now inhabit.
Which view best fits the data?
The question we might ask is this: Which view is best supported by the scientific evidence, the data? The secular
evolutionary ancient Earth view, or the young age Earth view?Firstly, the finches on the Galapagos and the many fruit flies
and snails on the Hawaiian islands are not a problem for creationists. We believe that animals were designed with the
capacity to vary within their kinds, and with the capacity to change and adapt to different environments; and when we study
this carefully, we actually find a problem for the evolutionists. This is because there is growing evidence that this kind of
adaptation occurs quicklyit doesnt require hundreds of thousands or millions of years. 4Theres lots of evidence that plants
and animals can change. Finches can become other species of finch, fruit flies can become other species of fruit fly, snails
can become other species of snail and so on. But this is hardly scientific evidence that an amphibian can become a reptile
or that a reptile can become a bird. Nor is it scientific evidence that an ape can evolve into a man.
Have the continents really been separated for millions of years?
Now the evolutionary view is that we have different animals on different continents because they evolved in different parts of
the world.According to this view, jaguars and lions descended from a common evolutionary ancestor that lived around three
million years ago. And after three million years of evolution, they say, we got jaguars in South America and lions in Africa.
But its possible to mate a jaguar and a lion and get a hybrid, a jaglion. If these two species, jaguars and lions, were really
separated by three million years of evolution, it is most unlikely that their mutated DNA would allow them to
hybridise.Evolutionists face an even bigger problem trying to explain hybrids between jaguars and leopards. This is because
the female of this kind of hybrid is fertile. Think about it. Three million years of separate evolutionhalf the time it allegedly
took for ape-like creatures to become peopleand the hybrid is still fertile. This seems very unlikely. But the ability of these
big cats to hybridise fits the young age account of history very well. If jaguars, lions, leopards and tigers all descended from
a pair of cats around 4,500 years ago, it is not surprising that they can mate and produce offspring.Arguably, evolutionists
face an even greater problem with the iguanas of the Galapagos Islands. The land and marine iguanas supposedly
separated from their common evolutionary ancestor around 10 million years ago. But, as we pointed out in our Darwin
documentary, land iguanas can mate with marine iguanas and produce offspring. This amazed evolutionists when they saw
it.
Were the continents really joined for millions of years?
In the evolutionary view, South America and Africa were joined for millions of years (see here). Why then are more seed
plants common to South America and Asia than to South America and Africa? Of around 200 seed plant families native to
Eastern South America, only 156 are common to Eastern South America and Western Africa, but 174 are common to
Eastern South America and Eastern Asia.5 (See here.) If South America and Africa had really been joined for millions of
years, we would expect to see exactly the opposite. We would expect there to be more plants common to S. America and
Africa than to S. America and Asia.According to Dr Simon Mayo, of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (near London), The
overall similarity of the floras [plants] of the two continents is surprisingly low given such a clear geophysical
background.6 Dr Mayo expresses surprise that there are so few plants found in both South America and Africa. Why is he
so surprised? Well, be believes these two continents were joined for millions of years. The actual locations of plants,
however, doesnt support this view.Some biogeographers have found this kind of data so puzzling that they have argued
against the idea of a super continent, Pangaea, where South America and Africa were joined, and proposed a different
arrangementthey have suggested instead that there was a super continent they call Pacifica, where South America and
Asia were joined.7If the ancient earth view were correct, we would expect the data and the models of ancient earth
geologists to fit with the data and models of ancient earth biogeographers. We would expect them to be harmonious, but
theyre not; often theyre inconsistent and contradictory.

New World monkeys

We find monkeys in South America, Africa and Asia. For example, we find the Spider Monkey in South America, the Olive
Baboon in Africa, the Langur in India and Macaques in Japan. (See here.) Now evolutionists tell us that monkeys evolved in
Africa. Well, its not difficult to see how they might have migrated to Asia. But how did they get to South America? According
to evolutionary theory, South America split off from Africa millions of years before monkeys had evolved. Evolutionists have
the same problems explaining why rodents and some flowering plants are found on these two continents, because, again,
they are said to have evolved after South America split from Africa.8
Beringian fossils
Currently, the western tip of Alaska is very close to the eastern tip of Asia. Theyre separated only by the narrow Bering
Strait. In fact, many people believe that in the recent past, the two were connected. But, according to evolutionists, and their
theory of slow continental drift, Asia and Alaska have only been close to one another for ten million years or so; not for very
long in their thinking.Prior to this, in the supercontinent Pangaea, Alaska and Asia are understood to have been separated
by thousands of miles of oceanby all the water on the far side of the globe. (See here.) However, we find plant fossils of
the same species in rocks either side of the Bering Strait; and these rocks were laid down in what evolutionists would call
the Jurassic period.9 But the Jurassic period, were told, ended around 150 million years ago. So according to this thinking,
these identical plant fossils were buried at least 150 million years ago.Do you see the problem here for the ancient earthers?
In their thinking if we go back over 150 million years, Eastern Asia and Alaska werent close to one another as we see in this
slide. They were separated by thousands of miles of ocean. Why, then, do we find plant fossils of the same species buried in
Jurassic rocks in these two very distant regions? This is yet another example of the kinds of conflicts that arise between
ancient earth geology and ancient earth biogeography.
Millions of years of evolution?
There are many similar plants and animals found in eastern Asia and eastern North America, but not in the regions between
them.10,11 (Seehere.) Now evolutionists try and explain this by saying that millions of years ago the northern regions were
warmer and these two areas of Asia and America were part of one continuous plant and animal distributionlike this. And a
few million years ago, they say, the climate then cooled and the plant and animal life was separated into the two zones. But,
again, their millions of years scenario hits a problem. And its a big problem, because many of the plants in these two
regions are regarded as being the same or virtually the same species. 12 How, then, could they have been separated for
millions of years? If all these plants had really been separated for millions of years, they would not be expected to have
retained their similarities to the point that they would still be considered to be the same or virtually the same species.
Creationists would expect them to change because plants and animals appear to be designed to vary within their kind; and
evolutionists would expect them to change because of genetic mutations and their understanding of the evolutionary
process.In evolutionary thinking it took only six million years for ape-like creatures to evolve into people. Make no mistake,
there are considerable differences between apes and people. But to the evolutionist this is easily explained: the evolutionary
process, they say, is so powerful it can bring about these kinds of remarkable changes in just a few million years. Why then
did all these plants and animals in Asia and America not evolve too and change significantly over the same period?From a
creationist point of view, though, it would seem perfectly reasonable to understand that there was a continuous plant and
animal distribution linking these two parts of the worldbut not of course millions of years ago, but in fairly recent history.
More biogeographic puzzles for evolutionists
Many plants and animals are found only in the northern regions and southern regions and not in between. Crowberries are
one example. It certainly cant be said of these that they are found where they are because thats where they evolved. There
are so many plants and animals found only in the northern and southern regions that some biogeographers have made the
astonishing suggestion that these parts of the world were once in contact with each other. They have seriously suggested,
based on biogeographic data, that the arrangement of the continents in the past was such that the northern regions were
adjacent to the southern regions.13 So, again, we see the thinking and views of ancient earth biogegraphers conflicting with
the views of ancient earth geologists. Few of the latter would have much time for the idea that the northern regions were
once adjacent to the southern regions.
So how might we explain biogeography within the framework of the young Earth history?
One process by which plants and animals could have spread around the world after the Flood is raftingthat is, on log mats
driven by ocean currents. Actually, a growing number of evolutionists are proposing rafting as an explanation for how some
plants and animals dispersed from one island to another, and even from one continent to another. 14When Mt St Helens
erupted in 1980, a tsunami was generated in the nearby Spirit Lake, and this caused around a million trees to be uprooted
from the surrounding hillside. These eventually settled on the lake as an enormous log mat. Following the great earthquake
off the coast of Japan in 2011 and the resulting tsunami, a trail of debris formed in the Pacific ocean, around 70 miles (100
km) long and covering an area of over 2 million square feet (186,000 square metres).Now the effects of the Mt St Helens
and Japanese tsunamis were nothing as compared with the destruction that would have been wrought by a global flood. The
flood would have resulted in billions of trees floating on the surface of the oceans. These log mats would have been like
enormous floating islands and, regularly watered by rainfall, they could have easily transported plants and small animals
great distances. Some creationists believe that the pre-Flood world included great floating forests, a bit like the quaking
bogs we know today.15 Perhaps these were broken up during the Flood and became rafts too.The ability of ocean currents to
distribute floating objects around the world was seen recently, when thousands of bathtub rubber ducks were lost off a
container ship in the North Pacific. Within just a few months, these had floated to Indonesia, Australia and South America,
and subsequently into the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.16,17,18 (See here.) Often we find plants distributed along coastlines and
islands. The distribution of the Sago palm can be seen here. Its found in East Africa, Madagascar, the tip of Indian and parts
of Indonesia and Australasia.Pelargonium is another example. Its found right out in the Atlantic, in South Africa,
Madagascar, east Africa, India, Sri Lanka, southern Australia and New Zealand. Another example is a type of fern
plant, Strangeriaceae. Its found in South Africa and along the eastern coast of Australia. This shows the distribution of a
plant called Hook and Arn, a member of the carrot family. Based on the routes taken by the rubber ducks, it seems very
reasonable to believe that rafting explains this. We can see how the rubber ducks floated to North and South America.
Tracks of dispersal
A prominent feature of biogeography is tracks of dispersal. This is an example. It shows how Oreobolus plants dispersed
throughout Indonesia and Australasia and across the Pacific ocean. And whats so significant about this is that many other
plants (and small animals) have followed a similar route.Note, too, that all the plants and animals following this track are
found either side of the Pacific Ocean. Now, when the habitats of particular plants or animals are broken or split by land or
water, its called a disjunction. So we might say that all these plants and animals are disjunct (or split) across the Pacific
Ocean.
Areas of endemism

Text books typically show the main biogeographic regions like this. This is the map for animals, showing six main faunal (or
animal) regionsregions where we tend to find the same sort of animals. But these kinds of diagrams are really over
simplifications. A more realistic picture is like this, where we find many different plants and animals concentrated in small
regions known as Areas of Endemism. 19,20 Now, endemic means native or restricted to a particular area, and an area of
endemism is one where there are a high number of endemic specieswhere many different species are found in the same
small distinct region. And here, each colour represents one of these regions.Interestingly, areas of high plant endemism
often coincide with areas of high animal endemism.21,22 So, these areas where we find lots of different plant species
concentrated together tend to be the same as the areas where we find lots of different animal species concentrated
together. Many areas of endemism are coastal regions and islands.For example, the tropical Andes, shown here enclosed in
red on the left, is the richest and most diverse plant region on Earth. It contains around 15% of the all the worlds plant life in
less than 1% of the worlds land area. Around 20,000 of its 40,000 plant species are endemic. The area of Sundaland,
enclosed in green to the right, contains 15,000 endemic plant species and the island of Madagascar, enclosed in blue, has
over 9,000 endemic plant species.We also find many similarities between these regionswhere the same plants and
animals are distributed around or either side of an ocean. There are numerous patterns of disjunction like this, where, again
and again, we find the same plants and animals in the same widely separated areas. 23 In the last century, a man called Leon
Croizat plotted many tracks like these showing dispersal routes across the world (see here). Each of these lines is known as
a generalized track, where many different plants follow the same route. 24 Croizats work made clear that many tracks of
dispersal either cross oceans or follow coastlines. A good case can be made for the biogeographic regions being oceans
rather than continents! Christopher Humphries of the Natural History Museum in London and Lynne Parenti of the
Smithsonian Institution wrote,Characteristically, many disjunct patterns span ocean bottoms, to the point that the oceans
have been characterized as the natural biogeographic regions and the continents represent the land areas around the
periphery.25To me, this is very strong evidence supporting the rafting hypothesisthat transport across oceans explains
much of the biogeography of the world. I believe that many plants and small animals were transported on great log mats left
over from the Flood and that the areas of endemism we see today correspond to the landing places of these rafts.
Interestingly, researchers from Bryan College, Tennessee, showed that the intersections of ocean currents with the
continents tend to coincide with these areas of endemism.26 (See here.)
Migration across land bridges
Another way animals could have spread around the world is through migration across land bridges that are now below sea
level.We believe that soon after the Flood, there was an Ice Age. We dont believe in many ice ages, but just one.
Conditions would have been ideal for an Ice Age at the end the Flood. The oceans would have been warm, due to hot
underground water being added to them at the beginning of the Flood, and this warming of the oceans would have caused
much water to evaporate into the atmosphere. At the same time, volcanoes erupting during and after the Flood would have
thrown lots of dust into the air and this would have blocked some of the suns heat, keeping the continents cool. So the large
amounts of water vapour in the atmosphere would then have fallen as snow, building up significant amounts of ice on the
land. Sea levels would then have fallen as the oceans water evaporated and was trapped as ice sheets on the continents.
And land bridges would have appeared as the sea level dropped.There was likely a land bridge across what is now the
Bering Strait and a number of land bridges linking parts of Indonesia and perhaps even Australasia. Of course, we dont see
these land bridges today, because much of the ice has now melted and sea levels have risen again. Also, due to continued
geological activity after the Flood, ground movements could have caused other land bridges to fall below sea level. So its
not difficult to imagine how animals could have migrated from Ararat to many places throughout the world. Also, some plants
and animals, especially those useful for farming, may have been transported by man, particularly during the dispersal from
Babel.I think, too, there was probably some rafting of animals to Australia and South America. In fact, North and South
America may not have been connected until sometime after the end of the Flood. 27 You can see on this diagram that Ive
shown South America detached from North America.
Marsupial distributions
Living marsupials are found in Australia, New Guinea and parts of Americasee here. Most marsupials, however, are found
in Australia and New Guinea and many of these are found nowhere else. So how can we explain this within the framework
of the young Earth history? Well, I dont have any firm answers, but I can outline one possibility that I think makes
sense.Now, you remember were dealing here with two types of mammalplacentals and marsupials. And theres some
evidence to suggest that placentals tend to outcompete marsupials when they share the same habitats. From a creation
point of view, this does seem plausible. Marsupials alongside the placentals must have lived around the Middle East and the
surrounding continents. Yet only placentals live in these places today. It seems significant, too, that North America has only
one marsupialthe Virginia opossum. Marsupials have become well established in Australia but largely in the absence of
placentals.Perhaps competition from placentals drove marsupials to migrate away ahead of placentals. Marsupials then
gained an early foothold in Australia and South America and, without competition from placentals, they thrived in those
places. And perhaps, as the log rafts broke up and sea levels rose and covered the land bridges, Australia and South
America became almost completely isolated before very many placentals had made their way to those continents. So,
driven by competition from placentals, marsupials could have migrated to Australia and South America and then been
protected from placental competition as these continents were cut off from the rest of the world. Fossils of marsupials are
found on every continent.28 So, in evolutionary thinking, marsupials died out in all the continents except the ones where we
see them today. Why cant creationists simply argue the same?There are some interesting twists in the evolutionary story
about marsupials. If, in evolutionary thinking, we go back to the late Cretaceous rocks, supposedly around 65 to 80 million
years ago, we dont find any marsupial fossils in Australia and South America. They are found only in Europe, Asia and
North America. An article in Science journal said this:Living marsupials are restricted to Australia and South America In
contrast, metatherian [marsupial] fossils from the Late Cretaceous are exclusively from Eurasia and North America This
geographical switch remains unexplained.29So, again, according to evolutionists, 65 million years ago marsupials lived in
Europe, Asia and North America, but they then died out in those areas and now live in Australia and South America. If
evolutionists can have marsupials dying out in Europe, Asia and North America, why cant creationists?Another problem for
evolutionists is the Little Mountain Monkey of South America. DNA comparisons suggests that this little South American
marsupial is more similar to the Australian marsupials than to other American ones. How did it end up in America? It seems
very difficult to argue that it evolved there.
Summary
The main evidence for evolution from biogeography is speciationa fact of biology that is better explained by the creation
model.The distribution of plants does not support the belief the continents were joined for millions of years.Fertile hybrids
between animals on different continents indicate that they have not been separated by millions of years.Plants and animals
are concentrated in small regions of high biodiversity along coastlines and islands. While these correspond, to some degree,
with areas of high rainfall, this does not explain why there are many patterns of disjunction where the same plants and

animals are found in the same widely separated areas of endemism.Such biogeographic observations, however, appear to
be well explained by transport across oceans.Log rafts left over from the Flood could have provided the means of rafting.
Migration across land bridges may explain other biogeographic distributions.
Conclusion
As with other branches of science, the data appear to fit the young account of Earth history very well.
ABiogeography*
by Dominic Statham
Evolutionists claim that the biogeographic distribution of organisms provides strong evidence for evolution. Although studies
of biogeography provide strong support for the process of speciation, they do not fit the wider predictions of evolutionary
theory, and are inconsistent with the ancient earth geologists model of slow continental drift. Evolutionary theory has
difficulty explaining areas of endemism and the disjunct distributions seen in both the fossil record and the living world. The
data can be seen to fit the young age account of recolonisation following the Flood, and particularly the hypothesis that the
observed patterns arose from global dispersal on natural rafts.
Figure 1. Placental mammals (left) and their marsupial counterparts
(right).
Biogeography is the study of the distribution of plants and animals
throughout the world. From this, it is known that each of the continents has
its own distinctive fauna and flora. In Africa, for example, we find
rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, lions, hyenas, giraffes, zebras,
chimpanzees and gorillas. South America has none of these. Instead, it is
home to pumas, jaguars, raccoons, opossums and armadillos. Marsupials
are found in Australia and South America, but not in Europe. Such
observations have led biogeographers to divide the world into six main
faunal regions. Similarly, six main floral regions have been identified.
Evolutionists claim that the most reasonable explanation for these
biogeographic distributions is that the different animals and plants evolved
separately, from ancestors that colonized different areas of the world
thousands or millions of years ago. Further evidence for this is argued
from the study of island biogeography. For example, of the 1,500 known
species of fruit flies (Drosophila), nearly one third of them live only on the
Hawaiian Islands. These islands are also home to more than 1,000
species of snails and other land molluscs that are not found anywhere
else.Here, again, it is necessary to differentiate between
speciation within a kind (which is accepted as fact by both creationists and
evolutionists) and evolution between kinds. Biogeography does indeed
provide evidence in support of the former, and the fruit flies, snails and
other molluscs found on the Hawaiian Islands arguably provide some of
the strongest evidence we have of this. Similarly, clear biogeographic
evidence exists for the speciation of finches around the Galpagos
archipelago, where similar but different species are found on the different
islands.1 Almost certainly, this arose because the islands are close enough
to enable a few birds to fly to a neighbouring island, but far enough away
for the new colony to be isolated from the original group and less likely to
interbreed with it. But how well does evolutionary theory explain the more
general observations of biogeography?In fact, some biogeographic
observations are extremely difficult to explain within an evolutionary
framework. According to the theory of evolution, mammals developed from
small, shrew-like creatures around 100 million years ago. These creatures are argued to have evolved into, among others,
the marsupials found in Australia and theplacentals found in Europe and other parts of the world. What is so remarkable
about these two groups is that, while their reproductive systems are fundamentally different, in other ways they are very
similar (figure 1). For example, the skeletal structures of some European placental dogs are almost identical to those of
Australian marsupial dogs. This is particularly evident when the skulls of the Tasmanian marsupial wolf (Thylacinus
cynocephalus) and the European placental timber wolf (Canis lupus) are compared. Other placentals and marsupials, which
supposedly evolved independently from one another, also show similar characteristics. Is it really credible
that random mutations and environmental conditions on separatecontinents could have given rise to such similarities?
Areas of endemism
Since evolution is argued as
being a global phenomenon, it
would be expected that new
species would originate in many
places
throughout
each
continent. Hence, evolutionary
theory would predict that
centres of plant and animal
dispersal would be randomly
distributed,
rather
than
concentrated in a few areas.2 It
has been known for many
years, however, that this is not
the case. As far back as 1820,
Augustin de Candolle realized
that the global pattern of plant
distribution is closer to that of
areas of endemism, where

many different plants are confined to the same distinct and often small regions (see figure 4 below). 3 Subsequently, de
Candolles areas of high plant endemism were found also to correspond to areas of high animal endemism.4
Disjunct distributions
Figure 2. Distribution of the plant genus Clethra (from Thorne, ref. 9).
Another problem for evolutionary explanations of biogeography arises because similar plants and animals are found not only
across adjacent regions of land or neighbouring islands, but also on different continents, separated by large stretches of
land or ocean. These are called disjunct distributions. Evolutionists sometimes explain these by arguing that continental drift
separated similar groups that once lived in close proximity and therefore shared common ancestors. This is the explanation
given, for example, as to why chironomid midges are found in Antarctica, Southern Australia, South America, New Zealand
and South Africa.5 However, according to evolutionists own theories, many species that are disjunct across previously joined
continents evolved after their separation.6For example, South America and Africa allegedly separated around 100 million
years ago, but species of cactus, which supposedly evolved in South America around thirty million years ago, are also found
in Africa. Similarly, the evolutionary accounts of the emergence of rodents found in South America and Africa do not fit the
generally accepted timing of continent drift.7 Many other puzzling disjunctions across these continents are
known.8 Moreover, disjunct species are frequently found on continents that never bordered one another. For example, many
plants and insects are known to be disjunct across the Pacific Ocean.9 The distribution of the plant genusClethra, for
example, is shown in figure 2. Interestingly, the opossum Dromiciops, found in Chile, is much closer to Australian marsupials
than to other South American marsupials. 10There is an abundance of other biogeographic anomalies that do not fit the
expected evolutionary pattern. For example, the fauna of central and southern Africa is closer to that of southern Asia than
that of northern Africa,11 and flora found in Madagascar is remarkably similar to that of Indonesia.12 Crowberries (Empetrum)
are found only in the more northern regions of the northern hemisphere and in the most southern regions of the southern
hemisphere. Many closely related plants are found only in eastern North America and eastern Asia. A study conducted by
the Illinois State Museum showed that 627 seed plant genera are common to eastern Asia and eastern North America, 151
of which are not found in western North America. 13 Significantly, some of the plants (and fungi) found in eastern Asia and
eastern North America are identical at the species level, indicating that the disjunctions occurred very recently (that is, within
the last few thousand years). If these disjunctions had occurred millions of years ago, as evolutionists believe, it is most
unlikely that so many species would have remained the same in the two areas. This is because plants and animals are
known to change rapidly in response to changes in their environments.
Fossils
The fossil record also presents problems for evolutionary explanations of biogeography. For example, there are many similar
plant fossils in western North America and eastern Asia, but, according to the account of continental drift preferred by
geologists, these rocks were laid down when Alaska and Russia were separated by thousands of kilometres of
ocean.14 While living marsupials are very largely restricted to Australia and South America, their fossils from the period
evolutionists call the Late Cretaceous (allegedly between 85 and 65 million years ago) are found exclusively in Eurasia and
North America. As noted by Richard Cifelli, an Associate Professor in the Department of Zoology at Oklahoma University,
this geographical switch remains unexplained.15 Interestingly, fossil marsupials have now been found on every
continent.16 According to evolutionary theory, placentals evolved in the northern hemisphere and did not appear in Australia
until around five million years ago. However, a recent discovery of what appears to be a placental fossil in Australia, in rocks
supposedly 120 million years old, has caused evolutionists to suggest that placentals might have evolved first in the
southern hemisphere, migrated north, and then become extinct in the southern continents! 17 Lions are known to have lived
in Israel, but fossils of lions have not been found there. Similarly, millions of bison once roamed the USA, but very few bison
fossils are found there. To argue that a particular animal must have evolved in a particular place, simply because evidence
that it lived anywhere else has not (yet) been found, is not necessarily scientific.For these reasons, it is clear that the
observed distributions of organisms cannot be explained simply by arguing that they evolved in the places they are now
found. Consequently, evolutionists have supplemented their models of biogeography with alternative theories, such as
migration across previously existing intercontinental land bridges, bird and wind transport, and transoceanic dispersal of
plants and animals on floating vegetation mats.18 In some cases, it is argued that distributions that are now disjunct were
once continuous, and that plants or animals of these groups became extinct in the connecting land areas. Another theory
proposed to explain puzzling biogeographic observations is convergent evolution. According to this, different organisms
evolved similar forms in different parts of the world as a result of having to adapt to similar environments. This is the
explanation provided by evolutionists for the similarities between the placentals and marsupials, for example. 19In any
discussion of patterns of biogeography it should be recognized that many of the theories are inevitably data-poor and,
consequently, imagination-rich. The events in question all occurred many years outside of living memory and much of the
evidence that might have supported any particular view may have disappeared long ago. It is perhaps significant that, in the
nineteenth century, the case for an evolutionary interpretation of biogeography was based on a belief in separate, fixed
continents, whereas now it is argued that the observed patterns of life support an evolutionary interpretation of biogeography
based on continental drift. Perhaps the truth is closer to the view expressed by Drs Gareth Nelson and Norman Platnick of
the American Museum of Natural History, who maintain, biogeography (or geographical distribution of organisms) has not
been shown to be evidence for or against evolution in any sense.20 According to this, a recolonization of the world began
immediately after the Flood, when the waters subsided .The animals, and floating vegetation, carrying seeds, insects and
freshwater fish, would have settled on the emerging land. The young age models concentrate on four main processes which
are understood to have influenced post-flood biogeography:
transoceanic transport on vegetation mats
transport by man
migration and partial extinction
speciation.
Transoceanic transport on vegetation mats
The potential for dispersal of plants and animals across large stretches of water by natural rafts has been accepted by
evolutionists and creationists for many years. Professor Paul Moody of the University of Vermont argued,In times of flood,
large masses of earth and entwining vegetation, including trees, may be torn loose from the banks of rivers and swept out to
sea. Sometimes such masses are encountered floating in the ocean out of sight of land, still lush and green, with palms,
twenty to thirty feet [7 to 10 m] tall. It is entirely probable that land animals may be transported long distances in this manner.
Mayr records that many tropical ocean currents have a speed of at least two knots; this would amount to fifty miles [80 km] a
day, 1000 miles [1,600 km] in three weeks.21

Figure
3. Oreobolus track
(from
the
Buffalo
Museum of Science
New York, USA).More
recently, the rafting idea
has been advanced by
evolutionists to explain
the presence of the
Bear Cuscus (Ailurops
ursinus) and the Dwarf
Cuscus (Strigocuscus
celebensis)
on
the
island of Sulawesi22 and
of lemurs on the island
of
Madagascar.23 In
1995,
fisherman
witnessed
the
colonization
of
the
island of Anguilla in the
West Indies by iguanas.
These were washed up on one of the islands eastern beaches, having floated there on a mat of logs and uprooted trees, a
few weeks after two hurricanes hit the islands of the Lesser Antilles. Scientists believed that the iguanas had rafted 320 km
from Guadeloupe.24Significantly, biogeographers sometimes refer to oceans rather than continents as the main
biogeographic regions. This is because, very often, patterns of disjunction are seen where many terrestrial organisms are
distributed around the land bordering an ocean. So clear was this to the twentieth-century biogeographer Lon Croizat that
he spent much time drawing tracks to chart repetitious occurrences of these patterns.25 Where a particular track reoccurs
in respect of different organisms, in group after group, it is often referred to as a generalized track. The track
forOreobolus plants, for example, is shown in figure 3 and is one that is shared with a multitude of other plants and
animals.26 From these generalized tracks, Croizat identified five biogeographic nodes or gates of plant and animal
dispersal across the world (figure 4).27

Figure 4. Correspondence of currents, gates and areas of endemism. The twenty areas of endemism identified by de
Candolle are indicated by the numbers 1 to 20. The five biogeographic gates identified by Croizat are indicated by the
letters A to E. (From Wise and Croxton, ref. 30).
The destructive power of large volumes of fast-flowing water is enormous and, in the early stages of the Flood, would have
been sufficient to rip up large amounts of woodland. Although some of this would have been buried in sediments, many
billions of trees would have been left floating on the surface of the waters, as enormous log mats. 28 These islands of
vegetation, regularly watered by rainfall, could have easily supported plant and animal life over significant periods of time.
Ocean currents would have moved these massive rafts around the globe, sometimes washing them up beside land, where
animals and insects might embark or disembark, and then transporting them back out to sea. The ability of ocean
currents to distribute floating objects around the world was seen recently, when thousands of bathtub rubber ducks were lost
off a container ship in the North Pacific in 1992. In fewer than twenty years, these had floated to Australia and South
America, and subsequently into the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. 29 In support of the rafting theory, Professor Kurt Wise and
Matthew Croxton point out that the intersections of ocean currents with land masses appear to correspond with de
Candolles areas of endemism and Croizats biogeographic gates (figure 4). 30 It is not suggested here that land animals
survived the Flood on rafts, but that rafts would have facilitated their dispersal after the Flood, as they multiplied and
migrated away .
Transport by man

The human race spread out over the whole of the earth.31Remarkable supporting evidence for this is found from
archaeology, similarities in languages spoken by people in Europe and the Far East, and anatomical and DNA analyses. 32 It
is reasonable to believe that many of these people, travelling to diverse regions, would have taken animals with them, as
food for the journey and for subsequent farming on arrival at their destination.33
Migration and partial extinction
Many creationists believe that an Ice Age 34 followed soon after the Flood. 35 This would have lowered sea levels, as water
accumulated as ice sheets, and could have created land bridges across which animals could migrate. Most evolutionists
believe that a land bridge once existed across the Bering Strait, linking Asia with America. 36 Many geologists believe that
there were major tectonic upheavals following the separation of the continents,37 and land bridges that once existed in other
parts of the world may have subsequently fallen below sea level. Animals could have migrated from one continent to another
via these bridges, as they multiplied and spread outthe world, perhaps over hundreds of years. The speed at which animals
can spread by this process is demonstrated by the rabbits of Australia. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, rabbits were
unknown on this continent, but, in 1859, a colony was introduced in Southern Victoria, in the south-east. Within fifty years,
this had spread all the way to the west coast. 38It is clear that major changes in climate have taken place on various
continents. Mammoths, rhinoceroses, bison, horses and antelopes, for example, once lived in large numbers in Northern
Siberia. The deserts of Egypt were once rich savannahs.39 Groups of animals that once thrived in certain areas could have
become extinct in these places, and only those that migrated to other continents would have survived. Indeed, climate
change and competition from other animals could well have driven migration. Alternatively, the absence of particular groups
on particular continents can be understood to be because they never migrated or were never transported to these places
and survived.
Speciation
Contrary to statements often made by those seeking to refute creationism, most creationists do not argue that species are
fixed and cannot change. Rather, they argue strongly in support of the process of speciation. Apart from the strong scientific
evidence in support of speciation, it is an essential component of the creationist explanation for the diversity of life now seen
on the earth.However, that creationists do not believe that speciation can cross kinds, so a reptile would never speciate
into a mammal, for example, nor an ape into a man.Accepting that animals and plants were made with the capacity to adapt
to new environments, creationists argue that the presence of similar species or genera, in closely connected areas, can
sometimes be explained by biological change.
Conclusion
While observations of biogeography provide strong evidence for the process of speciation, they do not support the more
general predictions of evolutionary theory or the ancient-earth geologists model of slow, continental drift. The data, however,
can be seen to fit the young age account of recolonization and diversification following the Flood.
How did animals get to places such as Australia?
After the Flood, did kangaroos hop all the way to Australia?
What did koalas eat on the way?
Animal distribution after the Flood
There are severe limitations on our attempts to understand the hows and whys of something that happened once, was not
recorded in detail, and cannot be repeated. We cannot go back in a time machine to check what happened, and our
reconstructions of what the world was like immediately after the Flood will inevitably be deficient. In spite of these limitations,
a yong age framework of thinking seems to make better sense of the evidence than an evolutionary model, which ignores
the young age model.
Clues from modern times
Krakatoa, in the Indonesian archipelago, erupted in 1883 rendering the island remnant apparently lifeless. However, people
visiting the island soon noted that it was being recolonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects
and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes, and even a few mammals. One might not have expected such an array of
creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did. Even though these were mostly smaller than some of the
creatures we will discuss here, it illustrates the limits of our imaginings on such things.
Land bridges
Evolutionists acknowledge that men and animals could once freely cross the Bering Strait, which separates Asia and the
Americas.2 Before the idea of continental drift became popular, evolutionists depended entirely upon a lowering of the sea
level during an ice age (which locked up water in the ice) to create land bridges, enabling dry-land passage from
Europemost of the way to Australasia, for example. The existence of some deep-water stretches along the route to Australia
is still consistent with this explanation. Evolutionist geologists themselves believe there have been major tectonic upheavals,
accompanied by substantial rising and falling of sea-floors, in the time-period with which they associate an ice age. For
instance, parts of California are believed to have been raised many thousands of feet from what was the sea floor during this
ice age period, which they call Pleistocene (one of the most recent of the supposed geological periods). Creationist
geologists generally regard Pleistocene sediments as post- Flood, the period in which these major migrations took place. In
the same way, other dry-land areas, including parts of these land bridges, subsided to become submerged at around the
same time.3 There is a widespread, but mistaken, belief that marsupials are found only in Australia, thus supporting the idea
that they must have evolved there. However, living marsupials are found also in Indonesia (the cuscus in Sulawesi), and in
North and South America (opossums), and fossil marsupials have been found on every continent. Likewise, monotremes
were once thought to be unique to Australia, but the discovery in 1991 of a fossil platypus tooth in South America stunned
the scientific community.4 Therefore, since evolutionists believe all organisms came from a common ancestor, migration
between Australia and other areas must be conceded as possible by all scientists, whether evolutionist or creationist.
Creationists generally believe there was only one Ice Age after, and as a consequence of, the Flood.5 The lowered sea level
at this time made it possible for animals to migrate over land bridges for centuries.
Did the kangaroo hop all the way to Australia?

How did animals make the long journey from the Ararat region? Even
though there have been isolated reports of individual land
animalsmaking startling journeys of thousands of kilometres, such
abilities are not even necessary. Early settlers released a very small
number of rabbits in Australia. Wild rabbits are now found at the very
opposite corner (in fact, every corner) of this vast island continent. Does
that mean that an individual rabbit had to be capable of crossing the
whole of Australia? Of course not. Creation speakers are sometimes
asked mockingly, Did the kangaroo hop all the way to Australia? We
see by the rabbit example that this is a foolish question. Populations of
animals may have had centuries to migrate, relatively slowly, over many
generations. We lack information as to how animals were distributed
before the Flood. Kangaroos (as is true for any other creature) may not
have been on an isolated landmass. It may be asked, if creatures were
migrating to Australia over a long time (a journey which would have
included such places as Indonesia, presumably), then why do we not
find their fossils en route in such countries? Fossilization is a rare event,
requiring, as a rule, sudden burial (as in the Flood) to prevent
decomposition. Lions lived in Israel until relatively recently. We dont find
lion fossils in Israel, yet this doesnt prevent us believing the many
historical reports of their former presence there. The millions of bison
that once roamed the United States of America have left virtually no
fossils. So why it should be a surprise that small populations,
presumably under migration pressure from competitors and/or
predators, and thus living in any one area for a few generations at most,
should leave no fossils recording their migration? Unique organisms Another issue is why certain animals (and plants) are
found in only one place. Why is species x found only in Madagascar and species y only in the Seychelles? Many times,
questions on this are phrased to indicate that the questioner believes that this means species y headed only in that one
direction, and never migrated anywhere else. While that is possible, it is not necessarily the case at all. All that the present
situation indicates is that these are now the only places where x or y still survive. The ancestors of present-day kangaroos
may have established daughter populations in several parts of the world, but most of these populations subsequently
became extinct. Perhaps those marsupials only survived in Australia because they migrated there ahead of the placental
mammals (we are not suggesting anything other than random processes in choice of destination). Then after the sea level
rose, the marsupials became isolated from the placentals and so were protected from competition and predation. The ability
of marsupials to carry their young in pouches would facilitate faster migration than placentals that have their young at foot.
Palm Valley in central Australia is host to a unique species ofpalm, Livingstonia
mariae, found nowhere else in the world. Does this necessarily mean that the
seeds for this species floated only to this one little spot? Not at all. Current models
of post-Flood climate indicate that the world is much drier now than it was in the
early post-Flood centuries. Evolutionists themselves agree that in recent times (by
evolutionary standards) the Sahara was lush and green, and that central Australia
had a moist, tropical climate. For all we know, the Livingstonia mariae palm may
have been widespread across Australia, perhaps even in other places that are now
dry, such as parts of Africa. The palm has survived in Palm Valley because there it
happens to be protected from the drying out which affected the rest of its vast
central Australian surrounds. Everywhere else, it died out. Incidentally, this concept
of changing vegetation with changing climate should be kept in mind when
considering post-Flood animal migrationespecially because of the objections
(and caricatures) which may be presented. For instance, how could creatures that
today need a rainforest environment trudge across thousands of kilometres of
parched desert on the way to where they now live? The answer is that it wasnt
desert then!
The koala and other specialized types

Some problems might seem to be more challenging. For

instance, there are creatures that require special conditions or a
very specialized diet, such as the giant panda of China and
Australias koala. We dont know, of course, that bamboo shoots
or blue gum leaves6 were not then
flourishing all along their eventual
respective migratory paths. In fact, this
could have influenced the direction they
took. But, in any case, there is another
possibility. A need for unique or special
conditions to survive may be a result of
specialization, a down-hill change in
some populations. That is, it may result
from a loss in genetic information, from
thinning out of the gene pool or by
degenerative mutation. A good example
is the many modern breeds of dog,
selected by man (although natural
conditions can do likewise), which are
much less hardy in the wild than their
mongrel ancestors. For example, the
St Bernard carries a mutational defect,
an overactive thyroid, which means it
needs to live in a cold environment to
avoid overheating. This suggests that
the ancestors of such creatures, were
not as specialized. Thus they were
hardier than their descendants, which
carry only a portion of that original gene
pool of information.7 In other words, the
koalas ancestors may have been able
to survive on a much greater range of
vegetation. Such an explanation has been made possible only with modern biological insights. Perhaps as knowledge
increases other apparent difficulties will also be resolved. Such changes do not require a long time for animals under
migratory pressure. The first small population that formed would tend to break up rapidly into daughter populations, going in
different directions, each carrying only a portion of the gene pool of the original pair. Sometimes all of a population will
eventually become extinct; sometimes all but one specialized type. Where all the sub-types survive and proliferate, we find
some of the tremendous diversity seen among some groups of creatures which are apparently derived from one created
kind. This explains why some very obviously related species are found far apart from each other. The sloth, a very slowmoving creature, may seem to require much more time than the model allows to make the journey from the mountains of
Ararat to its present home. Perhaps its present condition is also explicable by a similar devolutionary process. However, to
account for todays animal distribution, evolutionists themselves have had to propose that certain primates have travelled
across hundreds of miles of open ocean on huge rafts of matted vegetation torn off in storms.8 Indeed, iguanas have
recently been documented travelling hundreds of kilometres in this manner between islands in the Caribbean.9 Evolutionists
have even proposed that blind snakes, which they say evolved in Madagascar and India, crossed oceans by rafting to
Australia, South America, and the Caribbean islands. They propose several oceanic dispersal events, including a westward
transatlantic one, unexpected for burrowing animals.10 The model suggests a pattern of post-Flooddispersal of animals
and humans that accounts for fossil distributionsof apes and humans, for example. In post-Flood deposits in Africa, ape
fossils tend to be found below human fossils. Evolutionists claim that this arose because humans evolved from the apes, but
there is another explanation. Animals, including apes, would have begun spreading out over the earth straight after the
Flood.Human dispersal did not start until Babel, about a hundred years after the Flood. Such a delay would have meant that
some ape fossils would be found consistently below human fossils, since people would have arrived in Africa after the
apes.11 We may never know the exact answer to all such questions, but certainly the problems are far less formidable than
they may at first appear.12 Coupled with all the, geological, and anthropological evidence for the Flood, one is justified in
regarding the young age account of the animals dispersing from a central point as perfectly reasonable.13 Not only that, but
the young age model provides an excellent framework for the scientific study of these questions. Indeed, very valuable work
has been done on the distribution of plants and animals from a creation perspective.14,15 Many of the distributions are not
consistent with expectations based on a deeptime evolutionary model, contrary to the claims of some high-profile
popularizers of evolutionary ideas, but readily fit a post-Flood dispersal model.
Natural rafts carried animals around the globe
by Dominic Statham
Various theories have been put forward to explain how this could have happened, some of which seem quite plausible, such
as migration across land bridges, which have now fallen below sea level, and transportation by humans.Another explanation
which is gaining increasing support is the rafting hypothesis.Interestingly, the potential for dispersal of plants and animals
across large stretches of water by natural rafts has been accepted by evolutionists for many years. Professor Paul Moody of
the University of Vermont argued,
Steve Murray
Iguanas colonised Anguilla in the West Indies on rafts.
In times of flood, large masses of earth and entwining
vegetation, including trees, may be torn loose from the banks of
rivers and swept out to sea. Sometimes such masses are
encountered floating in the ocean out of sight of land, still lush
and green, with palms, twenty to thirty feet [7 to 10 m] tall. It is
entirely probable that land animals may be transported long
distances in this manner. Mayr records that many tropical ocean
currents have a speed of at least two knots; this would amount to
fifty miles [80 km] a day, 1000 miles [1600 km] in three weeks.1
More recently, the rafting idea has been advanced by
evolutionists to explain the presence of the Bear Cuscus
(Ailurops ursinus) and the Dwarf Cuscus (Strigocuscus
celebensis) on the island of Sulawesi 2and of lemurs on the island
of Madagascar.3 In 1995, fishermen witnessed the colonisation of
the island of Anguilla in the West Indies by iguanas. These were

washed up on one of the islands eastern beaches, having floated there on a mat of logs and uprooted trees, a few weeks
after two hurricanes hit the islands of the Lesser Antilles. Scientists believed that the iguanas had rafted 320 km from
Guadeloupe.4,5Significantly, biogeographers sometimes refer to oceans rather than continents as the main biogeographic
regions. This is because, very often, patterns are seen, where many terrestrial organisms are distributed around the land
bordering an ocean. So clear was this to the twentieth century biogeographer, Lon Croizat, that he spent much time
drawing tracks to chart repetitious occurrences of these patterns. 6,7 The track for Oreobolus plants, for example, is shown
in fig. 1, and it is one that is shared with a multitude of other plants and animals.8,9

Fig 1. Tracks showing occurrence of Oreobolus plants around Pacific Ocean.

The destructive power of large volumes of fast-flowing water is enormous and, in the early stages of the Flood, would have
been sufficient to rip-up large amounts of woodland. Although some of this would have been buried in sediments, many
billions of trees would have been left floating on the surface of the waters, as enormous log mats.These islands of
vegetation, regularly watered by rainfall, could have easily supported plant and animal life over significant periods of time.
Ocean currents would have moved these massive rafts around the globe, sometimes washing them up beside land, where
animals and insects might embark or disembark, and then transporting them back out to sea. Im not suggesting that land
animals survived the Flood on rafts. Rather, these rafts would have facilitated their dispersal after the Flood, as they
multiplied and migrated.The ability of ocean currents to distribute floating objects around the world was seen recently, when
thousands of bathtub rubber ducks were lost off a container ship in the North Pacific in 1992. In less than three months,
these had floated to Indonesia, Australia and South America, and subsequently into the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.10,11
Interestingly, the patterns of plant and animal distribution throughout the world are not random, as might be expected from
evolutionary theory. Instead, we often find many different species clustered in what biogeographers describe as areas of
endemismwhere many different plants and animals are concentrated in the same distinct and often small
regions.Moreover, and most significantly, the areas of high plant endemism generally correspond to areas of high animal
endemism.12,13 This, together with the fact that there are often many floral and faunal similarities between areas of
endemism14, provides strong support for the idea that the plants and animals were transported to these placesand by the
same means.Further support for the rafting theory was provided by researchers at Bryan College, Tennessee, who showed
that the intersections of ocean currents with land masses appear to correspond with the areas of endemism found
throughout the world.15Explaining patterns of biogeography is difficult because the events in question all occurred many
years outside of living memory.
Plants and animals around the world
Why are they found where they are?
Figure 1. The movement of the continents
according to old-earth geology
by Dominic Statham
In March 2010, internationally renowned
atheist Richard Dawkins addressed the Global
Atheist Convention in Melbourne, Australia.
He said, The pattern of geographical
distribution [of plants and animals] is just what
you would expect if evolution had
happened.1 However, a closer look at the
science of biogeography (the study of the
distributions of plants and animals) reveals a
very different picture to the one Professor Dawkins painted.If plants and animals had evolved
over millions of years then we would expect closely related species to be living close together
geographically (figure 1). In some cases this is what we do find. On the Galpagos Islands, for
example, there are similar species of finches, and, on the Hawaiian Islands, similar species of
fruit flies and snails.However, this distribution of animals is also what we would expect following
the Flood. Birds would have dispersed from the Middle East with some eventually settling on
the Galpagos Islands. Subsequent variation and natural selection among the descendants of
these finches would then have occurred because they had the inbuilt genetic capacity to
change quickly, so as to adapt to different environmentssomething that seems to be a
biological design feature. The same thing would have happened with the first fruit flies and
snails to reach the Hawaiian Islands (perhaps on drifting log mats). These would also have
diversified as they adapted to the different conditions.
Disjunct distributions
However, similar plants and animals are frequently found on different continents, separated by
large stretches of land or ocean. This pattern is not what you would expect if they slowly
evolved over millions of years, but is consistent with the young age account and the global
Flood. For example, many similar plant and animal groups are found around the land bordering

oceans. This is such a consistent pattern that migration and transportation seems a much better explanation for
biogeography than evolution.2
Wikipedia: KENPEI.
Clethra
These widely separated populations are so common that they have been given a namedisjunct distributions.Evolutionists
sometimes try to explain disjunct distributions by continental drift. They say that the continents split apart millions of years
ago, and when they did, similar species of plants and animals that once lived side by side were separated (figure 1). This is
the explanation given, for example, as to why chironomid midges, which are like small flies, or gnats, are found in Antarctica,
Southern Australia, South America, New Zealand and South Africa. 3One problem with this explanation is that, according to
evolutionary theory, many species that are disjunct across previously-joined continents evolved after their separation.4,5 For
example, South America and Africa allegedly separated around 100 million years ago, but species of cactus, which
supposedly evolved in South America around 30 million years ago, are also found in Africa. In the same way, the
evolutionary accounts of the emergence of rodents found in South America and Africa do not fit the generally accepted
timing of continental drift.6 Many other puzzling disjunctions across these continents are known, such as those of cichlid fish,
which are freshwater species.7Another problem is that disjunct species are frequently found on continents that were never
joined together. For example, many plants and insects are known to be disjunct across the Pacific Ocean. 8,9 The distribution
of the plant genus, Clethra, shown in figure 2, is a case in point. Interestingly, the opossum, Dromiciops, found in Chile, is
much closer to Australian marsupials than to other South American marsupials. 10Other biogeographic anomalies abound
that do not fit the expected evolutionary pattern. For example, the animal species of central and southern Africa are closer to
those of southern Asia than those of northern Africa. 11 The plants found in Madagascar are remarkably similar to those of
Indonesia.12 Crowberries (Empetrum) are found only in the more northern regions of the northern hemisphere and in the
most southern regions of the southern hemisphere.
Figure 2. Distribution of
the
plant
genus Clethra across the
Pacific Ocean
Fossil surprises
Significant disjunctions are
also found in the fossil
record. For example, many
similar plant fossils are
found in western North
America and eastern Asia
but, according to the
ancient earth geologists
account
of
slow
continental drift, these
rocks were laid down when Alaska and Russia were still thousands of kilometres apart. 13While living marsupials14 are largely
restricted to Australia and South America (opossums), their fossils from rocks classified as Late Cretaceous (supposedly
between 85 and 65 million years old) are found exclusively in Europe, Asia and North America. Richard Cifelli, an associate
professor in the Department of Zoology at Oklahoma University said, this geographical switch remains
unexplained.15 Interestingly, fossil marsupials have now been found on every continent.16,17According to evolutionary theory,
placental animals (such as rabbits, elephants and cats 18) evolved in the northern hemisphere and did not appear in Australia
until around 5 million years ago. However, a recent discovery of what appears to be a placental fossil in Australia, in rocks
supposedly 120 million years old, has caused some evolutionists to suggest that placentals might have evolved first in the
southern hemisphere, migrated north, and then become extinct in the southern continents! 19So, when we look at the
biogeographical distribution of plants and animals in detail, we find it is not just what you would expect if evolution had
happened. Rather, to explain the surprising distributions that are uncovered, evolutionary scientists are constantly inventing
secondary ad hoc stories.On the other hand, the distribution of plants and animals is consistent with the young age account
of Earth history. According to this, the entire land-based biosphere of the original world was uprooted and destroyed in the
global Flood. After the waters receded, the surviving air-breathing, land-dwelling animals slowly dispersed to where they are
found today. Some of these, and other animals such as insects and snails, together with the land plants, were likely
dispersed on natural raftsmassive floating log mats left over from the destruction of the worlds original forests. Research
reported in Journal of Creation is consistently confirming that this as a good explanation.20
Genetics
and
geographical
distribution
Published: 14 April 2011(GMT+10)
The ability of ocean currents to
distribute floating objects around the
world is renowned. When thousands
of bathtub rubber ducks were lost off
a container ship in the North Pacific
in 1992, they floated to Australia and
South America, and subsequently
into the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.
See Biogeography.
Not all the feedback we receive from
atheists is necessarily hostile.
Matthew B. writes in with a couple of
scientific questions. His messages
are printed in full, followed by
responses from CMI-USs Dr. Robert
Carter.

Dear Creation.com,
I am impressed and pleased for your level of devotion to this website, but unfortunately do not agree with it.
I shall not attempt to waste your time by trying to answer questions which you have already tried to answer on this site, but
restrict my email to just two questions which I feel have not been adequately explained/rebutted.
1) Do you dispute the evidence from genetic distribution of characteristics as evidence for evolution? It is scientifically
proven that certain animals/plants share certain genetic characteristics, and it is accepted that they can be arranged into a
hierarchy that fits independently with the hierarchy specified and predicted by evolution. Would you care to describe the
creationist perspective?
(NB/ Please do not use the traditional God made that hierarchy answer; I would prefer to know why if that is the case, and
have scientific reasons given).
2) Do you dispute the evidence for evolution from the geographical distribution of life? It is accepted that the distribution of
plants and animals fits with the theories of evolution and plate tectonics. Having visited the (generally recognized) best
examples of this theorys consequences in person (Madagascar and the Galapagos), I am astounded that anyone can
dispute the sound logic and hard proven science surrounding this issue. Please describe the creationist rebuttal of this
argument in a way that would satisfy a biologist/geographer (as myself).
I hope to hear some good sound answers to increase my respect and understanding of the creationist worldview. Please
bear in mind that I am an atheist, and as such do not see the Bible as evidence in any way for the view of creationism. Good
luck!
My kindest regards,
Matthew B.
Dear Matthew,
I will do my best to answer your detailed challenge.
1) Evolution predicts similarity due to common ancestry. Creation predicts similarity due to common design. Finding
hierarchical relationships, therefore, proves neither. True, creation makes no specific predictions about the nature of those
similarities. We would happily incorporate many scenarios into our model. But the same is true of evolutionary theory
(e.g., horses and bats sharing a close genetic relationship does not topple the theory in the minds of the holders of
evolutionary theory). I would suggest you familiarize yourself with Walter ReMines The Biotic Message. He says the
message is plain for all to see: near-hierarchical relationships that defy evolutionary explanation is what we would expect
from a designer. One can most easily see this in the rise of horizontal gene transfer theory that has come out in light of the
many surprises found at what was expected to be the base of the tree of life.1 There are other surprises, at all levels, in fact.
2) Biogeography is a fun topic, but it is not the death-knell of creation. I, too, have been to the Galpagos, and Madagascar
is on top of my list of places I want to visit next. Unlike you, I have also been to the Wallace Line (I stood on the rim of the
Gunung Agung volcano on Bali, looking out as the sun rose above the peaks of Lombok, and wondered why the plants and
animals on the other side of the narrow strait were so different. The answer, of course, is that during the low water stand at
the height of glaciation Bali and Lombok were the extreme ends of two separate landmasses.).We have several articles that
discuss biogeography on creation.com, but the best summary of the creationist position appears in an article by Dominic
Statham in the latest Journal of Creation.2 Are you sure biogeography is such a great case for evolution? While it is true that
there are some cases that fit the model, there are many that do not. For example, up until recently, marsupial fossils had
been found on all the continents except Australia (the Australian finds were recent and indicate that conclusions about fossil
distributions should be held tentatively).3 Why? If one of the defences I have read in the evolutionary literature pops into your
mind, I would be less than satisfied with your answer.The Galpagos is probably the best example of the creationist position.
What mechanism brought the animals there in the evolutionary model? Rafting. In his report, Captain Fitzroy even
commented about the piles of trees and shrubs washed up on the southern shores of the islands in the archipelago. 4 Huge
rafts made of plant material, some over a mile in diameter, form even today off the mouth of the Guayas River (Guayaquil,
Ecuador). I have seen some of the smaller ones from a plane. 5 It is possible for even large animals to survive for long
periods of time on such rafts. What would one predict from the Global Flood? Huge vegetation rafts with plants and animals
being distributed along oceanic currentsrapidly.Summary: Plant seeds, spores, and vegetative structures were dispersed
across the globe by oceanic currents during the Flood. Post-Flood climate and environment dictated which plants could
survive in a given locality. Transport by rafting, wind, animals, and people added to the distribution patterns. Air-breathing
animals dispersed from the Ararat region by walking, flying, and rafting, arriving at the most distant locales in relatively short
order. People dispersed in a single mass wave, with many localized permutations, from the Middle East. That is what we
believe and we believe there is abundant evidence for this position.
Sincerely,
Dr. Robert Carter
Matthew wrote back:
Dear Dr Carter,
Thank you very much for your reply! I am pleased that there is some good reasoning behind the creationist science of your
response.
However, I feel that there is one point you have not adequately justified.
I am not sure that your theory actually requires that there be a flood in the history of Earth. You suggest that this flood
requisitely dispersed seeds, animals and vegetative rafts (as in the example of Galapagos). Why is this? Surely over both
the timeframes of evolutionary theory and creation theory rafts floating across the sea are possible, and do not necessitate
the help of a cataclysmic biblical flood. Although I see it as very difficult to envision the mechanics of a flood on such a
scale, I can see it being rather difficult for such rafts to remain hospitable and intact following the impact of a massive body
of water with great velocity and potential. On a religious note, wasnt the flood intended to purge the Earth? Wouldnt a deity
intending to wipe out life (save Noah and co.) consider the possibility of vegetation-rafts providing a safe haven for wildlife?
Anyhow, I do not see any conflict of science or belief between evolution and creation when it comes to the dispersal of
seeds etc., as the mechanisms necessary would exist (as far as I am aware please say if I am wrong) both in a godless
world and a created one (i.e. wind, the sea, rivers, animals).
Returning to the matter of the Galapagos, what is the creationist explanation for the adaptations of Galapagos Giant
Tortoises and their different shell shapes relating to the niches on their respective islands? Hopefully we can agree that this
is natural selection at work, as the species itself has not changed. Nevertheless, are these changes not homologous and
translatable to the divergence of the ancestral iguana to become the different species of the marine and land iguanas? How
is this explained differently to natural selection?
Regarding marsupials, I shall not pretend to be an expert in the matter!
Your point, however, sounds fascinating, and I would love to study it further to provide an evolutionary based theory for you
to analyse, and refine your creation-based concepts accordingly.

My other issue is that of your answer to genetic hierarchies. Firstly, if it neither proves nor disproves evolution, it cannot be
taken as evidence against it. Likewise, it cannot go in favour of creation theory. Secondly, the scientific method is the pursuit
of truth based upon observation. If extensive observation points towards one hypothesis, then science will pursue the
formation of a theory, which is then tested and peer reviewed (as I am sure you are aware). My problem therefore, is this. If
we observe a distribution of characteristics both in the current pool of characteristics of living organisms and fossilized
organisms, we can study it and form a theory. If the genetic distribution reflects this also, then the theory has more evidence.
This is (from what I can glean) the case with evolution, where genetic hierarchies demonstrate the expected pattern and
same pattern as with physical characteristics and properties. So, as you say, genetics is not conclusive proof (if such a
thing could exist for anything) of evolution, rather a non-contradiction that give a bit more weight to the scientific model.
I hope you appreciate my attitude to the ongoing evolution vs creation debate. I accept that certain presuppositions
between scientists and YECs prevent a universal agreement from being drawn up, but a lot of scientific inaccuracies exist
between the theories which can be sorted by discussion and application of good science.
My best wishes (and a merry Christmas!),
Matthew B.
Dr. Carter responded:
Dear Matthew,
The massive mats of vegetation would aid dispersion after the fact, not during. The Flood was amazingly destructive, as
evidenced by many facts, including the massive deposits of coal (well-sorted plant material) on regional scales. I visited Mt.
St. Helens a few months ago (See After devastation the recovery). It was my first time there and I was struck by the fact
that there is still a substantial log mat floating on Spirit Lake. This was thirty years after the eruption! It is residual material
like this, floating on the oceans and drifting around the earth for decades that would aid dispersal of the air-breathing
animals after the Flood.Galpagos tortoises, etc.: The creationist explanation for the species on the Galpagos is similar to
our explanation of world-wide patterns: a few of these animals arrived on the Galpagos (via rafting), managed to survive,
grew into a population, and spread to neighboring islands via small-scale dispersal events. Each of the islands is separated
by enough water to provide limited isolation for each sub-population (on a short time scale) and founder effects, genetic drift,
private mutation within each sub-population, and, perhaps, a dose of natural selection6 would drive each sub-population
apart. Please note that many of the species are freely interfertile, 7 but are prevented from interbreeding by geography
alone. This is even true for species living together on a single island, as the females tend to stay at high elevation. Thus, the
largest island has five main volcanic peaks and five species of giant tortoise. I suppose, so far, that this is exactly the
evolutionists position. We differ, however, in the time required for these changes to occur, the mechanisms behind it, and
the extents of possible variation. Darwin said he could see no limit to the amount of variation that natural selection could
produce. We believe quite strongly that life is not designed to be infinitely mutable, that a living organism is designed to
change but that too much change will ruin the complex system keeping it alive, that Darwin failed to provide a mechanism
that would allow for infinite mutability, and that modern genetics has not rescued him.Are you surprised that we believe in
speciation, adaptation, genetic drift, etc.? If so, I suspect you have been taught that creationists believe in the fixity of
species (search creation.com for "fixity of species" to see how we deal with this). Yes, most people in Darwins day believed
it, but they were allowing the weight of one ancient authority to trump another.Scientific method: All science has to start with
a set of presuppositions. Our methodology derives from this and I believe we have a solid and consistent line of reasoning.
This approach, coming straight out of the Reformation, has borne tremendous fruit over the years as most branches of
science were founded by a person with this view (See the many examples in Scientists of the past who believed in a
Creator). Evolutionists start with the assumption of naturalism, that natural processes explain everything that ever was, is
now, and ever will be. Thus, it is not the data we are quibbling over, but an overarching theory of how to collect, interpret,
and act on the data.You said, "the scientific method is the pursuit of truth based upon observation," then showed how you
see confirming trends from observation, correlation between living and fossil forms, genetic relationships of living species,
and peer review. I would like to point out that this set of correspondences is all interpreted in the light of naturalism and that
the peer reviewers are all naturalists. Throw a creationist on that review board and there is going to be very little agreement
on your list of corresponding evidences! Why is this? It is because fundamental assumptions drive everything in science. We
cannot escape them as people and our science is not free from the limits of humanity.
Thank you for the refreshing discussion. It is not often that we get a level-headed exchange at this level and I hope you can
see that I am trying to answer as forthrightly as possible.
Robert
Matthew responded one last time:
Robert,
Thank

you

again

for

some

logical

responses.

I think that the philosophy of your response has triumphed over the science, in that you have described how presuppositions
(or as they are mathematically/epistemologically known, axioms) are fundamental to both science and creationism (if you
will forgive me for separating them quite so unfairly). This, in my mind, justifies your position on a fundamental level; count it
as a triumph for creationism, as you have persuaded an atheist that your points are justified!
However, as you probably expected me to say, I am not a creationist (please do not take the sentence above without this).
The argument from axiomatic construction of theory does not put either science or creation science higher than the other.
Therefore, one could conclude that whilst creationists and scientists are correct in their stances, neither is in a position to
claim the better theory. Therefore, I still disagree with attempts to dismantle, disprove or otherwise inhibit the theory of
evolution from being taught to those whose scientific worldview pertains to evolution or related branches of science.
Although I do think that it is worth creationism existing in the media for people of other persuasions to build on their
worldviews. As should be clear from our correspondence, our shared intention is that of building upon and embellishing the
intellectual
adequacy
of
our
worldviews.
However, the reason that I choose to remain studying mainstream academia with evolution, cosmology etc. is that of nonaxiomatic (that is, derived) intellectual satisfaction. That is, if you like, very much a matter of opinion. Basically, I strongly feel
that the axioms of science and mainstream mathematically derived academia build a stronger more justifiable theory than
creationist axioms do. I feel that the fundamental truths taken to build our current model of science are of greater intellectual
value*** than those taken by creationists, such as God exists, since this cannot be materially demonstrated (as far as I can
see),
as
explained
in
the
attachment
below.

So in summary, creationism is valid (in my opinion), but equally valid as mainstream science on an epistemological level, as
they are both relying on presuppositions/axioms. However, axioms neednt be downright admissions to having no reason to
assert them, as it may be that those particular axioms are more consistent with the way in which the world is observed to
function than others, they do not contradict each other and have a certain intrinsic observability in the universe. Therefore, I
feel that I have an intellectual reason to support evolution with mainstream academia over creationism. Since the two
theories are derived from many of the same axioms (like a b=b a) there is much that they share in common, and as such I
feel that it would be a good idea if both sides of the argument reduce their worldviews to the logical bare roots I have been
describing, to provide a better degree of communication and review between the camps and hopefully aid to wash over
some of the militant hatred and anger that certain members of each persuasion demonstrate. Like a two party political
system, science would potentially be a lot weaker without constructive criticism and persistent questioning that which
creationist organizations supply, and equally creationism has many points to improve on or repair based on new scientific
knowledge
based
on
shared
presuppositions.
I agree with your last comment, that our discussion is very refreshing and unusual. I dont suppose that such levelheadedness and logic is often supplied from either creationist or evolutionist when resent or unpleasantness is introduced
into the argument. I have already specified that I would not mind any of this being published in any of your magazines etc.,
and would like to uphold that. I feel that should you wish to publish this then you should be encouraged to. Both sides have
a
lot
to
learn
from
this
discussion.
I may be in a position to hold discussion with Prof. Richard Dawkins in January next year. If I do, I shall certainly raise many
of your points. I am a keen supporter of his worldview and have read many of his books, although certainly much of the
resent and annoyance he displays is neither necessary, nor beneficial. Hopefully he is open-minded enough to take on
some comments. A paradigm shift in the evolution vs creation community is needed, and these logical correspondences
could
be
along
the
right
lines
of
thinking
required
to
achieve
that.
Thank you very much again for your replies; you are probably the best ambassador for creationism whom I have come
across. Think of me as an atheist ally to creation science-I do not agree with it, but appreciate it, understand the reasoning
and
do
not
dislike
it.
Kind
Matthew

regards,
B.

***i.e. a b = b a, is an *axiom* for real-number algebra, but has a very real and evident place in our universe, as we can
demonstrate that 4 sweets plus one sweet equals the same amount as if added the other way around. This axiom or
presupposition builds a very satisfactory, intrinsic theory that supports evidence in the real world. In fact, Einsteins model of
General Relativity builds upon this very axiom and other real number axioms, with certain higher algebraic axioms to build a,
in my opinion, equally satisfactory model of cosmology. This reasoning spreads outwards to encompass the entirety of
modern science, save some of the more radical, abstract theory such as string theory which cannot really be considered to
be fact due to lack of conceptual and material evidence.
Dr. Carters final response:
Matthew,
This has been a pleasure. If you see Dr. Dawkins, please tell him that you had a pleasant exchange with a man that shares
an office with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, author of Evolution: The Greatest Hoax on Earth?
This has been a very popular book among the members of the creationist community and is a strong rebuttal to
Dawkins Evolution: the Greatest Show on Earth. Greatest Hoax has material on pre-Darwinian creationist beliefs about the
NON-fixity of species, Lyells ideas about fixity and his "centers of creation", biogeography, homology, and the christian roots
of science, all of which are pertinent to our discussion. If you really wanted to learn what we believe and why, I could not
recommend this book more highly.
I understand that you hesitate to accord creationism the same scientific status as evolution. Thank you for at least admitting
that we are on good philosophical grounds. As a former (briefly) evolutionist, I would encourage you to examine the
philosophical underpinnings of mainstream science. When I did this, the naturalistic construct collapsed like a house of
cards. This is why I used that line of argumentation in my second message. Today, I feel that creation is a much better
explanation for the world around us, and we are making great strides almost daily in multiple fields. Our case is getting
stronger,
not
weaker,
as
we
learn
more
about
the complexity
of
the
genome, catastrophic
geology, cosmology, speciation, climate, radiometric dating, etc., etc.
How did unique fish appear in particular areas?
Stephanie from the United States wrote to ask about animal migration. Her question is highlighted in green.
Wikimedia commons/Alexander Vasenin
Hi,
I was wondering how to answer this question. How did
some fish only end up in certain lakes, ponds, etc. This
one actually stumped me. Of course, Im not about to deny
the intelligent designer. This is actually one question I
really cant find an answer for.
Thanks so much! Love the site by the way.
CMIs Jonathan OBrien responds:
Hi Stephanie,
Your question is a good one. During the Flood the marine
animals such as fish would have survived in the
floodwaters, although many perished due to sedimentation
and other factors. Immediately after the Flood the marine
creatures that survived would have been distributed
around the world in the oceans and other water bodies.
These would have multiplied in the areas where they
found themselves and migrated to other areas from

generation to generation. There are many ways that all sorts of organisms can get into particular locations where they are
uniquely found. Once there, they find a niche for themselves and are able to adapt to that location, if necessary. This of
course is not Darwinian evolution in action, just biological adaptation in which pre-existing genetic information is sorted. No
new or novel genetic information is created. Many unique organisms are now only found in very particular locations because
this is where it so happens they managed to survive. They may indeed have made it to some other areas, but did not
survive in that location.
As to how organisms travel to where they are found, there are many possibilities. Fish eggs can stick to birds legs. When
the bird lands for a drink or to look for food, the fish eggs detach and later hatch out. I think some eggs of certain organisms,
such as insects and shrimps, can even be wind-blown, especially if stuck to leaves and things like that. Other organisms
were introduced to new areas either deliberately or inadvertently by man, not long after the Babel dispersion. Explorers
would have soon traveled to all of the farthest-flung places of the globe, soon after the Babel event, especially after sealevels fell and land bridges were temporarily created. Man also traveled far by boat and ship, taking all sorts of animals with
him.
The great Flood itself would have deposited
many eggs of insects and marine animals, and
transported juvenile marine creatures. The
retreating waters left behind detritus such as tree
limbs that had been floating in the waters. Land
animals can travel enormous distances by
clinging
to
driftwoodincluding
reptiles,
amphibians and mammals. It doesnt take long
for organisms to overtake new areas, such as is
seen in the cane toad invasion of northern
Australia.I highly recommend The Creation
Answers Book for answers to many other
questions regarding the Flood, and animal
migration, including the question of how salt and
fresh water fish survived the Flood. This is
available from the store on Creation.com and as
a free download from the books section.
I hope this has helped you.
Jonathan OBrien
W.F. from Australia writes in response to Mummified Trees.
Carbon dating can only give dates of thousands of years, not millions.
Dear Sir,
In your Creation magazine, 2012, was an article by Jonathan OBrien on Mummified trees.
Was carbon-14 dating done on these wood samples? Surely if they appeared to be so young, then this dating method would
have given the closest date than the 12 million years which were reasoned by Joel Barker. This should be a more positive
evidence.
Yours sincerely,
W. F.
CMIs Jonathan OBrien responds:
Dear Mr F.
Thank you for your question. I couldnt find any reference to Carbon-14 dating having been done on these wood samples.
This doesnt surprise me as the researchers believe in long ages, and already believe that the wood is 2 to 12 million years
old. Carbon dating can only give dates of thousands of years, not millions. They wouldnt expect to find any Carbon-14 after
about 50,000 years, and therefore wouldnt bother to do such tests.
Andreas Tille
However, doing a Carbon-14 test on
the wood would be an excellent
project for creationists to undertake,
and I expect that there would indeed
be Carbon-14 found in the timber.
Carbon-14 has been found over and
over again in old wood samples, and
also in coal samples. Carbon-14 has
also been found at detectable levels
in diamonds, indicating that the
diamonds are far younger than
commonly believed. Carbon-14 has
even been found in dinosaur bones.
If a sample has Carbon-14 in it, it is
good evidence that it is not millions
of years old.
If Carbon-14 dating was undertaken
on the wood, it is possible that the
dating laboratory would come up
with a date older than the true age. Carbon-14 dates of material older than about 3,500 years are inaccurate because such
dates cannot be calibrated against historically-verified material of known age. Even younger, historically-calibrated Carbon14 dating is known to have anomalies and is not considered to be very accurate. Standard laboratories have developed a
calibration curve for carbon-14 dating to try to overcome the obvious discrepancies.
In my opinion the wood found by Joel Barker is very likely post-Flood in origin, no more than about 4,500 years old, and
possibly younger. If the wood was older, and was buried in the global Flood, it would give a Carbon-14 age of something like
30,000 years based on the carbon-14 ratio in todays atmosphere, which is the basic way scientists who calculate such ages
do their calculation. They do not take the global Flood into account. During the Flood, massive amounts of organic material

were buried, permanently altering the carbon balance.1 The Creation Answers Book, Chapter 4, has further helpful
information on this.

Birds of a feather dont breed together

by Carl Wieland
The fascinating phenomenon known as ring
species is sometimes quite incorrectly used to
prove evolution. The classic example is as
follows.In Britain, the herring gull is clearly a
different species from the lesser black-backed
gull. Not only can they be easily told apart, but
apparently they never interbreed, even though
they may inhabit the same areas. By the usual
biological definition, they are therefore technically
different species.However, as you go westward
around the top half of the globe to North America
and study the herring gull population, an
interesting fact emerges. The gulls become more like black-backed gulls, and less like herring gulls, even though they can
still interbreed with herring gulls from Britain.Now go still further via Alaska and then into Siberia (see map). The further west
you go, the more each successive population becomes less like a herring gull and more like the black-backed.At every step
along the way, each population is able to interbreed with those you studied just before you moved further west. Therefore,
you are never technically dealing with separate species. Until, that is, you continue your journey into Europe and back to
Britain, where you find that the lesser black-backed gulls there are actually the other end of a ring that started out as herring
gulls. At every stage around the ring, the birds are sufficiently similar to their neighbours to interbreed with them. 1 Yet when
the ends of the ring meet, the two do not interbreed and so are for all intents and purposes separate species.
wikipedia.org
As you travel west via the route
shown by the yellow band, each
successive population of herring gull
seems more like the black-backed
gull.
Evolution?
It is clear from such examples that
species
are
not
fixed
and
unchanging, and that two apparently
different species may in fact be
genetically related. New species (as
man defines them) can form. The
herring gull and the lesser blackbacked gull could not have been
initially created as two separate
groups reproducing only after their
kind, or else they would not be joined
by a chain of interbreeding
intermediates.There
are
also
observations
of
other
wild
populations from which a reasonable
person must infer that certain very
similar species did indeed share the
same ancestor, even though there is
no complete ring.Many have been
misled into thinking this is evidence
for evolution and against the young
age model. However, some thought
reveals otherwise. The key to
understanding this is to consider the
vast amounts of complex information
in all living things, coding for
functionally useful structures and
processes.Virtually all the genetic
information in todays world was
present in the beginning, contained in
separate populations (the original
created kinds).
This information would not be
expected to increase, but could
decrease with timein other words,
any genetic changes would be
expected to be informationally downhill.
Evolution (in the normal meaning of the word) implies on the other hand that a single cell has become people, pelicans and
palm trees. If true, then this is an uphill processinvolving a massive increase of information.2
Changebut what sort?

The formation of new species actually fits the creation model very comfortably. The wolf, the dingo and the coyote are all
regarded as separate species. However, they (perhaps along with several other species) almost certainly split off from an
original pair a species representing the surviving information of one created kind. Is there evidence that this can happen,
and that it can happen without adding new information, that is, within the limits of the information already present at
creation?
A mongrel dog population can be split into separate sub-groups, the varieties of domestic dog (breeders can isolate
portions of the total information into populations which do not contain some other portions of that information). This sort of
variation does not add any new information. On the contrary, it is genetically downhill. It involves a reduction of the
information in each of the descendant populations compared to the ancestral one. Thus, a population of pampered lap-dogs
has less genetic information/variability, from which nature or man can select further changes, than the more wild population
before evolution selection took place.But is it conceivable that such change (which is obviously limited by the amount of
information already present in the original kind) can extend to full, complete formation of separate species without any new
information arising, without any new genes? (In other words, since evolution means lots of new, useful genes arising with
time, can you have new species without any real evolution?)
Even leading evolutionist Richard Dawkins, who should know better, has erroneously cited ring species as being evidence
of the supposed inevitability of evolution. In his book The Ancestors Tale, Dawkins observed that ring species are only
showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension.Richard Lewontin is
Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard. In his book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change he says there
are instances in which speciation and divergence of new full species have obviously occurred using the available
repertoire of genetic variants,3 without requiring any novelties by new mutation. In other words, an ancestral species can
split into other species within the limits of the information already present in that kindjust as creationists maintain must
have happened.4In the example we looked at, there is no reason to believe that the differences between the two gull species
are the result of any new, more complex, functional genetic information not already present in an ancestral, interbreeding
gull population. Because there is no evidence of any such information-adding change, it is misleading to say this gives
evidence of evolution, of even a little bit of the sort of change required to eventually turn a fish into a philosopher.Ring
species and similar examples actually highlight the great variety and rich information which must have been present in the
original created kinds.5 They can be said to demonstrate evolution only to the gullible (pun intended).
No evidence of evolution and deep time
by Dominic Statham
There are many similar plants and
animals found in eastern Asia and
eastern North America, but not in the
regions between them (fig. 1). These
include arachnids, millipedes, wasps,
freshwater fish, and over 150 different
seed plants.1,2 Evolutionists try to
explain this by saying that, many
millions of years ago, the northern
regions were warmer and eastern
Asia and eastern North America were
part of one continuous plant and
animal distribution (fig. 2). Then, they
say, around five million years ago, the
climate cooled and the plant and animal life were separated (fig. 1).3
Figure 1. There are many similarities between the wildlife of eastern Asia and eastern North America.
Figure 2. Similar and identical species found in
eastern Asia and eastern North America suggest
that
these
two regions were once part of one continuous plant
and animal distribution.
Figure 3. Pogonia ophioglossoides as found in
North America (left) and Pogonia japonica as found
in eastern Asia (right).
Rogier van Vugt
Figure
4. Pogonia
ophioglossoides
(left)
andPogonia
japonica (right)
grown side by
side.
Some
plants
and fungi found
in eastern Asia
and
eastern
North America
are so similar
that they are classified as being the same species. 4,5 Others have been assigned different species names but probably
should not have been. For example, the Snake Mouth Orchid is named Pogonia ophioglossoides when found in eastern
North America, andPogonia japonica when found in eastern Asia (fig. 3). When grown under the same conditions, however,
they appear indistinguishable (fig. 4).

The Sacred Lotus (eastern Asia) and Yellow Lotus (eastern North America) are classified as two different species, Nelumbo
nucifera and Nelumbo lutea (fig. 5).6 However, their hybrid form is fertile, again indicating that they are really the same
species.7
The remarkable similarities between the plants and fungi of these two regions present a serious problem for evolutionists
and their belief in deep time. This is because, over millions of years, sister species, living on different continents and
separated by huge distances over land/ocean, would be expected to evolve different characteristics. According to the theory
of evolution, the ancestors of humans separated from other ape-like creatures around six million years ago. Between then
and now, the evolutionary process allegedly gave rise to all the many changes that turned these creatures into the people
we are today. It is difficult for evolutionists to explain why, over the same time period, the plants and fungi of eastern Asia
and eastern North America did not evolve and change too!
Figure 5. Nelumbo
lutea as found in
North America (left)
and Nelumbo
nucifera as found in
eastern Asia (right).
Their hybrid form is
fertile,
indicating
that they are really
the same species.
The
similarities
between the wildlife
of
these
two
regions, however,
present no problem
for creationists. This
is because, none of
the habitats found on the earth today can be very old, the time of the global Flood. It is possible that a continuous plant and
animal distribution grew up linking eastern Asia and eastern North America due to the warm climate that existed at high
latitudes directly after the Flood (fig. 2). This region may then have been split into two by the ensuing Ice Age and also the
rising sea levels following its waning, around 800 years after the Flood.8

Figure 6. The same species of mushroomTylopilus alboater grows wild in both China and North America east of the Rocky
Mountains.
Figure 7. The blue milk mushroom Lactarius indigo is found in Japan and eastern North America.
Credit: Dan Molter

NATURAL SELECTION
Refuting Evolution
A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution
by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
Variation and natural selection versus evolution
First published in Refuting Evolution, Chapter 2
This chapter contrasts the evolution and creation models, and refutes faulty understandings of both. A major point is the
common practice of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science to call all change in organisms evolution. This
enables Teaching about Evolution to claim that evolution is happening today. However, creationists have never disputed that
organisms change; the difference is the type of change. A key difference between the two models is whether observed
changes are the type to turn particles into people.
Evolution
Evolution, of the fish-to-philosopher type, requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing
organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this simple life form. For this
to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today. Chapter 9 on
Design shows how encyclopedic this information is.So how do evolutionists propose that this information arose? The first
self-reproducing organism would have made copies of itself. Evolution also requires that the copying is not always
completely accurateerrors (mutations) occur. Any mutations which enable an organism to leave more self-reproducing
offspring will be passed on through the generations. This differential reproduction is called natural selection. In summary,
evolutionists believe that the source of new genetic information is mutations sorted by natural selectionthe neo-Darwinian
theory.
Young age model
The different kinds of organisms, which reproduced after their kinds. Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of
information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide
variety of environments.All (sexually reproducing) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring
inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two genes at a given position (locus,
plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, meaning it carries
different forms (alleles) of this gene. For example, one allele can code for blue eyes, while the other one can code for brown
eyes; or one can code for the A blood type and the other for the B type. Sometimes two alleles have a combined effect,
while at other times only one allele (called dominant) has any effect on the organism, while the other does not
(recessive). With humans, both the mothers and fathers halves have 20,687 protein-coding genes, while 97% of the rest of
the DNA has an important role in coding for RNA, for control of gene expression. Overall, the information equivalent to a
thousand 500-page books (3 billion base pairs, asTeaching about Evolution correctly states on page 42). The ardent neoDarwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.1 This means that
for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles. If we consider only the proteincoding genes, this would mean 1,340 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of
different possible sperm or egg cells 21,340 or 2.4 10403. The number of atoms in the whole known universe is only
1080, extremely tiny by comparison. So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could
each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than
their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder Ayala pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises
from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden
recessive alleles coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not
creation. His belief is contrary to information theory, as shown in chapter 9 on Design.
Adaptation and natural selection
Also, the once-perfect environments have deteriorated into harsher ones. Creatures adapted to these new environments,
and this adaptation took the form of weeding out some genetic information. This is certainly natural selectionevolutionists
dont have a monopoly on this. In fact, a creationist, Edward Blyth, thought of the concept 25 years before Darwins Origin of
Species was published. But unlike evolutionists, Blyth regarded it as a conservative process that would remove defective
organisms, thus conserving the health of the population as a whole. Only when coupled with hypothetical informationgaining mutations could natural selection be creative.For example, the original dog/wolf kind probably had the information
for a wide variety of fur lengths. The first animals probably had medium-length fur. In the simplified example illustrated
below,3 a single gene pair is shown under each dog as coming in two possible forms. One form of the gene (L) carries
instructions for long fur, the other (S) for short fur.In row 1, we start with medium-furred animals (LS) interbreeding. Each of
the offspring of these dogs can get one of either gene from each parent to make up their two genes.In row 2, we see that the
resultant offspring can have either short (SS), medium (LS) or long (LL) fur. Now imagine the climate cooling drastically (as
in the Ice Age). Only those with long fur survive to give rise to the next generation (line 3). So from then on, all the dogs will
be a new, long-furred variety. Note that:
They are now adapted to their environment.
They are now more specialized than their ancestors on row 1.
This has occurred through natural selection.
There have been no new genes added.
In fact, genes have been lost from the populationi.e., there has been a loss of genetic information, the opposite of what
microbe-to-man evolution needs in order to be credible.
Now the population is less able to adapt to future environmental changeswere the climate to become hot, there is no
genetic information for short fur, so the dogs would probably overheat.Another information-losing process occurs in sexually
reproducing organismsremember, each organism inherits only half the information carried by each parent. For example,
consider a human couple with only one child, where the mother had the AB blood group (meaning that she has both A and B
alleles) and the father had the O blood group (both alleles are O and recessive). So the child would have either AO or BO
alleles, so either the A or the B allele must be missing from the childs genetic information. Thus, the child could not have the
AB blood group, but would have either the A or the B blood group respectively. 4A large population as a whole is less likely to
lose established genes because there are usually many copies of the genes of both parents (for example, in their siblings
and cousins). But in a small, isolated population, there is a good chance that information can be lost by random
sampling. This is called genetic drift. Since new mutant genes would start off in small numbers, they are quite likely to be
eliminated by genetic drift, even if they were beneficial. 5In an extreme case, where a single pregnant animal or a single pair

is isolated, e.g., by being blown or washed onto a desert island, it may lack a number of genes of the original population. So
when its descendants fill the island, this new population would be different from the old one, with less information. This is
called the founder effect.
Loss of information through mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift can sometimes result in different small populations
losing such different information that they will no longer interbreed. For example, changes in song or color might result in
birds no longer recognizing a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Thus a new species is formed.
The alleged evidence for evolution in action
This section will deal with some of the examples used by Teaching about Evolution, and show that they fit the creationist
model better.
Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
Teaching about Evolution claims on pages 1617:
The continual evolution of human pathogens has come to pose one of the most serious health problems facing human
societies. Many strains of bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics as natural selection has amplified
resistant strains that arose through naturally occurring genetic variation.Similar episodes of rapid evolution are occurring in
many different organisms. Rats have developed resistance to the poison warfarin. Many hundreds of insect species and
other agricultural pests have evolved resistance to the pesticides used to combat themeven to chemical defenses
genetically engineered into plants.However, what has this to do with the evolution of new kinds with new genetic
information? Precisely nothing. What has happened in many cases is that some bacteria already had the genes for
resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria obtained by thawing sources which had been frozen before man
developed antibiotics have shown to be antibiotic-resistant. When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those
lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information, but
they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects evolving resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance
was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated.In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a
mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information. It may seem surprising that destruction of
information can sometimes help. But one example is resistance to the antibiotic penicillin. Bacteria normally produce an
enzyme, penicillinase, which destroys penicillin. The amount of penicillinase is controlled by a gene. There is normally
enough produced to handle any penicillin encountered in the wild, but the bacterium is overwhelmed by the amount given to
patients. A mutation disabling this controlling gene results in much more penicillinase being produced. This enables the
bacterium to resist the antibiotic. But normally, this mutant would be less fit, as it wastes resources by producing
unnecessary penicillinase.Another example of acquired antibiotic resistance is the transfer of pieces of genetic material
(called plasmids) between bacteria, even between those of different species. But this is still using pre-existing information,
and doesnt explain its origin.
More information on antibiotic resistance can be found in the article Superbugs Not Super after All.6
Lacewing species
Another example of evolution is given on page 17, where Teaching about Evolution states:
The North American lacewing species Chrysoperla carnea and Chrysoperla downesi separated from a common ancestor
species recently in evolutionary time and are very similar. But they are different in color, reflecting their different habitats,
and they breed at different times of year.This statement is basically correct, but an evolutionary interpretation of this
statement is not the only one possible. A creationist interpretation is that an original Chrysoperla kind was created with
genes for a wide variety of colors and mating behavior. This has given rise to more specialized descendants. The
specialization means that each has lost the information for certain colors and behaviors. The formation of new species
(speciation) without information gain is no problem for creationists.7 Adaptation/variation within Chrysoperla, which involves
no addition of complex new genetic information, says nothing about the origin of lacewings themselves, which is what
evolution is supposed to explain.
Darwins finches
On page 19, Teaching about Evolution claims:
A particularly interesting example of contemporary evolution involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the
Galpagos Islands, now known as Darwins finches . Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the
survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Drought thus favors birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these
tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. [Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University] have
estimated that if droughts occur about every 10 years on the islands, then a new species of finch might arise in only about
200 years.However, again, an original population of finches had a wide variety of beak sizes. When a drought occurs, the
birds with insufficiently strong and wide beaks cant crack the nuts, so they are eliminated, along with their genetic
information. Again, no new information has arisen, so this does not support molecules-to-man evolution.
Also, the rapid speciation (200 years) is good evidence for the yong age model. Critics doubt that all of todays species
could have fitted on the ark. However, the ark would have needed only about 8,000 kinds of land vertebrate animals, which
would be sufficient to produce the wide variety of species we have today.8 Darwins finches show that it need not take very
long for new species to arise.9
Breeding versus evolution
On pages 3738, Teaching about Evolution compares the artificial breeding of pigeons and dogs with evolution. However, all
the breeders do is select from the information already present. For example, Chihuahuas were bred by selecting the
smallest dogs to breed from over many generations. But this process eliminates the genes for large size.The opposite
process would have bred Great Danes from the same ancestral dog population, by eliminating the genes for small size. So
the breeding has sorted out the information mixture into separate lines. All the breeds have less information than the original
dog/wolf kind.Many breeds are also the victims of hereditary conditions due to mutations, for example the squashed snout
of the bulldog and pug. But their loss of genetic information and their inherited defects mean that purebred dogs are less fit
in the wild than mongrels, and veterinarians can confirm that purebreds suffer from more diseases.Actually, breeds of dogs
are interfertile, even Great Danes and Chihuahuas, so they are still the same species. Not that speciation is a problem for
creationistssee the section on lacewings above. But if Great Danes and Chihuahuas were only known from the fossil
record, they would probably have been classified as different species or even different genera. Indeed, without human
intervention, Great Danes and Chihuahuas could probably not breed together (hybridize), so they could be considered
different species in the wild. Creationists regard the breeds of dogs as showing that much variability was programmed into
the original dog/wolf kind.
Darwin versus a faulty creation model
On pages 3536, Teaching about Evolution discusses some of Darwins observations. For example, living and fossil
armadillos are found only in South America. Also, animals on the Galpagos Islands are similar to those in Ecuador, while
creatures on islands off Africas coast are related to those in Africa. The book then states:Darwin could not see how these

observations could be explained by the prevailing view of his time: that each species had been independently created, with
the species that were best suited to each location being created at each particular site.
Actually, this is setting up a straw man, as this is not what creationists believe, because it completely ignores the global
flood. The flood wiped out all land vertebrates and would have totally re-arranged the earths surface. So, theres no way
that anything was created in its present location.Also, all modern land vertebrates would be descended from those which
disembarked from the ark in the mountains of Araratover generations, they migrated to their present locations. It should
therefore be no surprise to the creationists that animals on islands off Africas coast should be similar to those in Africa
they migrated to the islands via Africa.Darwins observations were thus easily explainable by the young age model.
However, by Darwins time, most of his opponents did not believe the model, but had re-interpreted it to fit into the old-earth
beliefs of the day.A prevalent belief was a series of global floods followed by re-creations, rather than a single flood followed
by migration. Darwin found observations which didnt fit this non-creationists model. An interesting experiment by Darwin,
cited by Teaching about Evolution on page 38, also supports the creation-flood model.By floating snails on salt water for
prolonged periods, Darwin convinced himself that, on rare occasions, snails might have floated in chunks of drifted timber
across moderately wide arms of the sea. Prior to Darwin, the existence of land snails and bats, but not typical terrestrial
mammals, on the oceanic islands was simply noted and catalogued as a fact. It is unlikely that anyone would have thought
to test the snails for their ability to survive for prolonged periods in salt water. Even if they had, such an experiment would
have had little impact.Thus, Darwin helped answer a problem raised by skeptics of the young age model and its account of
the flood. This also showed that some invertebrates could have survived the flood,10 possibly on rafts of pumice or tangled
vegetation, or on driftwood as Darwin suggested. Other experiments by Darwin showed that garden seeds could still sprout
after 42 days immersion in salt water, so they could have traveled 1,400 miles (2,240 km) on a typical ocean current. 11 This
shows how plants could have survivedagain by floating on driftwood, pumice, or vegetation rafts even if they were often
soaked.Therefore, the flood-dispersion model could also have led to such experiments, despite what Teaching about
Evolution implies.12
Refuting Evolution 2
A sequel to Refuting Evolution that refutes the latest arguments to support evolution (as presented by PBS and Scientific
American).
by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. with Michael Matthews
Argument: Natural selection leads to speciation
Evolutionists say, Natural selection has been observed to cause profound changes in populationsproviding
abundant evidence for speciation.
First published in Refuting Evolution 2, Chapter 4
Galpagos finchesevolution in action?
The opening episode of the PBS Evolution series makes much of the Galpagos finchesconsidered one of the classic
evidences of evolution in action. But PBS admits that Darwin didnt even realize that the birds were finches and he failed to
label which island they came from. All the same, he managed to acquire this information, and he eventually concluded that
they had descended from mainland finches with modification just as the model would predict! He correctly realized that finch
beak size was the result of adaptation to different food sources.
The problem is that Darwin and the PBS series taught that this adaptation could explain the general theory of
evolution (GTE). But the finch beak variation is merely the result of selection of existing genetic information, while the
GTE requires new information. Also, an 18-year study by zoologist Peter Grant showed that a new species could
arise in only 200 years,1which is inadvertent support for the young age model of rapid speciation.2However, another
problem with using these finches is that the variation seems to be cyclicwhile a drought resulted in a slight increase in
beak size, the change was reversed when the rains returned. So it looks more likebuilt-in adaptability to various climatic
conditions than anything to do with the GTE.PBS also discusses the change in beak length of hummingbirds, to adapt to
changes in the lengths of flowers where they obtain nectar. But the same points applyno evidence was produced that any
new information is required for these changes, as opposed to selection of already-existing information.
What is the creationist model?
Perhaps the most frequently repeated mistake that evolutionists make in their attacks on creation is to assert that natural
selection and speciation prove evolution and disprove the account of origins. Their bait-and-switch arguments imply that
creationists believe in fixity of species. The glossary for the PBS Evolution series Online Course for Teachers: Teaching
Evolution explicitly makes this empty allegation:In creationism, species are described as fixed in the sense that they are
believed not to change their form, or appearance, through time.But no reputable creationist denies speciationin fact, it is
an important part of creationist biology. In the previous chapter, I showed that the real issue is whether evolution can explain
the increase of genetic information contentenough changes to turn microbes into men, not simple change through time.
Before laying to rest the evolutionists pointless arguments on this issue, it might be helpful to review the creationist model in
detail.
The kinds are not modern species
The kinds would have originallybeen distinct biological species, i.e., a population of organisms that can interbreed to
produce fertile offspring but that cannot so breed with a different biological species.But creationists point out that the kind is
larger than one of todays species. Each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. The original
creatures had enough variety in their genetic information so that their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of
environments.Creationists have made several deductions about the modern descendants of the original creations. They
deduce, for example, that as long as two modern creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are
descended from the same kind.3Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of
the same kind.4 The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list
all the kinds. The implication is one-wayhybridization is evidence that two creatures are the same kind, but it
does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to
hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who cant have children, and we dont classify
them as a different species, let alone a different kind.The boundaries of the kind do not always correspond to any given
man-made classification such as species, genus, family, etc. But this is not the fault of the term kind; it is actually due to
inconsistencies in the man-made classification system. That is, several organisms classified as different species, and even
different genera or higher groupings, can produce fertile offspring. This means that they are really the same species that has
several varieties, hence a polytypic (many type) species. A good example is Kekaimalu the wholphin, a fertile hybrid
between a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), i.e.,
between two different so-called genera.5 There are more examples in reference 3.Biologists have identified several ways
that a loss of genetic information through mutations (copying mistakes) can lead to new speciese.g., the loss of a proteins

ability to recognize imprinting marks, jumping genes, natural selection, and genetic drift. When these mutations take place
in small populations, they can sometimes result in sterile or nonviable offspring. Or changes in song or color might result in
birds that no longer recognize a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Either way, a new species is formed. Thus, each
created kind may have been the ancestor of several present-day species.But again, its important to stress that speciation
has nothing to do with real evolution (GTE), because it involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather
than new information.
The young age model predicts rapid speciation
The model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species. This is because all the modern varieties of
land vertebrates must have descended from comparatively few animals .In contrast, Darwin thought that this process would
normally take eons. It turns out that the very evidence claimed by evolutionists to support their theory supports the young
age model.Biologists have identified several instances of rapid adaptation, including guppies on Trinidad, lizards in the
Bahamas, daisies on the islands of British Columbia, and house mice on Madeira. 6 Another good example is a new species
of mosquito that cant interbreed with the parent population, arising in the London Underground train system (the Tube) in
only 100 years. The rapid change has astonished evolutionists, but should delight creationists.7 Scientific American admits
as much.These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as
in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grants studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos
finches). [SA 80]And why should creationists deny such things? All of this so-called microevolution is part of a created and
fallen world, but has never been observed to add new genetic information. In fact, the sorts of changes which are observed
are the wrong type to drive the evolutionary story.8 Scientific American is forced to make a pointless claim about evidence of
profound changes:Natural selection and other mechanismssuch as chromosomal changes, symbiosis, and hybridization
can drive profound changes in populations over time. [SA 80]Again, do these profound changes increase information? No
populations are seen losing information, and adapting within the constraints of the information they already have. In
contrast, goo-to-you evolution requires something quite differentthe progressive addition of massive amounts of genetic
information that is novel not only to that population, but to the entire biosphere.
Straw man 1: Natural selection cant explain new species
Scientific American falls for the same straw-man argument as PBS, failing to recognize that creationists accept new species
arising within the kind. Creationists recognize how reproductive isolation can result from information loss. (See discussion
above.)
11. Natural selection might explain micro-evolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher
orders of life.
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the
model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the
rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would
accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely
would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward
becoming a new species. [SA 82]Indeed, creationists point out that Mayrs allopatric model would explain the origin of the
different people groups (races) after the confusion of languages at Babel induced small population groups to spread out all
over the earth.9 Of course, the modern people groups are notreproductively isolated and are still a single biological species.
Note that the reproductive isolation is an informationally negative change, even if beneficial, because it blocks the
interchange of genetic information between populations.Evolutionists brag that natural selection is the best studied of the
evolutionary mechanisms, but these studies show that it has nothing to do with evolution of more complex life forms! All we
observe it doing is removing information, not adding it. Scientific American suggests that there are other feasible
mechanisms to explain evolution, but they do not hold up, either.Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary
mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of
unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the
energy-generating
mitochondria,
evolved
through
the
symbiotic
merger
of
ancient
organisms.
[SA 82]The endosymbiosis theory has many problems, such as the lack of evidence that prokaryotes are capable of
ingesting another cell and keeping it alive, and the large differences in genes between mitochondria and
prokaryotes.10 Scientific American admits that its open to any other mechanism to explain natureas long as it excludes
God!Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces
must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific
terms, is unproved. [SA 82]We have already cited more honest admissions by evolutionists Lewontin and Todd about their a
priori rejection of a Designer before even examining the evidence. But evolutionary propaganda for public consumption
persists in claiming that evolution is accepted purely on scientific grounds.
Straw man 2: Evolutionists have seen species evolve
Scientific American tries to make hay with this straw man, devoting two points to proving natural selection and speciation.
Informed creationists dont teach against these biological processeseven though some day-age advocates, like Hugh
Ross, do.11
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. [SA 82]
It might take centuries, but it need not. In fact, speciation can happen much faster than most evolutionists (and day-age
advocates) realize. Creationists following the young age model expect such rapid non-evolutive speciation, as we pointed
out earlier.Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes
disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayrs Biological Species Concept,
recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populationssets of organisms that normally do not
or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance
or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms physical and
behavioral traits as clues to their species membership. [SA 82]We agree. Its important to note this difficulty in defining
species whenever evolutionists claim that creationists dont have a consistent definition of kinds (which we do, as
discussed before). We also agree with Scientific Americans recognition of recent experiments that have caused artificial
speciation.Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects, and
worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection for anatomical
differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences, and other traits and found that they had created populations of
organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W.
Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for
certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with

those from a very different environment. [SA 8283]None of this is news to informed creationists. Once again, there is no
new information, but sorting and loss of already existing information.
Ecology proves evolution?
While evolutionists claim that natural selection is the best-studied mechanism for evolution, they also must explain the reallife processes behind natural selection. Their discussion of ecology is very interesting (and factual), but it tells us nothing
about GTE.
Changing populations within healthy forest ecosystems
For example, PBS 3 devotes a whole segment to show how a healthy forest ecosystem has a large carnivore at the top of
the food chain, which can cause drastic changes in the population of the forest. It takes 100 pounds of plant to feed 10
pounds of herbivore, which in turn feed 1 pound of carnivore. So the existence of carnivores indicates the health of the
supporting animals and plants. Later on in the program, Wildlife Conservation Society biologist Alan Rabinowitz claims that
this healthy forest exhibits evolution going on around us, but all he means is the replacement of one species with another.
Of course, already-existing species replacing other already-existing species has nothing to do with the origin of new species
with new genetic information. Once again, evolution is a vacuous catch-all term, with any change in population numbers
tossed out to the unwary listener as evidence of the goo-to-you theory.
Founder effect
Then the PBS program moves on to isolated habitats and the founder effect. This is where a single breeding pair or
pregnant female colonizes a new niche, and carries only a fraction of the gene pool. Therefore its descendants also contain
a small fraction of the original gene pool, so the new population can be very different from the old. This also offers no
comfort or support to the notion of evolution because the new population has less information than the old.
Invasionthe leafy spurge
Another ecological topic is biological invaders, the bane of all countries that depend on agriculture and livestock to feed their
people and earn export dollars. The invaders are often more mobile and adaptive, so they out-compete native species.
Modern technology has vastly increased the rate of hostile invasions, as animals stow away on ships and in the
undercarriage of airplanes, although some species have been introduced deliberately. Fordham University paleoecologist
David Burney investigated what happened in Hawaii when Polynesians and then Europeans introduced new species. He
claimed:Evolution has now entered a new mode. Something altogether new is happening, and it has to do with what
humans do to the evolutionary process. [PBS 3]Ho hum, this is just another example of replacement of one species with
another, which again has nothing to do with showing how particles could have turned into people.Pioneers introduced a
weed called leafy spurge into North Dakota from Russia, and it threatens to kill off all native grasses. A cattle rancher
claimed on PBS that it is a cancer to the land it makes the land just totally useless. Actually, the first claim is an
exaggeration, and the second is a matter of perspectivesheep and goat farmers would have no problems.But the rancher
said that herbicides were very expensive, so the narrator asks: whats left? The solution may be another invader
discovered when scientists learned what kept leafy spurge in check in its native Russia. Its the flea beetlea case of
fighting evolutionary fire with fire. [PBS 3]Canisters of flea beetles are dropped from airplanes, then the narrator says:
So now were in a race most of us dont even know were runningto learn as much as possible about evolution before its
too late. [PBS 3]Huh? Using already-existing enemies of the leafy spurge requires evolution? This must be the nadir of the
contentless nature of this word, even by the pathetic standards of the PBS series. Farmers have used such common-sense
biological controls for centuries, well before Darwin. Interestingly, one of the classic cases of successful biological control
was the defeat of Australias cactus invader, the prickly pear, through the introduction of the Cactoblastis organism. John
Mann, the scientist responsible for saving Australia from ecological and economic ruin in this way, was heaped with
accolades and honors for his feat. Mann was a convinced creationist, who was interviewed byCreation before his death.12
Symbiosis
PBS 3 also describes the leaf-cutting ants of Brazil. They form colonies containing eight million insects, and they cut leaves
into pieces and bring them to the nest, but they dont eat them. Rather, other leafcutter ants mulch them and use the mulch
to grow a fungus garden. This fungus is used as food for the young leafcutters, which thus depend on the fungus for
survival, but the fungus depends on the ants to provide the mulch.But this fungus garden has a weed, a virulent mold that
badly hinders the fungal growth. To combat this, some ants have a white waxy coating that is now known to be tangled mats
of bacteria that produce antibiotics that kill the mold.Presumably, by this stage in the series, the producers hope that viewers
are so indoctrinated in evolution that they dont even need to try to produce evidence. To the diehard evolutionist, any
phenomenon at all can be adduced as evidence for evolution. In this case, they dont bother to explain how such a complex
symbiosis could have evolved, but merely assert that the bacteria and mold are products of an arms race lasting 50 million
years.
Predatorprey, driving force of evolution?
While evolutionists discuss natural selection and speciation, they like to emphasize the bloodshed and violence that drives
these biological changes. They see Nature, red in tooth and claw, in the memorable phrase from the very long 1850
poem In Memoriam, A.H.H. by Alfred Lord Tennyson (18091892). In debates they love to pull out this as knock-down
evidence against creationists, believing it disproves the possibility of a benevolent, wise designer following Darwin. The
fact that Tennysons poem predated Darwins Origin indicates that Darwin was greatly influenced by philosophical ideas of
his day.Episode 4 of the PBS Evolution series aims to show that these violent biological forces, rather than the
environmental ones, drive evolution most strongly, based largely on extensive interviews with the atheistic sociobiologist
Edward O. Wilson. The title of PBS 4, The Evolutionary Arms Race! reflects the struggle between predator and prey: as a
prey evolves stronger defense mechanisms, an attacker must evolve stronger mechanisms to survive, and vice versa. Of
course, evolutionary biologists think there is no design behind this: the only prey that survive have chance copying mistakes
in their genes that confer a strong defense, and they pass on these genes to their offspring. Faced with these stronger
defense mechanisms, only those predators that happen to have mutations conferring better attacking power will be able to
eat the prey, while the others starve and fail to pass on their genes.But as explained earlier, real evolution requires changes
that increase genetic information, while non-information-increasing changes are part of the creation model. None of the
examples presented in episode 4 prove that information has increased, so they provide no support for evolution or against
creation.
Poison newt
PBS takes viewers to Oregon, where there were mysterious deaths of campers, but it turned out that newts were found
boiled in the coffee pot. These rough-skinned newts (Taricha granulosa) secrete a deadly toxin from their skin glands so
powerful that even a pinhead-sized amount can kill an adult human. They are the deadliest salamanders on earth. So
scientists investigated why this newt should have such a deadly toxin.They theorized that a predator was driving this
evolution, and they found that the common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) was the newts only predator. Most snakes
will be killed by the newts toxin, but the common garter snake just loses muscle control for a few hours, which could of

course have serious consequences. But the newts were also driving the evolution of the snakesthey also had various
degrees of resistance to the newt toxin. Are these conclusions correct? Yes, it is probably correct that the predators and
prey are driving each others changes, and that they are the result of mutations and natural selection. Although it might
surprise the ill-informed anti-creationist that creationists accept mutations and selection, it shouldnt be so surprising to
anyone who understands the young age model .So is this proof of particles-to-people evolution? Not at all. There is no proof
that the changes increase genetic information. In fact, the reverse seems to be true.The snakes with greater resistance have
a costthey move more slowly. Since PBS provided no explanation of the poisons activity, its fair to propose possible
scenarios to explain the phenomenon under a creation framework (it would be hypocritical for evolutionists to object, since
they often produce hypothetical just-so stories to explain what they cannot see).Suppose the newts poison normally reacts
with a particular neurotransmitter in its victims to produce something that halts all nerve impulses, resulting in death. But if
the snake had a mutation which reduced the production of this neurotransmitter, then the newts poison would have fewer
targets to act upon. Another possibility is a mutation in the snake altering the neurotransmitters precise structure so that its
shape no longer matches the protein. Either way, the poison would be less effective. But at the same time, either mutation
would slow nerve impulses, making the snakes muscle movement slower.So either of these would be an information loss in
the snake that happens to confer an advantage. This is far from the only example. The best known is sickle-cell anemia, a
common blood disorder in which a mutation causes the sufferers hemoglobin to form the wrong shape and fail to carry
oxygen. People who carry two copies of the sickle-cell gene (homozygous) often develop fatal anemia. But this misshapen
hemoglobin also resists the malaria parasite (Plasmodium). So humans who are heterozygous (have both a normal and
abnormal gene) have some advantage in areas where malaria is prevalent, even though half their hemoglobin is less
effective at its job of carrying oxygen. Another example is wingless beetles, which survive on windy islands because they
wont fly and be blown into the sea. 14As for the newt, likewise, increased secretion of poison can result without any new
information. One possibility is an information-losingmutation that disables a gene controlling the production of the poison.
Then it would be over-produced, which would be an advantage in defending against the snake, but a wasteful use of
resources otherwise.There are other related examples, e.g., one way that the Staphylococcus bacteria becomes resistant to
penicillin is via a mutation that disables a control gene for production of penicillinase, an enzyme that destroys penicillin.
When it has this mutation, the bacterium over-produces this enzyme, which means it is resistant to huge amounts of
penicillin. But in the wild, this mutant bacterium is less fit, because it squanders resources by producing unnecessary
penicillinase.Another example is a cattle breed called the Belgian Blue. This is very valuable to beef farmers because it has
2030% more muscle than average cattle, and its meat is lower in fat and very tender. Normally, muscle growth is regulated
by a number of proteins, such as myostatin.However, Belgian Blues have a mutation that deactivates the myostatin gene, so
the muscles grow uncontrolled and become very large. This mutation has a cost, in reduced fertility.15 A different mutation of
the same gene is also responsible for the very muscular Piedmontese cattle. Genetic engineers have bred muscular mice
by the same principle.In all these cases, a mutation causes information loss, even though it might be considered beneficial.
Therefore it is in the opposite direction required for particles-to-people evolution, which requires the generation
of new information.
Evolution of pathogens
If evolutionists hope to find evidence of modern-day evolution, they have a perfect opportunity with pathogens. In just a few
months, bacteria can go through hundreds of thousands of generations, equivalent to millions of years in vertebrates. Yet in
spite of this rapid change, the bacteria that we see today are essentially the same as the bacteria retrieved from the tombs
of the pharaohs, and even with those discovered in salt crystals dated millions of years old.21
HIV resistance to drugs
PBS 1 claims that Darwin didnt really see evolution in action, but now we do. Supposedly HIV, the cause of AIDS, evolves
resistance to drugs faster than we can make them. Because the virus can produce billions of copies per day, it can evolve
in minutes to hours. One researcher said that this rapid change would be a surprise if we didnt have the concept of
evolution. PBS also attempted to tug heartstrings, by portraying AIDS patients as victims of evolution.First, we see the
equivocationHIV producing HIV is supposed to show that particles could turn into people; but theyre still HIVthey
havent changed into something else.Second, in PBS 4, its made clear that the related phenomenon of antibiotic resistance
in bacteria took the medical community by surprisethis means that it wasnt a prediction of evolution, except after the fact.
Third, they fail to demonstrate that new information is involved, and in fact the next segment of the program showed that the
opposite is true. Veronica Miller of Goethe University in Germany experimented by ceasing all antiviral drug treatments to a
patient. Without the drugs, the few surviving original (wild) types that had infected the patient could grow more easily. It
turned out that they easily out-competed the vast numbers of resistant forms that had developed in the hospital. She said
this was a risk because the wild types were also more dangerousmore efficient than the new strains that had survived the
earlier drug treatments. The superior efficiency and reproductive success of the wild type implies that the other evolved
strains acquired resistance due to a loss of information somewhere.This should not be surprising, because the same is true
of many examples of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. For example, some bacteria (seePoison newt, above) have an
enzyme that usually has a useful purpose, but it also turns an antibiotic into a poison. That is, its not the antibiotic per
se thats damaging, but its chemical byproduct from the bacteriums metabolism. So a mutation disabling this enzyme would
render the antibiotic harmless. But this bacterium is still disabled, because the enzyme is now hindered, so the bacterium
would be unable to compete in the wild with non-resistant ones. The information loss in both HIV and the bacterium is
the opposite of what evolution requires.22
Tuberculosis and antibiotic resistance
PBS describes the microbe as a predator of humans, although parasite would be more accurate. Mummies show that the
tuberculosis bacillus (TB) affected Egyptians 4,000 years ago. The Black Death wiped out one-third of Europes population
in 13471351, and the influenza pandemic of 19181919 killed 20 million peoplemore than World War 1 that had just
ended.After the world wars, antibiotics were considered the magic bullet, and there were optimistic claims even as late as
1969 that infectious diseases were a thing of the past. But they failed to anticipate the development of resistance. This
shows that bacterial resistance was hardly a prediction of evolution, but is really a phenomenon they try to explain after the
fact as due to evolution. As will be shown, there is nothing to support molecules-to-man evolution; rather, a properly
understood creation model makes good sense of the evidence.PBS 4 discussed a new strain of TB that had arisen in the
overcrowded Russian prison system, containing malnourished prisoners with weakened immune systems. One inmate,
Sasha (Alexandr), had failed to complete his course of antibiotics. This meant that a few bacteria survived because they
had some resistance to the antibiotic, and then proliferated once the treatment stopped. But the program itself makes it clear
that the resistance was already present, so this is not evolution, although it is natural selection.These resistant bacteria are
not confined to the prison, but have spread because of travel. One 19-year-old Russian student, Anna, has a strain
resistant to five antibiotics. Immunologists predict that TB could soon claim 23 million lives per year.But as shown, there is
no proof that any antibiotic resistance is due to increased genetic information. The above example shows that the

information was already present, and I previously explained how a loss of information could confer resistance. Sometimes
bacteria can pass genes to each other by exchanging plasmids, and sometimes these genes confer resistance. But of
course, these examples involve no new information produced in the biosphere.
Evolution of less harmful bacteria?
Paul Ewald of Amherst College claimed on PBS 4 that evolution may not only be a problem, but could also be harnessed to
evolve less harmful bacteria. If a pathogen spreads by close contact between people, then its in its best interest not to
make people so sick that they cant move around. But those pathogens spread by water and insects tend to be deadly.In the
1991 cholera epidemic in South America, a million people were infected, and 10,000 died. The bacterium (Vibrio cholerae)
was spread by contaminated water, so evolved high levels of toxicity. The solution was to clean the water supply, so that
only healthier people could spread the germ. So the germ evolved mildness, and many infected people didnt even develop
symptoms.But here again, there is indeed natural selection, but the result is that Vibrio cholerae turn into Vibrio
cholerae! There is no proof that any new information was produced, but rather, selection of existing genetic variation.PBS 4
compared this phenomenon to breeding domestic dogs from wolves, but again this involved loss of information.
Pathogens and creation
Some people wonder where disease germs fit into the young age framework, if everything was created very good. The
phenomenon described in the previous section can provide some insights. It clearly shows that even something usually
known as a deadly germ can have a mild variant that causes no illness. Even today, Vibrio cholerae has a role in the
ecosystems of brackish waters and estuaries, and the original may have had a role living symbiotically with some people.
Even its toxin probably has a beneficial function in small amounts, like most poisons. The virulence arose after the Fall, by
natural selection of varieties producing more and more toxin as contaminated water became more plentiful. No new
information would be needed for this process. Recent evidence shows that the loss of chemotaxisthe ability to move in
response to changes in chemical concentrationswill markedly increase infectivity in an infant mouse model of
cholera.23Another likely example of virulence arising by information loss is the mycoplasmas, the smallest known selfreproducing organisms (parasitic bacteria with no cell walls and fewer than 1,000 genes, found in the respiratory system and
urogenital tracts of humans). Loss of genetic information, e.g., for amino acid synthesis, could have resulted in the
mycoplasmas becoming increasingly dependent on their hosts for survival.24 Some clues to possible benign pre-Fall roles
for viruses can be gleaned from functions they have even today. Viruses are non-living entities, which function like seeds
and spores, transporting genes among plants and animals. They also help keep soil fertile, keep water clean, and regulate
gases in the atmosphere.25 So once again, some alleged evidence for evolution actually provides support for the
creation/Fall model.
Has immunity evolved?
In PBS 4, Stephen OBrien of the National Cancer Institute wondered why the big cats have evolved resistance to a
disease deadly to humans. There is a Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV) that should cause AIDS-like symptoms.
Supposedly the cats ancestors were almost wiped out by the virus, but some had resistant genes. Supposedly, the FIV
evolved to mildness.More interesting was the claim that about 10 percent of humans have a whopping mutation that
confers resistance to HIV. This turns out to be the loss of certain receptors on the immune cells preventing the HIV from
docking on them. Again, this change is in the opposite directionrequired to change particles into people.From mycoplasmas
to big cats, from TB to poison newts, theres not a shred of evidence that might explain the evolution of new genetic
information, but the loss that we see fits nicely with young age model.
Muddy Waters
Clarifying the confusion about natural selection
by Carl Wieland
Natural selection is often referred to as survival of the fittest or, more recently, reproduction of the fittest. Many people are
confused about it, thinking that evidence for natural selection is automatically evidence for the idea that molecules turned
into microbes, which became millipedes, magnolias and managing directors. Most presentations of evolution add to the
confusion by conveniently failing to point out that even according to evolutionary theory, this cannot be true; natural selection
by itself makes no new things.
Darwin the plagiarist?
Natural selection is really a very straight-forward, commonsense insight. A creationist, the chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth
(18101873), wrote about it in 18357, before Darwin, who very likely borrowed the idea from Blyth. 1 An organism may
possess some inheritable trait or character which, in a given environment, gives that organism a greater chance of passing
on all of its genes to the next generation (compared with those of its fellows which dont have it). Over succeeding
generations that trait or character has a good chance of becoming more widespread in that population. Such an improved
chance of reproductive success (i.e. having offspring) might be obtained in several ways:
A greater chance of survival. I.e. the organism is more fit to survive. This is what survival of the fittest means, by the
way; it does not necessarily refer to physical fitness as commonly understood. If you are more (or less) likely to survive, you
are correspondingly more (or less) likely to have offspring, and thus to pass your genes on. For instance, genes for longer
hair will improve an animals chances of surviving in a cold climate. Genes for white colouring will improve the camouflage of
a bear in a snowy wilderness (camouflage does not just help an animal avoid being caught and eaten; it can also help a
predator to sneak up on prey). By thus being more likely to avoid starvation, a lighter-coloured bear is more likely to be
around to pass its lighter colouring on to the next generation.
A greater chance of finding a mate. If the females of a fish species habitually prefer mates with longer tails, then male fish
with genes for longer tails will have more chance of reproducing, on average, so that their genes (which include those for
long tails) have more chance of getting copied. The long-tail genes (and thus the long-tail variety) will therefore become
more common in that population.
Any other way of enhancing reproductive success. Consider a plant species, the seeds of which are dispersed by wind.
If it has genes which give its seeds a shape that confers on them slightly better aerodynamic lift than the seeds of its
fellows, then the genes for that particular trait (and thus the trait itself) will be favoured, i.e. selected in this natural way,
hence the term. Conversely, if that plant species happens to be on a small island, seeds which travel far are going to be
more likely to be lost at sea. Hence genes which give less lift will be favoured. Presuming that genes for both shortdistance and long-distance seed air travel were available, this simple effect would ensure that all the members of an island
population of such plants would eventually produce only short-flight seeds; genes for long-flight seeds would have been
eliminated.

Adaptation
In such a way, creatures can become more adapted (better
suited) to the environment in which they find themselves.
Say a population of plants has a mix of genes for the length
of its roots. Expose that population over generations to
repeated spells of very dry weather, and the plants most
likely to survive are the ones which have longer roots to get
down to deeper water tables. Thus, the genes for shorter
roots are less likely to get passed on (see diagram above).
In time, none of these plants will any longer have genes for
short roots, so they will be of the long root type. They are
now better adapted to dry conditions than their forebears
were.
Darwins belief
This adaptation, really a fine-tuning to the environment,
was seen by Darwin to be a process which was essentially
creative, and virtually without limits. If new varieties could
arise in a short time to suit their environment, then given
enough time, any number of new characteristics, to the
extent of totally new creatures, could appear. This was how,
he believed, lungs originally arose in a lungless world, and
feathers in a featherless one. Darwin did not know how
heredity really works, but people today should know better.
He did not know, for instance, that what is passed on in
reproduction is essentially a whole lot of parcels
of information (genes), or coded instructions.It cannot be
stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is
get rid of information. It is not capable of creating anything
new, by definition. In the above example, the plants became
better able to survive dry weather because of
the elimination of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the
information which their ancestors had. The information for
the longer roots was already in the parent population; natural selection caused nothing new to arise in, or be added to, the
population.The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the permanent loss of some of the information in that
group of organisms. If the environment were changed back so that shorter roots were the only way for plants to survive, the
information for these would not magically reappear; the population would no longer be able to adapt in this direction. The
only way for a short-rooted variety to arise as an adaptation to the environment would be if things began once more with the
mixed or mongrel parent population, in which both types of genes were present.
Built-in limits to variation
In such an information-losing process, there is automatically a limit to variation, as gene pools cannot keep on losing their
information indefinitely.This can be seen in breeding, which is just another version of
(in this case, artificial) selectionthe principle is exactly the same as natural
selection. Take horses. People have been able to breed all sorts of varieties from
wild horsesbig working horses, miniature toy ponies, and so on. But limits are
soon reached, because selection can only work on what is already there. You can
breed for horse varieties with white coats, brown coats and so forth, but no amount
of breeding selection will ever generate a green-haired horse varietythe
information for green hair does not exist in the horse population.Limits to variation
also come about because each of the varieties of horse carries less information than
the wild type from which it descended. Common sense confirms that you cannot
start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horsesthe
information just isnt there anymore! The greater the specialization (or adaptation, in
this case to the demands of the human breeder, who represents the environment),
the more one can be sure that the gene pool has been extensively thinned out or
depleted, and the less future variation is possible starting from such stock.These
obvious, logical facts make it clear that natural selection is a far cry from the
creative, uphill, limitless process imagined by Darwin (and many of todays lay-folk, beguiled by sloppy public
education).Evolutionist theoreticians know this, of course. They know that they must rely on some other process to create
the required new information, because the evolution story demands it. Once upon a time, it says, there was a world of living
creatures with no lungs. Then the information for lungs somehow arose, but feathers were nowhere in the worldlater these
arose too. But the bottom line is that natural selection, by itself, is powerless to create. It is a process of culling, of choosing
between several things which must first be in existence.
Natural election
Charles Darwin, TFE Grafik
In 1872, an attempt was made to elect Charles Darwin (left) to the prestigious Zoological Section of the
French Institute, but this failed because he received only 15 out of 48 votes. A prominent member of the
Academy gave the reason as follows:What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that
the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to famethe "Origin of Species," and
still more the "Descent of Man," is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous
hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example,
which a body that respects itself cannot encourage. 1However, later on 5 August 1878, Darwin was
elected a Corresponding Member in the Botanical Section of the same French Institute. Darwin wrote to
Asa Gray as follows:It is rather a good joke that I should be elected in the Botanical Section, as the extent of my knowledge
is little more than that a daisy is a Compositous plant and a pea is a Leguminous one.2
How do evolutionists explain new information?
Since natural selection can only cull, todays evolutionary theorists rely on mutations (random copying mistakes in the
reproductive process) to create the raw material on which natural selection can then operate. But that is a separate issue. It

has been shown convincingly that observed mutations do not add information, and that mutation is seriously hampered on
theoretical grounds in this area.2 One of the worlds leading information scientists, Dr Werner Gitt from Germanys Federal
Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, says, There is no known natural law through which matter can give
rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. 3 His challenge to
scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published. Even those mutations which give a
survival benefit are seen to be losses of information, not creating the sorely needed new material upon which natural
selection can then go to work.4 (See Blindingly obvious?.)
In summary:
Natural selection adds no information, in fact it reduces it.
Evolution requires a way to add new information.
Mutations (genetic copying mistakes) must be invoked to explain how new information arose in order for natural selection to
guide the assumed evolutionary process.
Mutations studied to date all appear to be losses of informationnot surprising for a random process.5
It is thus quite illegitimate to use instances in which natural selection is happening (reducing the information in populations)
as examples of evolution happening.
Natural selection, operating on the created information in the original gene pools, makes good sense in a fallen world. It can
fine-tune the way in which organisms fit their environment, and help stave off extinction in a cursed, dying world. By
splitting a large gene pool into smaller ones, it can add to the amount of observed variety within the descendants of an
original kind, just as with the many varieties of horse from one type. Even new species can come about like that, but no
new information. This helps to explain greater diversity today.Perhaps if evolutions true believers really had convincing
evidence of a creative process, they would not feel obliged to muddy the waters so often by presenting this downhill
process (natural selection) as if it demonstrated their belief in the ultimate uphill climbmolecules-to-man evolution.
We need to tell this increasingly educated world how the facts about biological change connect to the real history of the
world.
Blindingly obvious?
A CMI speaker visiting a cave in Australia was told by the guide about a blind shrimp which, in
that lightless environment, had evolved the ability not to see. (!)Obviously, a mutation (genetic
copying mistake) causing blindness in a shrimp living in the light would normally hinder its ability
to survive. However, it would not be a handicap where there was no light, and as a side benefit,
the shrimp would not be susceptible to eye infections like its still-seeing relatives.This slight
advantage is enough to ensure that, after a few dozens of generations, all the shrimps will carry
the defective gene, and thus will all be blind. They have not in fact evolved any abilities, they
have lost one.A loss can be a survival advantage, but it is still a loss. The evolutionary belief
demands that massive amounts of new information have arisen over time; showing how
information is lost or corrupted can scarcely be said to support this belief.

Refutation of New Scientists Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Evolution v natural selection
by Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 5 December 2008(GMT+10)
Ed. Note: this is the third instalment of a detailed critique of a major New Scientist anti-creationist diatribe (seeintroduction
and index page). This one deals the widespread confusion between evolution and natural selection, actually a process
discovered by creationists and an important part of the creation model.
Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions
It will soon be 200 years since the birth of Charles Darwin and 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species ,
arguably the most important book ever written. In it, Darwin outlined an idea that many still find shocking that all life on
Earth, including human life, evolved through natural selection.
Yet even many evolutionists admit that his book actually didnt demonstratewhat the title indicated: the origin of species.
One of Darwins highly qualified contemporaries, Professor Johann H. Blasius, director of the Dukes Natural History
Museum of Braunschweig (Brunswick), Germany, was highly critical:
I have also seldom read a scientific book which makes such wide-ranging conclusions with so few facts supporting them.
Darwin wants to show that Arten [types, kinds, species] come from other Arten. I regard this as somewhat of a highhanded
hypothesis, because he argues using unproven possibilities, without even naming a single example of the origin of a
particular species. 1
If truth be told, evolution hasnt yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Evolution cannot help us predict what new
vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasnt evolution helped guide animal and plant
breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about
evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of like begets like. Even now, as its practitioners admit,
the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties.Antitheistic evolutionist Jerry Coyne
And despite its hyped up importance, evolution provides no practical benefit to biologysee the detailed discussion
in Does science need evolution? A modern evolutionistand ardent misotheistJerry Coyne, argues that evolution is
important as his (atheistic) theory of How did we get here?, but had to admit:[I]f truth be told, evolution hasnt yielded many
practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond
that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve
unpredictably. But hasnt evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop
plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic
principle of like begets like. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in
helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at
all.2And even the claim about bacteria evolving drug resistance is overstated, because this took evolutionists by surprise
when it first occurred, and the changes involved are not those that would evolve bacteria into biologists. See the discussion
in Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?

Darwin presented compelling evidence for evolution in On the Origin and, since his time, the case has become
overwhelming.
Often those who declare the evidence to be overwhelming or that the debate is over say this to avoid debate. Thats why
opposition is censored by peer review and opponents often demonized ordiscriminated against, as documented in the new
film Expelled. As Thomas Sowell (1930 ) pointed out in another context (in his book Race and Culture about politically
correct theories on race):
No belief can be refuted if it cannot be discussed.
Countless fossil discoveries allow us to trace the evolution of todays organisms from earlier forms.
Yet experts point out that its impossible to tell from fossils whether one creature was an ancestor of another, such as the
late Colin Patterson. Furthermore, the fossil record should show gradual change from one kind of creature to another,
millions of times over and it does not. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould called the scarcity of transitional fossils the trade
secret of paleontology (see this analysis as well asThe Links Are Missing). For example, one evolutionist admitted:
The oldest bat fossils, belonging to an extinct lineage, were unearthed from rocks about 54 million years old, but the
creatures that they represent arent dramatically different from living bats, says Mark S. Springer, an evolutionary biologist at
the University of California, Riverside.
Hallmark features of these creatures [the earliest fossil bats] include the elongated fingers that support the wing
membranes and the extensive coiling of bony structures in the inner ears, a sign that they were capable of detecting the
high-frequency chirps used in echolocation
Hallmark features of these creatures include the elongated fingers that support the wing membranes and the extensive
coiling of bony structures in the inner ears, a sign that they were capable of detecting the high-frequency chirps used in
echolocation.3
DNA sequencing has confirmed beyond any doubt that all living creatures share a common origin.
Ipse dixit (a dogmatic assertion without supporting evidence). All it can show are similarities; common origin as opposed to
common design is an interpretation, and one fraught with problems. Rather, they support the biotic message theory, as
proposed by Walter ReMine in The Biotic Message. That is, the evidence from nature points to a single designer, but with a
pattern which thwarts evolutionary explanations because of the many similarities that cannot be explained by any theory of
common ancestrysuch as the incredible similarities between many marsupials and their placental counterparts (e.g. flying
squirrels and flying phalangerssee Are look-alikes related?). Also, in most cultures that have ever existed, a consistent
unifying pattern brought honour to a designer and would also indicate his authority over and mastery of His creation.4
Innumerable examples of evolution in action can be seen all around us, from the pollution-matching pepper moth to fastchanging viruses such as HIV and H5N1 bird flu.
Is this the best they can offer? These are examples of a theory invented by the creationist, Edward Blyth, wrongly claimed
as Darwins invention, and today is an important part of the creation model: natural selection (see also Darwin and the
search for an evolutionary mechanism, which shows the historical and philosophical influences on Darwins ostensibly
scientific theory). They have nothing to do with turning moths into motorists or viruses into vets, because the changes are in
the wrong direction, i.e. removing information instead of addingit as goo-to-you evolution requires.
Conflating natural selection and evolution is a staple of evolutionary propaganda. Recognizing this alone would almost be
enough to see through the dogma. Ill address these specific examples in later instalments when Le Page, the New
Scientist author, cites them in more detail.
Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth.
Evolution has been observed. Its just that it hasnt been observed while its happening.leading misotheist Richard
Dawkins
The roundness of the earth can be observed (see also these articles refuting the flat earth myth); but evolution cant be. Or
in the words of Dawkins:
Evolution has been observed. Its just that it hasnt been observed while its happening.5
And yet despite an ever-growing mountain of evidence, most people around the world are not taught the truth about
evolution, if they are taught about it at all.
Thats true: the government schools and MMM (Mendacious Mainstream Media) teach evolution as fact, which is not the
truth about it!
Even in the UK , the birthplace of Darwin with an educated and increasingly secular population, one recent poll suggests
less than half the population accepts evolution.
So, despite the huge amount of evolutionary indoctrination, the indoctrinators are unhappy that its not working on everyone.
And this includes even deliberately misleading students as long as it convinces them that evolution is true, since they
believe, Education is a subversive activity that is implicitly in place in order to counter the prevailing deeply conservative
religious culture.
For those who have never had the opportunity to find out about biology or science, claims made by those who believe in
supernatural alternatives to evolutionary theory can appear convincing. Meanwhile, even among those who accept
evolution, misconceptions abound.
Yes, we have already encountered some propounded by Le Page, arguing that examples of an observable process (natural
selection) is equivalent to proving the historical goo-to-you claim.
Most of us are happy to admit that we do not understand, say, string theory in physics,
True enough. Indeed, New Scientist itself has documented that even experts are confused by it,6,7 and reported the joke
about why our universe is unique: its the only one string theory cant explain. See also String theory unstrung.
yet we are all convinced we understand evolution. In fact, as biologists are discovering, its consequences can be stranger
than we ever imagined. Evolution must be the best-known yet worst-understood of all scientific theories.
Then blame the propaganda pieces like this one that are more interested in point-scoring and word games than
educating.
So here is New Scientists guide to some of the most common myths and misconceptions about evolution.
So here is New Scientists admission of ownership of this shoddy drivel, so they deserve all they get as a result. The gossip
on the skeptics own websites suggested that Scientific American (SciAm) had suffered a financial downturn as a result of
their mistake in producing their anti-creationist article. A rebuttal on this site to a National Geographic anti-creationist
tirade also resulted in people switching subscriptionsto what is now our Journal of Creation.
There are already several good and comprehensive guides out there. But there cant be too many.
However, one of the allegedly good guides was the SciAm article that we demolished! Others were on skeptics websites,
which so often prove not be at all objective and reliable.
Shared misconceptions:
Everything is an adaptation produced by natural selection

We tend to assume that all characteristics of plants and animals are adaptations that have arisen through natural selection.
Many are neither adaptations nor the result of selection at all.
The 20-nanometer motor (height), ATP synthase (one nanometer is one thousand-millionth of a metre). These rotary motors
in the membranes of mitochondria (the cells power houses) turn in response to proton flow (a positive electric current).
Rotation of the motor converts ADP molecules plus phosphate into the cells fuel, ATP.This is all true. But when it comes to
the complex machinery of life, such asATP synthase and the DNA winding motors, natural selection is the only game in town
to try to avoid the overwhelming improbability of these machines arriving by chance (that is avoiding the abundantly clear
implication that a super-intelligent designer created them).
Why do so many of us plonk ourselves down in front of the telly with a microwave meal after a tiring day? Because its
convenient? Or because TV meals are the natural consequence of hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution?
Stop laughing. Youve probably made similar assumptions.
Hence our article Evolution made me do it!
For just about every aspect of our bodies and behaviour, its easy to invent evolutionary Just So stories to explain how they
came to be that way.
Dont blame the public; blame the evolutionary establishment that tolerates such Just So stories and then feed them to the
public. And why the tolerance of the scientific community for Just So stories? An a prioricommitment to
materialism, according to atheist genetics professor Richard Lewontin.
We tend to assume that everything has a purpose, but often we are wrong.
This is a criticism of prominent evolutionary adaptationism. Gould and Lewontin invented the term spandrel for features
that supposedly arose not because of any direct adaptation, but as a by-product. This comes from cathedral architecture, a
spandrel being the space between a rectangular corner and an inside curve such as an arch. It is also used of the space
under a staircase. In cathedrals, this arch could be filled with a richly decorated panel or stained glass, and space under
stairs is often used for a cabinet. But although the spaces could be put to use, the spaces were not intended per se, but
were merely a consequence of something designed for another purpose (structural strength). Since artists use spandrels as
a canvas on which to paint their decorations, Gould argued that organisms could likewise use functionless artefacts of
anatomy for some new purpose.8
Take male nipples. Male mammals clearly dont need them: they have them because females do and because it doesnt
cost much to grow a nipple. So there has been no pressure for the sexes to evolve separate developmental pathways and
switch off nipple growth in males.
We agree, except that it has nothing to do with evolution switching or not switching as shown in Male nipples prove
evolution?

Then theres our sense of smell. Do you find the scent of roses overwhelming or do you struggle to detect it? Can you
detect the distinctive odour that most peoples urine acquires after eating asparagus? People vary greatly when it comes to
smell,largely due to chance mutations in the genes that code for the smell receptors rather than for adaptive reasons.
Certainly. So this has nothing to do with evolution, and it could be a built-in high-mutation system that can scan a wide range
of chemicals. The elaborate design of the olfactory system, likely based on the principles of vibrational spectroscopy, would
make this very easy, because the mutations could cause small changes in the quantum energy levels of the receptors. The
elaborate olfactory system speaks of incredible design, not evolution.
Yet other features are the result of selection, but not for the trait in question. For instance, the short stature of pygmies could
be a side effect of selection for early childbearing in populations where mortality is high, rather than an adaptation in itself.
Thats reasonable. But once again, nothing here is incompatible with the young age model, of which variation, natural
selection and speciation are important parts.
Multiskilled genes
Another reason why apparent adaptations can be side effects of selection for other traits is that genes can have different
roles at different times of development or in different parts of the body. So selection for one variant can have all sorts of
seemingly unrelated effects.
This is called pleiotropy, and is a huge problem for evolution directed by natural selection. I.e. natural selection may not be
able to improve one characteristic so straightforwardly without deleterious effects on other characteristics. The fact that on
average each human gene codes for 4 or 5 proteins underlines the problem. One well known example of pleiotropy is one
form of blindness in cave fishsee Christopher Hitchens blind to salamander reality: A well-known atheists eureka moment
shows the desperation of evolutionists.
Male homosexuality might be linked to gene variants that increase fertility in females, for instance.
This presupposes a genetic basis for homosexual behaviour in the first place (see for example Homosexual animals). This
will be discussed in later instalments, but meanwhile see the articles under Homosexuality: What are the biblical and
scientific issues?
A non-adaptive or detrimental gene variant can also spread rapidly through a population if it is on the same DNA strand as a
highly beneficial variant. This is one reason why sex matters: when bits of DNA are swapped between chromosomes during
sexual reproduction, good and bad variants can be split up.
Indeed, there is no dispute that sexual reproduction has its advantages. But explaining how this arose in the first place is a
problem for evolutionistssee Evolution of sex?
Other features of plants and animals, such as the wings of ostriches, may once have been adaptations but are no longer
needed for their original purpose.
As we have argued in Vestigial Organs: What do they prove?:
There are at least three possibilities as to why ostriches, emus, etc have wings:
a) They derived from smaller birds that once could fly. This is possible in the creationist model. Loss of features is relatively
easy by natural processes; acquisition of new characters, requiring new DNA information, is impossible.
b) The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while
running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators
(Ive seen emus run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the
wings are useless, why are the muscles functional that allow these birds to move their wings?
c) It is a result of design economy. Humans use this with automobiles, for example. All models might have mounting points
for air conditioning, power steering, etc. although not all have them. Likewise, all models tend to use the same wiring
harness, although not all features are necessarily implemented in any one model. In using the same embryological blueprint
for all birds, all birds will have wings.
Such vestigial traits can persist because they are neutral, because they have taken on another function or because there
hasnt been enough evolution to eliminate them even though they have become disadvantageous.

If they have another function, then it is compatible with being created that way. Often the vestigial organ argument is an
appeal to ignorance: we dont know a function, therefore it has none. There are so many times when organs thought to be
useless turn out to have important functions, e.g. short muscle fibres in horse legs that turn out to have a vital role in
dampening vibrations, as well as the important thyroid and thymus glands.
Take the appendix. There are plenty of claims that it has this or that function but the evidence is clear: you are more likely to
survive without an appendix than with one.
This is outdated. The appendix has long been known to be rich in lymphatic tissue, and is now thought to be a safe-house
for bacteria, to reboot the colon flora in case of an infection that clears them out. 9 See Appendix: a bacterial safe house :
New research suggests function for appendix in maintaining good digestive bacteria populations. The problem of
appendicitis seems to result from a fibre-poor Western diet and perhaps even another case of an overly hygienic society
triggering an overreaction by the bodys immune system.
Also, if this vestigial idea were true, then we would expect that more primitive primates would have a more developed
appendix, but this is not so. Rather, the appendix is more prominent in humans and gorillas. So one evolutionist researcher
claimed that it gradually progressed to the current fully developed organ, so it should not be regarded, in the anthropoid
apes and man, as a purely degenerative structure.10 See also More musings on our useless appendix: A not-so-recent study
on the pattern of the appendix among our alleged primate cousins showed that, even using evolutionary assumptions, it
cannot be a degenerate evolutionary structure.
So why hasnt it disappeared? Because evolution is a numbers game. The worldwide human population was tiny until a few
thousand years ago, and people have few children with long periods between each generation. That means fewer chances
for evolution to throw up mutations that would reduce the size of the appendix or eliminate it altogether and fewer
chances for those mutations to spread through populations by natural selection. Another possibility is that we are stuck in an
evolutionary Catch-22 where, as the appendix shrinks, appendicitis becomes more likely, favouring its retention.
Yet in this supposed numbers game, there were enough mutations to cause bipedalism and development of a large brain
enabling languagedevelopment.
Wisdom teeth are another vestigial remnant. A smaller, weaker jaw allowed our ancestors to grow larger brains, but left less
room for molars. Yet many of us still grow teeth for which there is no room, with potentially fatal consequences. One
possible reason why wisdom teeth persist is that they usually appear after people reach reproductive age, meaning
selection against them is weak.
This is also outdated. Wisdom teeth are rarely a problem for people, except those enjoying a modern western diet with soft,
processed foods. This means less hard chewing during childhood jaw development, which causes a reduction in jaw size,
and less stimulation of natural forward tooth movement in the jaw that would normally leave room for the third molar. Also,
many dental surgeons caution against removal of these teeth unless they cause actual problems, not just as a preventive
measure. See also Are wisdom teeth (third molars) vestiges of human evolution?
For all these reasons and more, we need to be sceptical of headline-grabbing claims about evolutionary explanations for
different behaviours. Evolutionary psychology in particular is notorious for attempting to explain every aspect of behaviour,
from gardening to rape, as an adaptation that arose when our ancestors lived on the African savannah.
Yes, see for example Rape and evolution: Evolution shows its true colours and Evolution of mankind. This cites Jerry Coyne,
a strong opponent of evolutionary psychology, as saying that memes are but a flashy new wrapping around a parcel of old
and conventional ideas.

Natural selection is the only means of evolution

Much change is due to random genetic drift rather than positive selection. It could be called the survival of the luckiest.
Take a look in the mirror. The face you see is rather different to that of a Neanderthal. Why? The unflattering answer could
be for no other reason than random genetic drift. With features that can vary somewhat in form without greatly affecting
function, such as the shape of the skull, chance might play a bigger role in their evolution than natural selection.
Random genetic drift happens, but it has nothing to do with explaining how some reptiles changed into birds, for example.
Such random changes do not explain the origin of the complex, integrated DNA coding necessary to specify how to make
new features such as feathers.Neandertals were likely post-Babel humans adapted for the post-Flood Ice Age.
The DNA in all organisms is under constant attack from highly reactive chemicals and radiation , and errors are often made
when it is copied. As a result, there are at least 100 new mutations in each human embryo, possibly far more. Some are
harmful and are likely to be eliminated by natural selection by death of the embryo, for instance. Most make no difference
to our bodies, because most of our DNA is useless junk anyway.
More outdated nonsense, and largely derived from the evolutionary assumption that we have been around for millions of
years. I.e. if much of our genome were functional, such a high rate of mutation would lead to error catastrophe unless most
were non-functional. However, at least 97% of our DNA is now known to be transcribed, but much of it into regulatory RNA
molecules rather than proteins. See Astonishing DNA complexity uncovered and update. This is further evidence that the
evolutionary timescale is false because if we had been here for millions of years we would be extinct from the damage that
mutations cause.
Dr John Sanford inventor of the gene gun, explains this in his new book Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the
genome (see also Plant geneticist: Darwinian evolution is impossible , and his research papers published in secular
journals.
A future instalment will discuss junk DNA further, but meanwhile see the articles under What about Vestigial ( junk ) DNA
that evolutionists claim is a useless leftover of evolution?
A few cause minor changes that are neither particularly harmful nor beneficial.
You might think that largely neutral mutations would remain restricted to a few individuals. In fact, while the vast majority of
neutral mutations die out, a few spread throughout a population and thus become fixed. It is pure chance some just
happen to be passed on to more and more individuals in each generation.
Although the likelihood of any neutral mutation spreading by chance is tiny, the enormous number of mutations in each
generation makes genetic drift a significant force. Its a little like a lottery: the chance of winning is minuscule but because
millions buy a ticket every week there is usually a winner.
And this drift has a good chance of eliminating even the rare beneficial mutations. This is a big problem for the gradualistic
theories of evolution: the smaller the effect of a mutation, the more likely that drift will swamp its selective advantage.
See this discussion in a review of Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable.
As a result, most changes in the DNA of complex organisms over time are due to drift rather than selection, which is why
biologists focus on sequences that are similar, or conserved, when they compare genomes. Natural selection will preserve
sequences with vital functions, but the rest of the genome will change because of drift.

The actual evidence says the opposite. Most mutations have a small effect, so are immune from selection pressure. And
genetic drift can often eliminate beneficial mutations.
See diagram (right) from Dr Sanfords book (below)
Far more mutations are deleterious than advantageous. Individually, most have too small an effect to be acted upon by
natural selection.
Drifting through bottlenecks
Genetic drift can even counteract natural selection. Many slightly beneficial mutations can be lost by chance, while mildly
deleterious ones can spread and become fixed in a population. The smaller a population, the greater the role of genetic drift.
This is true. But then there is a lower supply of mutations, so it will take much longer for mutations to throw up anything
useful.
Population bottlenecks can have the same effect. Imagine an island where most mice are plain but a few have stripes. If a
volcanic eruption wipes out all of the plain mice, the island will be repopulated by striped mice. Its a case of survival not of
the fittest, but of the luckiest.
And nothing to do with evolution, because the disaster merely removed some information from the gene pool by chance.
Random genetic drift has certainly played a big role in human evolution. Human populations were tiny until around 10,000
years ago, and went through a major bottleneck around 2 million years ago. Other bottlenecks occurred when a few
individuals migrated out of Africa around 60,000 years ago and colonised other regions.
The evidence for bottlenecks is consistent with the young age model of creation (e.g. mitochondrial Eve) and the Flood.
See also Out of Africa theory going out of style?
There is no doubt that most of the genetic differences between humans and other apes and between different human
populations are due to genetic drift. However, most of these mutations are in the nine-tenths of our genome that is junk,
so they make no difference. The interesting question is which mutations affecting our bodies or behaviour have spread
because ofdrift rather than selection, but this is far from clear.
Since at least nine-tenths of our genome is known to be functional, this argument collapses. But see also Decoding the
dogma of DNA similarity and Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more: A common evolutionary
argument gets reevaluated by evolutionists themselves.
Natural selection leads to ever-greater complexity
In fact, natural selection often leads to ever greater simplicity. And, in many cases, complexity may initially arise when
selection is weak or absent.
If you dont use it, you tend to lose it. Evolution often takes away rather than adding. For instance, cave fish lose their eyes,
while parasites like tapeworms lose their guts.
Sure, there are many natural ways to destroy information, but evolution needs a viable, believable way to generate it.
See Let the blind see Breeding blind fish with blind fish restores sight.
Such simplification might be much more widespread than realised. Some apparently primitive creatures are turning out to be
the descendants of more complex creatures rather than their ancestors. For instance, it appears the ancestor of brainless
starfish and sea urchins had a brain.
Which is compatible with the Fall which was cosmic in scope.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that evolution has produced more complex life-forms over the past four billion years. The
tough question is: why? It is usually simply assumed to be the result of natural selection, but recently a
few biologists studying our own bizarre and bloated genomes have challenged this idea.
No doubt? Well of course there is no doubt if you are a true believer and have decided that you dont want to believe in a
universal designer; then evolution is the only game in town, by definition. See A tale of two fleas. And once again New
Scientist promotes the outmoded idea that our genomes are full of junk (bloated).
Rather than being driven by selection, they propose that complexity initially arises when selection is weak or absent. How
could this be? Suppose an animal has a gene that carries out two different functions. If mutation results in some offspring
getting two copies of this gene, these offspring wont be any fitter as a result. In fact, they might be slightly less fit due to a
double dose of the gene. In a large population where the selective pressure is strong, such mutations are likely to be
eliminated. In smaller populations, where selective pressure is much weaker, these mutations could spread as a result of
random genetic drift (seeNatural selection is the only means of evolution) despite being slightly disadvantageous.
Gene or chromosome duplication is hardly the answer. In plants, but not in animals (possibly with rare exceptions), the
doubling of all the chromosomes may result in an individual which can no longer interbreed with the parent typethis is
called polyploidy. Although this may technically be called a new species, because of the reproductive isolation, no new
information has been produced, just repetitious doubling ofexisting information. If a malfunction in a printing press caused a
book to be printed with every page doubled, it would not be more informative than the proper book. (Brave students of
evolutionary professors might like to ask whether they would get extra marks for handing in two copies of the same
assignment.)Duplication of a single chromosome (which contains many genes) is normally harmful, as in Downs syndrome.
Insertions are a very efficient way of completely destroying the functionality of existing genes, so if a duplicated gene is
inserted randomly, it would likely cause damage to other functioning genes.The evolutionists gene duplication idea is that
an existing gene may be doubled, and one copy does its normal work while the other copy is non-expressed. Therefore, it is
free to mutate free of selection pressure (to get rid of it). However, such neutral mutations are powerless to produce new
genuine information. Dawkins and others point out that natural selection is the only possible naturalistic explanation for the
immense design in nature (not a good one, as Spetner and others have shown). Dawkins and others propose that random
changes produce a new function, then this redundant gene becomes expressed somehow and is fine-tuned under the
natural selective process.This idea is just a lot of hand-waving. It relies on a chance copying event, genes somehow being
switched off, randomly mutating to something approximating a new function, then being switched on again (how?) so natural
selection can tune it.Furthermore, mutations do not occur in just the duplicated gene; they occur throughout the genome.
Consequently, all the deleterious mutations in the rest of the genome have to be eliminated by the death of the unfit.
Selective mutations in the target duplicate gene are extremely rareit might represent only 1 part in 30,000 of the genome
of an animal. The larger the genome, the bigger the problem, because the larger the genome, the lower the mutation rate
that the creature can sustain without error catastrophe; as a result, it takes even longer for any mutation to occur, let alone a
desirable one, in the duplicated gene. There just has not been enough time, even with mythical evolutionary time, for such a
naturalistic process to account for the amount of genetic information that we see in living things.
Two geneticists argue:
gene duplications are aberrations of cell division processes and are more likely to cause malformation or diseases rather
than selective advantage
duplicated genes are usually silenced (no longer produce proteins) and subjected to degenerative mutations

regulation of supposedly duplicated gene clusters and gene families is irreducibly complex, and demands simultaneous
development of fully functional multiple genes and switching networks, contrary to Darwinian gradualism.11
The more widely the duplicated genes spread in a population, the faster they will acquire mutations. A mutation in one copy
might destroy its ability to carry out the first of the original genes two functions. Then the other copy might lose the ability to
perform the second of the two functions. As before, these mutations wont make the animals any fitter such animals would
still look and behave exactly the same so they will not be selected for, but they could nevertheless spread by genetic drift.
This is another problem for the gene duplication idea.
Use your mutations
In this way, a species can go from having one gene with two functions to two genes that each carry out one function. This
increase in complexity occurs not because of selection but despite it.
Once the genome is more complex, however, further mutations can make a creatures body or behaviour more complex. For
instance, having two separate genes means each can be switched on or off at different time or in different tissues. As soon
as any beneficial mutations arise, natural selection will favour its spread.
If this picture is correct, it means that there are opposing forces at the heart of evolution. Complex structures and behaviour
such as eyes and language are undoubtedly the product of natural selection.
Undoubtedly? Once again the philosophy of materialism reigns over rational thought and proper scepticism. Also, evolution
does not explain the origin of eyes or language.
But when selection is strongas in large populationsit blocks the random genomic changes that throw up this greater
complexity in the first place.
Yet natural selection is the only real materialistic solution to the origin of complexity. Thats why atheists such as Dawkins
defend(ed) it so strongly (see A Whos Who of evolutionists).
This idea might even explain why evolution appears to speed up after environmental catastrophes such as asteroid impacts.
Such events would slash the population size of species that survive, weakening selection and increasing the chances of
greater genomic complexity arising through non-adaptive processes, paving the way for greater physical or behavioural
complexity to arise through adaptive processes.
Sure, so lets improve the human race by exposing it to nuclear radiation, or chemical carcinogens that will speed up the
mutation rate. This is the sort of fact-free story telling that the author has supposedly eschewed.
Evolution produces creatures perfectly adapted to their environment
You dont have to be perfectly adapted to survive, you just have to be as well adapted as your competitors. The apparent
perfection of plants and animals may be more a reflection of our poor imaginations than of reality.
Its a theme repeated endlessly in wildlife documentaries. Again and again we are told how perfectly animals are adapted to
their environment. It is, however, seldom true.
Take the UK s red squirrel. It appeared perfectly well adapted to its environment. Until the grey squirrel arrived, that is, and
proved itself rather better adapted to broadleaf forests thanks, in part, to its ability to digest acorns.
Certainly there is a gradation in complexity and a variety of features that enable plants and animals to adapt to different
environments. But one would not claim that the Wright brothers first man made (but not first overall) heavier-than-air flying
machine was not designed, simply because there are far more complex planes now. A future instalment will discuss alleged
design flaws further. But remember that we live in a fallen world where things are no longer perfect.
There are many reasons why evolution does not produce designs that are as good as they could be. Natural selections
only criterion is that something works, not that it works as well as it might. Botched jobs are common, in fact. The classic
example is the pandas thumb, which it uses to grasp bamboo. The pandas true thumb is committed to another role. So the
panda must settle for an enlarged wrist bone and a somewhat clumsy, but quite workable, solution, wrote Stephen Jay
Gould in 1978.
On closer inspection, however, there is nothing clumsy at all about the pandas design. 12 Instead, the thumb is part of an
elaborate and efficient grasping structure that enables the panda to quickly strip leaves from bamboo shoots.13
Claims that the pandas thumb is some kind of non-designed contraption is a smokescreen to distract from the real
questionthat evolution simply does not explain how life could start in a pond and finish with a panda.14
As this example shows, evolution is far more likely to reshape existing structures than to throw up novel ones. The lobed
fins of early fish have turned into structures as diverse as wings, fins, hoofs and hands.
See illustration and discussion in The horse shows that similarities are due to creation!
We have five fingers because our amphibian ancestors had five digits, not because five is necessarily the optimal number of
fingers for the human hand.
Yet the creatures they claim to be possible common tetrapod ancestors did not have five digits! Acanthostega had eight,
while Ichthyostegahad seven.
Credit Vij Sodera: One Small Step to Man (see below)
Difference between reptiles bellows lung and birds one-way lung. Click here to view larger image.
Many groups simply never evolve features that might have made them even more successful. Sharks lack the gas bladder
that allows bony fish to control their buoyancy precisely, for example, and instead have to rely on swimming, buoyant fatty
livers and, occasionally, a gulp of air. Similarly, mammals two-way lungs are far less efficient than birds one-way lungs.
But still good enough. On evolutionists dating, sharks have thrived for 300 million years without the gas bladder. One could
ask why fish evolved such a thing that was clearly not necessary! And the transition from a bellows lung (as reptiles also
possess) to an avian flow-through lung (see Blown away by design) has not been explained by evolutionists. One
evolutionary expert in lungs explains the problem:
The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal airsac system from a diaphragmatic-ventilating ancestor would
have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia [i.e. hole] in taxa transitional between theropods and birds.
Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems
unlikely to have been of any selective advantage. 15
And sometimes creatures evolve features that actually reduce their overall fitness rather than increase it, such as the
peacocks tail.
Vij Sodera: One Small Step to Man (see below)
Hypothetical stage of evolution of birds lung.
The complex design of the peacock tail is indeed a problem for evolutionists, especially as the sexual selection theory, which
did not explain its intricate design anyway, has been disproven for this casethe very thing that Darwin invoked sexual
selection to explain! See Peacock tail tale failure.
Use it or lose it
Continual mutation also means that if you dont use it, you lose it. For instance, many primates cannot make vitamin C,
because of a gene mutation. This mutation makes no difference to animals that get plenty of vitamin C in their diet.

However, when the environment changes, such loss of function can make a big difference, as one primate discovered on
long sea voyages.
This may well be true. The Creation/Fall model predicts some deterioration in design. But this doesnt help evolution,
because guinea pigs likewise are unable to produce vitamin C, but share some of the apparent degrading errors seen in the
human DNA. Here is a case where theshared mistakes are not due to common ancestry. For a detailed treatment that
shows that this evolutionary story fails the test see: Why the shared mutations in the Hominidae exon X GULO pseudogene
are not evidence for common descent
Evolutions lack of foresight can produce inherently flawed designs. The vertebrate eye with its back-to-front wiring and
blind spot where the wiring goes through the retina is one example.
Not this boring old canard again! It would be nice if the propagandists for evolution actually researched the reason for
the backwardly wired retina : the need for a blood supply behind the photoreceptors. They should also learn how the Mller
glial cells act as a fibre optic plate to guide the light through the nerve network without distortion . So the vertebrate eye is
superbly designed, as the eyesight of eagles testifies!

Evolutions peak?
Humans are not running fast enough. Evolving through natural selection is about time and numbers. The number of new
mutations that appear, and the number of chances that natural selection has to eliminate the harmful and favour the
beneficial ones, depends on the size of a population, the number of offspring each individual has and on the number of
generations, among other things.
We might like to think of ourselves as the most highly evolved species but, in terms of how many rounds of mutation and
selection weve undergone, we are one of the least evolved species.
Around 10 billion new viral particles can be produced every day in the body of a person infected with HIV. By contrast, the
total human population on Earth was no more than a few million until a few thousand years ago.
Indeed, Dr John Sanford (see above), shows that the known rate of harmful mutations accumulation really would have
resulted in error catastrophe (i.e., extinction!) if we had really been around for millions of years 16 (see his research papers
published in secular journals17,18).
Furthermore, in a decade bacteria can produce 200,000 generations about the number of generations of humans there
have been since our lineage split from that of chimpanzees. So its hardly surprising that in less than a human lifespan
weve seen the evolution of new diseases such as HIV and numerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Behes second book, The Edge of Evolution,19 covers the issue of beneficial mutations and the limits of Darwinian
processes. As his Ph.D. research involved malaria, he applies his expertise to the malarial parasite (Plasmodium falciparum)
and the mutations humans have to deal with it, and the parasites counter-measures to human-made drugs.One of the most
effective anti-malarial drugs is chloroquine, because the parasite took longer to develop resistance to this. Behe shows that
chloroquine resistance likely involves two specific mutations occurring together in the one gene. This explains why
resistance to chloroquine took a long time to develop, whereas resistance to other anti-malarial drugs, which only
needs one mutation, occurs within weeks. Behe works out the probability of this double mutation occurring in the same
gene, using other scientists figures for the parasites population, etc.If it took so much time for a double mutation to occur in
an organism that has a huge population and short life cycle (and therefore huge opportunity for all manner of mutations to
occur), then how long would it take for a double mutation to occur in an organism like a human, with a long generation time
and small population? Behe showed that it would never occur even with evolutionary time assumed. And this is just one
double mutation in a gene. So, any adaptation that requires two specific mutations in one gene to work, will never evolve in
a human, and yet such must have happened numerous times if humans arose through evolutionary processes.Behe also
points out that the chloroquine-resistant parasites do worse than the non-resistant ones where there is no chloroquine. This
suggests that the double mutation is informationally downhill, as usual. It seems that the reason that the parasite is resistant
to chloroquine is that concentration in the parasites vacuole is reduced, and one mechanism is impaired uptake. According
to one paper:Chloroquine-resistant parasite isolates consistently have an import mechanism with a lower transport activity
and a reduced affinity for chloroquine.This is the same principle that explains some antibiotic-resistant bacteria, where a
mutation confers resistance by impairing a cell pump so the germ pumps in less of its would-be executioner.20
[Antibiotic resistance] is not so much an arms race as trench warfare or a scorched earth policy. Many of the changes are
destroying machinery that the enemy could otherwise use.
This leads to another of Behes major points: there is not so much an arms race as trench warfare or ascorched earth
policy. Many of the changes are destroying machinery that the enemy could otherwise use. E.g. defenders will destroy their
own bridges to prevent an enemy crossing, sabotage their own factories if the enemy is using them to churn out armaments,
burn their own crops so the enemy will run out of food This is why the world-class expert on sickle cell anemia, Dr Felix
Konotey-Ahulu, rejects this icon of evolution .Behe further reinforced the point by citing microbiologist Barry Hall on
carbapenemeantibiotics:
Instead of assuming that [the chief kind of enzyme that might destroy these antibiotics] will evolve rapidly, it would be highly
desirable to accurately predict their evolution in response to carbapeneme selection.21
Hall showed that most antibiotics failed, but one (iminepen) did not, simply because neither single nor double point
mutations would suffice, but it would require more than two simultaneous mutations. Hall wrote that this was beyond the
reach of mutation + selection:
The results predict, with >99.9% confidence, that even under intense selection the [enzyme] will not evolve to confer
resistance to imipenem.
See also the explanations of nylon-eating bacteria, Lenskis citrate-eating bacteria, and B-cell hypermutation, showing why
these cases are irrelevant to goo-to-you evolution.
Biophysicist Dr Lee Spetner in his book Not By Chance analyzes examples of mutational changes that evolutionists have
claimed to have been increases in information, and shows that they are actually examples of loss of specificity, which
means they involved loss of information (which is to be expected from information theory). See also this discussion, Is
antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?

DOES NATURAL SELECTION SUPPORT EVOLUTION

Too dry for a fly
by David Catchpoole

The rainforest fly Drosophila birchii likes living in, not surprisingly, rainforests, where the air is humid and everything is nice
and moist.But Australia s pockets of tropical rainforest are becoming more fragmented by land clearing for roads, agriculture
and urban development. Increasing penetration of drier air from outside alters the microclimate inside the rainforest
particularly humidity.
So scientists decided to test Drosophila birchii in the laboratory to
see how quickly this rainforest fly would be able to adapt to a
drier environment.1They exposed flies to a dessication (drying)
stress until 80 to 90% had died, and then bred from the survivors.
But the offspring were no better than their parents at surviving
drier-than-normal conditions. With mounting surprise, the
researchers repeated the processfor 30 cycles over 50 fly
generationsbut still no increase in dessication resistance.The
astonished researchers thought something must have gone
wrong with that particular batch of D. birchii flies. After all, when
the lab tested other species of Drosophila from less humid
environmentsD. melanogaster, D. simulans and D. serrata
they saw a two- to five-fold increase in dessication
resistance.Even after dry-stressing fresh batches of the flies from
four separate rainforest populations, the researchers noted that
the most resistant population lacks the ability to evolve further
resistance even after intense selection for over 30 generations.
As other evolutionists have commented, this was a complete surprise. 2 For creationists, this is a classic example of the
built-in limits to genetic variation!
How so?
Evolutionary theory claims that life arose by a process which is ultimately creative, and virtually without limits.But the yong
age account implies that virtually no new genetic information3 has arisen since the beginning . So we would expect todays
various Drosophila species to each carry less genetic variety than the original created kind from which allDrosophila flies are
descended.4 Why? Because natural selection eliminates genes. It cannot create new ones.This is most noticeable in
extreme environmentse.g. in dry conditions, flies that lose body moisture too quickly will die out and, without offspring,
their genes will be lost from that population. But in a wet rainforest environment, theres no advantage in conserving body
moisture; whats needed is just the oppositethe ability to withstand high humidity and the rampant diseases which thrive in
such conditions. Hence Drosophila birchii populations have become highly adapted to life in the rainforest, but it has come
at a cost. The price paid for such specialization is the permanent loss of genetic information useful for survival in a drier
environment.In contrast, the Drosophila flies from intermediate (less humid) environments, D. melanogaster, D. simulans,
and D. serrata, still contain sufficient genetic variation to enable the population to adapt to drier conditions.1,5
So, what we have here is not evolution, just natural selection. 6,7 Not a creative, limitless process, but one of culling genes
already in existence.
Bighorn horns not so big
by David Catchpoole
Trophy hunters making the pilgrimage to Canadas Ram Mountain, Alberta, home to the worlds biggest bighorn sheep, are
being increasingly disappointed. Ram Mountain has long been a magnet for sport shooters of North Americas mountain
sheep,1 but rams with the large horns so highly prized by hunters are now hard to find.A world-class trophy ram is regarded
as an extremely valuable commodity, with hunting permits being auctioned for very large sums. How large? One sport
shooter paid over a million Canadian dollars in 1998 and 1999 for permits to hunt trophy rams in Alberta.But such is the
decline in horn size of Ram Mountains rams, that in recent years hunters have gone home empty-handed, not having
found any sheep with horns larger than the minimum regulation size.Researchers who documented the decline in horn size
over the past three decades say it is an evolutionary response to sport hunting of bighorn trophy rams (emphasis
added).2,3 They noted that ram body weight has also declined, essentially confirming earlier suspicions that selective
removal of large-horned rams was reducing the overall genetic fitness of the bighorn sheep population. 4,5By killing the
largest rams of high genetic quality before they reach their breeding peak, the hunters have depleted the genes for big
horns and fast growth. These undesirable evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting will be extremely difficult to
reverse, say the researchers (emphasis added).2
Its not evolution!
To the extent that the researchers have observed that selective culling
of large-horned rams at Ram Mountain has diminished the size of
rams and their horns, with concomitant reduction in variety in the
gene pool and a deterioration in the populations genetic fitness, the
researchers are correct. But these changes are not an evolutionary
response or evolutionary consequence as they have nothing to do
with evolution. Evolutionthe supposedly information-gaining
process by which, over millions of years, some primeval soupy seep
became sheepis nowhere in evidence here.Instead, Ram
Mountains bighorn sheep population has lost genetic information, not
gained it. Note the researchers own admission that such changes
will be extremely difficult to reverse. Indeed, despite the recent dropoff in hunting (because hunters could not find rams with horns larger
than the minimum legal size), horn size has not recovered. 3 This
strongly parallels the crash of the cod fishery off the Canadian
coast, where cod have failed to return to their former size despite the
Canadian governments closure of the fishery in 1992 in order to let it recover. 6 It seems that once the genes for large size
are lost, theyre gone forever.7Hunting seems to have had similar impacts upon moose, too, which now have smaller antlers
than was the case just a few decades ago. And selective ivory poaching is thought to be the cause of a dramatically
increased frequency of tuskless elephants in many African populations.Note that in all these instances the selection
pressure is essentially an artificially-imposed version of natural selection. Neither such artificial nor natural selection is in
any way evolution as it can only favour certain genes over others, it cannot generate any new genetic information. Rather,
selection (whether artificial or natural) can only operate on (i.e. cull out) genetic information that already exists.8 And thats
exactly whats been happening on Ram Mountain.

Defining terms
Evolutionist Dr John Endlers refreshing clarity about natural selection has been largely ignored
by David Catchpoole
Illustrated by Caleb Salisbury
Dr John Endler, an evolutionist, is certainly no slouch in the academic stakes. Born in Canada, Endler has a PhD from
Scotlands Edinburgh University and subsequent research and professorial experience at the University of California, USA,
as well as Australias James Cook University and Deakin University, and Englands University of Exeter. In 2007 he was
elected as a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 2008 the European Research Council announced
that he was among the first cohort of Life Scientists to receive an award under its Advanced Grants scheme. His fellow
evolutionists are happy to cite Endlers research work on natural selection and adaptation in guppies but have all but
ignored key observations in his definitive 1986 book, Natural Selection in the Wild.
Many times we have pointed out,1 in relation to natural selection and evolution, that:
Natural selection is a factit was recognized by creationists before Darwin, as it is by informed creationists today.2
Natural selection favours certain already-existing genetic traits in populations by culling genes out of the gene pool;3,4,5 thus
it helpsadaptation of a population to its environment.6,7 (Sometimes the new population is given a new species name
adaptation and speciation are accepted by informed creationists.)8,9
Natural selection by itself generates no new genetic information. So any adaptations that are purely the result of natural
selection acting on pre-existing genetic information are not changes in the right direction to drive particles-to-people
evolution.10 So, natural selection is not the same thing as evolution!11,12,13However, proponents of evolution repeatedly
cite examples of natural selectionexamples in which populations lose genetic informationas evidence of microbes-toman evolution (which would require an increase in genetic information). This is clearly unjustified.The evolutionists vague
and ambiguous definition of terms facilitates thatbait-and-switch tactic, so often employed by Richard Dawkins.14In theory,
evolutionists look to mutations as being the process responsible for generating the new genetic information evolution
requires, which is then sorted by natural selection. But in practice, does that really happen? 15When pressed to give specific
evidence of mutations that increase the information in the genome, Dawkins and his cohorts cannot give coherent
answers.16 They ought to be able to point to hundreds of examples of such mutations by now. But they cant. There is at best
a tiny handfulone or two to our current knowledgewhich could represent a modicum of information increase, and the
lead candidate, the ability of a bacterium to digest the man-made substance nylon, involves considerable doubt.17
The term natural selection means different things to different people, and this often leads to confusionJohn
Endler,Natural Selection in the Wild, 1986
Only a very few evolutionists have been upfront about this. However, they have been largely ignored. Our attention was
recently drawn (see Box) to one such evolutionist, Dr John Endler, whose 1986 book Natural Selection in the Wild18spelt out
the problem clearly.Endlers book may have been ignored, but Endler and his research papers have not. E.g., Richard
Dawkins happily cites Endlers famous research on natural selection and adaptation in guppiesbut this is a classic
example of the bait-and-switch ruse we have so often warned about. 19,20In Natural Selection in the Wild, Endler beautifully
identifies the inherent confusion about the key terms which we would say enables Dawkins and other outspoken
evolutionists to so often go publicly unchallenged (page xii):A major problem in this subject is that there is a multiplicity of
meanings for the same terms, and the same terms mean different things to different people.And Endler makes it clear (p. 8)
that the confusion is not just at a public layman level, but also in the scientific community and their technical publications:
The term natural selection means different things to different people, and this often leads to confusion in the literature.
Natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequencyJohn
Endler,Natural Selection in the Wild, 1986
The gist of the problem (just as we point out repeatedly) is that people wrongly use natural selection and evolution
interchangeably, and Endler specifically (p. 8) warns against this:Natural selection must not be equated with evolution,
though the two are intimately related.Note that Endler is no creationist, as is clear from his pro-evolution commentary
throughout. But on p. 245, where he toes the evolutionary line that natural selection is a key component of the microbes-toman process, he also candidly admits that natural selection is insufficient by itself to explain how pond scum became
people:Natural selection is common enough in natural populations to have been detected in a wide variety of organisms,
and strong selection is not as rare as has been previously assumed; natural selection is therefore likely to be important in
evolution. However, natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in
their frequency. (Emphasis added.)Many times Endler is upfront about this difficulty, i.e. that those who use the term
evolution cannot sidestep the problem of the origin of the genetic variation; how the variants came into existence in the first
place. On page 5, he thus defines evolution:Evolution may be defined as any net directional change or any cumulative
change in the characteristics of organisms or populations over many generations It explicitly includes the origin as well as
the spread of alleles, variants, trait values or character states.The ambiguity of the terms, however, means that many do
indeed sidestep the issue (p. 14):To put this usage into a broader perspective, those who restrict natural selection to
phenotypic selection also call natural selection, as defined in this book, evolution; those who are more careful call it
evolution by natural selection. But evolution is more than merely a change in trait distributions or allele frequencies;
it also includes the origin of the variation. (Emphasis addednote that alleles are alternative forms of the same gene,
e.g. a gene for hair may have versions that code for long or short hair respectively.)And some not only blithely avoid the
challenge, but deliberately seek to redefine the terms in order to define the origins problem out of their sphere of operation
(p. 7):Population geneticists use a different definition of evolution: a change in allele frequencies among generations. This
meaning is quite different from the original; it now includes random as well as directional changes, but it does not require the
origin of new forms.In other words, whether the change goes uphill, or downhill, or just back-and-forth aimlessly, it is all still
called evolution by population geneticists. Endler goes on:Unfortunately, the use of the population genetics definition often
results in an overemphasis on changes in allele frequencies and an underemphasis on (or no consideration of) the origin of
the different alleles and their properties. Both are important in evolution.Note his insightful analysis that defining the terms
in that manner results in an underemphasis on
(or no consideration of) the origin of the different
alleles . Just how little consideration has been
given to this issue by evolutionists is evident in this
highly significant observation by Endler (p. 246):
John Endler is credited with having rediscovered in
1975 the colourful fish now named Endlers guppy,
or Endlers livebearer, in his honour. (Although first
recorded in 1937, in Venezuela, Endler was the first

to properly study and document it.) The live specimens ofPoecilia wingei that Endler collected himself were the first
examples of this fish to make it to the aquarium trade.Thus natural selection may affect the patterns of the origins
of combinations of traits, even though it will not explain the mechanisms of their origins. This was tangentially
discussed by Fisher (1930),21 Simpson (1944),22 and Rensch (1959),23 but has received virtually no attention since then. It
would repay further study. (Emphasis added.)So, tangentially discussed by notable evolutionists in 1930, 1944 and 1959,
and here by Endler in 1986. And since Endler? His words in 1986 still ring true today: virtually no attention since then. And
the issue sorely is in need of the further study by evolutionists that Endler identifies (p. 241): a fundamental
understanding of the origin of new variants would allow us to address how morphological and genetic changes actually take
place, as well as how they affect the rate and direction of evolution. Natural selection only affects changes in the frequency
of the variants once they appear; it cannot directly address the reasons for the existence of the variants.
Whoever defines the terms, wins the debate.
But is this key problem for evolutionists ever likely to get the consideration Endler says it warrants? Not if the dearth of
attention since Endlers book in 1986 is any guide. And Endler probably had fair warning that his attempt to clarify natural
selection was unlikely to be enthusiastically heralded by his own evolutionist colleagues. In the preface, he conceded about
his book that I expect that nobody will find it wholly satisfactory, going on to explain (pp. xixii, emphases added):Among
the many people who have read it in manuscript, some find parts exceedingly helpful, while others find the very same parts
boring or superfluous. To many the most irritating parts will probably be found in Chapters 1, 2 and 8 because they
attempt to put the various points-of-view, definitions, and meanings of natural selection in perspective, and everyone
thinks that his own emphasis is most important. A typical reaction is: I find it fascinating that more than 100 years after
the Origin and Mendel there can be two major positions on this everyday phrase; .
So, in context of the creation/evolution controversy, the battleground is still very much raging around the terms of the
debate, i.e. thedefinition of the terms themselves. As astute observers have noted, Whoever defines the terms, wins the
debate.From the evolutionists, then, we can no doubt expect muddy waters for some time yet.
Proving Endlers point
A 2010 New Scientist article by Professor Keith Bennett (Queens University, Belfast) alerted us to evolutionary biologist John
Endlers 1986 book Natural Selection in the Wild, saying that it chronicled how Endler had scrutinised claimed examples of
natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence.1
To our surprise, however, the opposite was true; Endler provided much evidence of real natural selection taking placebut
he did highlight a surprising lack of hard evidence that this resulted in any evolution. So, it is almost certain that Bennett
was using natural selection as if it meant the same as evolution. Ironically, then, in the very act of favourably citing
Endlers book, Bennett seems to have done the very thing that Endlers book warns againstsomething that was probably
lost on the majority of New Scientist readers. No wonder confusion reigns.
Bennett, K., The Chaos Theory of Evolution, New Scientist 208(2782):2831, 16 October 2010.

The evolution trains a-comin

(Sorry, a-goinin the wrong direction)
by Carl Wieland
The atmosphere in the crowded lecture theatre foyer was alive with curious
anticipation. It was the late 1970s, the heady early days of the creation
movement in South Australia. The creation/evolution debate I was about to
take part in, before some 40 science teachers and involving a prominent
academic evolutionist, was a first for the region.As the words of an animated
conversation drifted across to me, I realized that my opponent-to-be was
only a few metres to my left. A senior lecturer (associate professor in US
terms) in population biology, he was holding forth to a small group of
supporters, clearly unaware that his creationist protagonist was within
earshot.This is really frustrating, I heard him say. I feel like an astronaut
whos come back from the moon, seen the spherical Earth, and now hes
supposed to debate with someone who tries to tell people its flat. In my job
we seeevolution happening in front of our eyes.Back then, before creationist
arguments had had a good airing, it was understandable for him to think like
that. Biology teachers could perhaps be excused for perpetuating such a
nave belief. They simply assumed that the easily observable genetic
changes in many types of living populations were an obvious demonstration
that evolution from microbes to man was fact. Just give it enough time,
and voil , such micro changes would accumulate, continually filtered and
guided by natural selection. It seemed obvious and logical to expect these
little steps to keep adding up so as to lead to the macro changesthe
really big jumps, frog-to-prince, fish-to-philosopher, that type of thing. (As we
will show later in this article, though, the very opposite is true.)In that light,
this biology lecturers perplexed frustration can be readily understood,
because he thought that he was often seeing a small bit of what would in time become a large chunk of change. We need to
understand that most evolutionists, even today, still think this way. Which is, frankly, why the usual answers given by most
young age believers, when challenged on the subject of biological change, are inadequate.For instance, a challenger might
say, Mosquitoes have evolved resistance to DDT in just 40 years. If thats not evolution happening before our eyes, what
is? Most people responses focus on the amount of change. For instance, they will say, Well, thats just variation within a
kind. Or they reply, But the mosquitos still a mosquito, isnt it? It hasnt turned into anything else.Both of these replies
are true. But they are inadequate and seldom impress the challenger, who thinks, Well, thats just a copout for the
creationists. Evolution takes millions of years, and here we have all this change in only 40 years. So, give it a million years
and imagine what sort of change well have then!The analogy I have for many years used in explaining this in public
lectures is that of a railway train. Imagine you see a train pulling out of a station in, say, Miami, Florida, headed north to
Chicago.1 The distance you see it travel is only a few hundred metres. But you can reasonably presume that, given enough
time, it will end up in Chicago. You have seen sound evidence to indicate that it is in principle capable of making the whole
journey, you dont need to see it make the whole trip. This is just how evolutionists see the little changes (often called

microevolution, but seeaside below) happening all around us. If a mosquito has changed a little in 40 years, you dont need
to see it turning into an elephantit has shown that it is in principle capable of making a similarly radical journey.What we
need to be aware of, and focus on in our answers, I tell audiences, is not the amount of change, but the type or direction of
change. It is not just that the train has not gone far enough, but that it is headed in the wrong direction . The types of
changes observed today, though they can be accommodated within an evolutionary framework, are, we will see, precisely
and demonstrably the opposite of the ones which evolutionists really need in order to give some semblance of credibility to
their belief system.So while you may be seeing the train pulling out of the station at Miami, if the reality is that it is not
heading north, up to Chicago, but is headed in the opposite direction, downwards to where the line (if there was one) would
end in the deep blue ocean, then it will never get to Chicago. Time will not solve the problem, since it is in principle an
impossibility to reach Chicago by train in that downward direction. Just so, once we can point out to people that the
evolution train (really the train of biological change) is headed downwards, not upwards, then the more time there is, the
less likely the whole evolution scenario becomes.Before explaining what I mean by biological changes having a direction, I
will share what triggered this article. It was a book review 2 by well-known evolutionary biologist Dr Jerry Coyne, of the
University of Chicago, who could not resist an opportunity to lash out at the creationists. 3Amazingly, Coyne uses the train
journey analogy himself, reinforcing my point of how evolutionists see the issue. Though his intention is to mock creationists,
he unwittingly provides a great opportunity to show how misplaced this common reasoning is.The book he was
reviewing4 uses familiar examples of rapid human-induced biological changes (antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide
resistance in insects, changes in growth rate of fish from overfishing) to get people to consent to the bigger idea of
microbes-to-man evolution.Coyne deplores the fact that the books examples will probably not change the minds of
creationist advocates, who have already accepted such changes as adaptation within a species (variation within a kind
would have been more precise). He says that creationists argue that such small changes cannot explain the evolution of
new groups of plants and animals, and goes on to say: This argument defies common sense. When, after a Christmas visit,
we [presumably his family in ChicagoCW] watch grandma leave on the train to Miami, we assume that the rest of her
journey will be an extrapolation of that quarter-mile. Thus, says Coyne, a creationist unwilling to extrapolate from micro- to
macroevolution is being irrational.
Reason vs rhetoric
Why can one say with confidence, concerning the biological changes observable today (man-induced or otherwise) that the
train is headed in the wrong direction? Why is it that when evolutionists use this grandmas train extrapolation argument, it
can be turned around to make the opposite point? Because the real issue in biological change is all about what happens at
the DNA level, which concerns information.5 The information carried on the DNA, the molecule of heredity, is like a recipe, a
set of instructions for the manufacture of certain items.Evolutionists teach that one-celled organisms 6 (e.g. protozoa) have
given rise to pelicans, pomegranates, people and ponies. In each case, the DNA recipe has had to undergo a massive net
increase of information during the alleged millions of years. A one-celled organism does not have the instructions for how to
manufacture eyes, ears, blood, skin, hooves, brains, etc. which ponies need. So for protozoa to have given rise to ponies,
there would have to be some mechanism that gives rise to new information.Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a
creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of
information, never the opposite.7 To have a way to add information, the only game in town for evolutions true believers is
genetic copying mistakes or accidents, i.e. random mutations (which can then be filtered by selection). 8However, the
problem is that if mutations were capable of adding the information required, we should see hundreds of examples all
around us, considering that there are many thousands of mutations happening continually. But whenever we study
mutations, they invariably turn out to have lost or degraded the information. This is so even in those rare instances when the
mutational defect gives a survival advantagee.g. the loss of wings on beetles on windy islands.9
Whats in a word? Micro vs macro
Many creationists will say, We accept microevolution, but not macroevolution. As our main article points out, the micro
changes (i.e. observed genetic variation) are not capable of accumulating into macro ones, anyway.We suggest, however,
that it would be wiser to avoid the use of the term microevolution. To most people, it sounds as if you are conceding that
there is a little bit of evolution going on. I.e. a little bit of the same process that, given enough time, will turn microbes into
millipedes, magnolias and microbiologists. Thus, you will be seen as churlish or, as in Dr Coynes inverted train example,
as irrational for putting what they see as an arbitrarydistinction between the micro and macro.If the use of such potentially
misleading terminology is unavoidable, always take the opportunity to point out that the changes often labelled
microevolution cannot be the same process as the hypothetical goo-to-you belief. They are all information-losing
processes, which thus depend on there being a store of information to begin with.As creatures diversify, gene pools become
increasingly thinned out. The more organisms adapt to their surroundings by selection, i.e. the more specialized they
become, the smaller the fraction they carry of the original storehouse of created information for their kind. Thus, there is less
information available on which natural selection can act in the future to readapt the population should circumstances
change. Less flexible, less adaptable populations are obviously heading closer to extinction, not evolving.We see that, just
like with the train pulling out from Miami and headed south, if the sorts of changes we see today are extrapolated over time,
they lead to extinction, not onwards evolution.Remember, evolutionary belief teaches that once upon a time, there were
living things, but no lungslungs had not evolved yet, so there was no DNA information coding for lung manufacture.
Somehow this program had to be written. New information had to arise that did not previously exist, anywhere.Later, there
were lungs, but no feathers anywhere in the world, thus no genetic information for feathers. Real-world observation has
overwhelmingly shown mutation to be totally unable to feed the required new information into the system. 10 In fact, mutations
overall hasten the downward trend by adding genetic load in the form of harmful mutations, of which we have all
accumulated hundreds over the generations of our ancestry.11In other words, populations can change and adapt because
they have a lot of information (variety) in their DNA recipe. But unless mutations can feed in new information, each time
there is variation/adaptation, the total information decreases (as selection gets rid of the unadapted portions of the
population, some information is lost in that population). Thus, given a fixed amount of information, the more adaptation we
see, the less the potential for future adaptation. The train is definitely headed downhill, destined to fall off the jetty of
extinction.The supreme irony is that, of all the examples lauded by Dr Coyne as evolution, whether antibiotic resistance 12 or
changes in fish growth rates, not one single one supports his train analogy, but rather the reverse. Not one involves a gain
of information; all show the opposite, a net loss. Pondering all this, I feel a sense of the same sort of frustration (only in
reverse) that my evolutionist opponent was airing all those years ago, which he could have paraphrased as: Why cant they
see it? Its obvious, isnt it?Who knows, perhaps somehow this article will get into Dr Coynes hands. Maybe it will give him,
and some other evolutionist apologists, food for thought the next time they put one of their grandmothers on a train.
From ape to man via genetic meltdown: a theory in crisis

A review of Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford,
Ivan Press, Lima, New York, 2005
by Royal Truman
I write this review with very mixed feelings. On the one hand, for the first time some key
data are being divulged which we need to include in our models, and which honest
thinkers who question evolutionist theory need to digest. But I have a problem. In the
Prologue professor Sanford wrote, I knew I would be at odds with the most sacred cow
of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the
academic world. I know John personally and treasure his intelligence and integrity. In
further drawing attention to his book, I may be contributing to having his ties to academia
severed, a world to which he has such strong emotional ties and to which he has made so
many contributions. I know academics and journalists who have already lost their jobs for
questioning Darwinian theory.He is not exaggerating. I myself have also had my
experiences in this matter.I started to realize (again with trepidation), that I might be
offending a lot of peoples religion, he confides early on. How correct he is. I recently
discussed the issue of lifes origins with a dear friend Ive worked together with for years.
He brought up three arguments contra creation which I easily answered on strictly
scientific terms. Suddenly he leaped to his feet. Trembling with rage he pointed a finger at
me, and yelled that what I was doing was dangerous! The fundamentalists in America
are dangerous! They are fighting against tolerance! They refuse to accept science! They
are irrational and have no facts!Dr Sanford is an applied geneticist semi-retired from
Cornell University and now with the Institute of Creation Research. He is also the inventor
of the gene gun, widely used in the genetic modification of crops. In this book the reader is confronted with compelling
reasons to reject the claim that mutations plus natural selection have led to the marvels found in nature.Many scientists do
not believe man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection, what Sanford calls the Primary Axiom.
One line of reasoning, that of irreducible complexity, has been very capably championed by professor Behe:1 molecular
machines require many complex components, the absence of only one rendering that entity non-functional. Evolutionary
processes cannot be expected to provide the necessary building blocks.Others have argued that the high fidelity of DNA
replication leads to very low rates of mutation. Developing humans from an ape-like forefather would just take too long. In a
much cited paper, Drake has estimated2 that the rate of spontaneous mutations for humans is about 5 x1011 nucleotides per
generation. In some 6 million years from a claimed split from the chimpanzee lineage, no humans could be generated if this
is true.Sanford forces us to recognize clearly that the relentless net effect of random mutations is degradation or complete
destruction of function.Sanford was a practising evolutionist and at heart a eugenicist (p. 116), who gradually realized that
the seemingly great and unassailable fortress which has been built up around the Primary Axiom is really a house of cards.
Its apparent invincibility derives largely from bluster, smoke, and mirrors (Prologue). But we will learn that evolutionary
theory fails on grounds most people did not suspect.
Mutations are bad
Sanford forces us to recognize clearly that the relentless net effect of random mutations is degradation or complete
destruction of function. After decades of research, if even one mutation out of a million really unambiguously created new
information (apart from fine-tuning), we would all have heard about it by now (p. 17). This is to be distinguished from certain
changes in for example bacteria (p. 19), which merely fine-tune a component of a system already in place. The changes
typically involve modification of one or two nucleotides, and in huge bacterial populations these are usually already present,
a solution waiting for the precise niche. In other words, When we use a rheostat to dim a light, we are not creating a new
circuit, nor are we in any way creating new information (p. 19).Mutagens have been used for years in plant breeding,
creating billions of mutation events: mostly small, sterile, sick, deformed and aberrant plants (p. 25). One improvement, low
phytate corn, was caused by mutations which damaged the metabolism of phytic acid, making hungry cows happy, but
hardly explaining the origin of this biochemical process (p. 25). However, from all this effort, almost no meaningful crop
improvement resulted. The effort was for the most part an enormous failure, and was almost entirely abandoned (p. 25).
Indeed, no one is suggesting replacing incubators with X-ray machines to help evolution along. On the contrary, health
policies are in place aimed at reducing or minimizing mutations (p. 15).
Disastrously high mutational rates
Now Sanford provides a key fact, inimical to evolutionary theory, but fully consistent with the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. The genetics community now accepts that point mutations in human reproductive cells are in the range of
at least 100300 per individual each generation (p. 34). In fact, additional kinds of mutations, such as deletions, insertions,
duplications, translocations, inversions, micro-satellite mutations and all mitochondrial mutations exacerbate the situation.
Mitochondrial mutations alone would add about another mutation per individual each generation within the reproductive cell
line, and macro-mutations can generate more sequence divergence than all point mutations combined. The overall
contributions imply more than 1,000 nucleotide changes in every person, every generation (p. 37).Using the unrealistic
lower bound of 100 mutations, and assuming 97% of the genome has no function, implies three new relevant mutations per
individual each generation are generated (p. 34). Before someone attempts to shrug off these new findings, let us evaluate
whether it is true that only 3% of the human genome is relevant. If the percent is twice as high, then we would double the
proportion at risk through mutations.
Junk DNA or masterpiece?
The genome is full of countless loops and brancheslike a computer program using analogue and Boolean logic.Driven by
an incorrect model, genomes are generally characterized as chaotic and full of meaningless evolutionary relics. The irony is
that the more advanced the organism, the more so-called junk DNA is claimed to be present (p. 37). Perhaps we should be
exposing our babies to radioactivity after all?! Biochemists discover ever more complex metabolic networks, with elaborate
regulatory schemes to provide feedback inhibition or acceleration. The genome is full of countless loops and brancheslike
a computer program using analogue and Boolean logic. It has genes that regulate genes that regulate genes, able to set in
motion complex cascades of events (p. 3).But the fact that research is steadily decreasing the proportion of supposed nonfunctional DNA has not been properly integrated into evolutionist thinking. In just a few years, many geneticists have shifted
from believing that less than 3% of the total genome is functional, to believing that more than 30% is functionaland that
fraction is still growing (p. 21). Seriously now, when we examine organisms, such as dolphins, swallows or humans, do we
get the impression of final products driven by a chaotic information processing system? In any event, in our thinking we
need to start getting used to the fact that over 30 new genetically relevant, function-altering mutations occur per individual
each generation.
Unity of complexity

Reductionist, materialistic thinking prevents more effective reasoning constructs from being developed. If we could
understand to the finest detail the properties of all atoms in a computer wed still fail to grasp the logic of algorithms
programmed to solve a mathematical problem. We would not even suspect its existence. None of the individual components
of an airplane can fly, but the integrated unity can. The purpose of a back-up in-flight computer may appear to be parasitic
junk, especially if we limit our analysis to the material properties of the atoms it is constructed with. When it is to be brought
into action, why and in response to what circumstances, would not be discerned by researching individual characteristics
such as atomic vibrations and molecular rotations and bond strengths.Before we assume that the information in the genome
used to generate mature organisms is mostly junk, we would be wise to examine the final morphological product with more
humility.
Good and bad mutations inseparable
Are mutations really causing all that much damage? Many Hollywood stars (and my wife!) sure seem awfully attractive.
Since interchange of the genes provided from the father and the mother occurs, might this not provide a means of avoiding
passing on defective genes? Might not bad sperms and eggs lead to defective offspring which simply dont survive, leaving
many good versions in the population? Well, unfortunately not. A huge number of mutations are added to the germline of
every baby born, and these are spread throughout the various chromosomes. Human nucleotides exist in large linked
clusters or blocks, ranging in size from 10,000 to a million, inherited in toto, and never break apart (p. 55, 81). A desirable
trait will be accompanied by an undesirable trait, within the same individual (p. 79).Therefore, within any physical linkage
unit, on average, thousands of deleterious mutations would accumulate before a beneficial mutation would arise (p. 82). All
of the individual 100,000200,000 linkage blocks in genomes are deteriorating.Furthermore, recombination appears to be
primarily between genes rather than randomly between nucleotides. This means that an inferior gene is doomed to remain
in that lineage, unless a back-mutation occurs, which is vanishingly unlikely. This means that the good mutations and the
bad mutations cannot be separated, another example of the one-way direction of degradation known as Mllers
ratchet.Being now clearly persuaded that the net effect of mutations will be loss of information-guided functionality, we are
ready to digest another insight. Tragic as a devastating mutation may be to the affected and family, the effects of this curse
would be limited to the victim if no offspring survive. But for the population as a whole, the major damage turns out not to be
the severe mutations.
Near neutrals
Figure 1. Far more mutations are deleterious than
advantageous. Individually, most have too small an
effect to be acted upon by natural selection (p. 32).
The majority of deleterious mutations have individually
a negligible effect on viability of the organism. This is
especially true if the competitors are also accumulating
non-deadly but nevertheless undesirable mutations.
This is like the rusting of a car, one iron atom at a time
(p. 72). Even one extra unnecessary nucleotide is
slightly deleteriousas it slows cell replication and
wastes energy (p. 21).This issue has been mostly
ignored in the literature. Mutations in the near-neutral
box (figure 1) are redefined as being completely
neutral, and so dismissed. It is then claimed that more
severe mutations to the left of the near-neutral box can
be entirely eliminated by natural selection (p. 23). I
supposed that if we are talking about a very small
number of mutations this would be to a first
approximation reasonable. But the accumulation of dozens or hundreds of such mutations every generation presents a
totally different picture.Incidentally, we must remember that essentially all hypothetical beneficial mutations also fall within
Kimuras effectively neutral zone (p. 24). Therefore, positive selection would also be too weak to have an effect!It would be
desirable if natural selection could remove at least some damaging mutations. In fact, this remains our last hope to avoid a
fitness meltdown. Before abandoning hope, we need to consider natural selection carefully.
Natural selection is ineffective
The same environmental factor is unable to severely penalize different deleterious mutations. It is not realistic to invoke
strongly negative selection to quickly eliminate a large number of unrelated mutations. As the number of minor mutations
increases, each mutation becomes noise for the others (pp. 77, 78).Now, in a laboratory one can intelligently favour natural
variability to accentuate some chosen trait (p. 98). This requires carefully crafting the external environment (nutrition,
temperature, natural enemies, etc.) to minimize mutational noise. Nevertheless, no one has ever claimed to have created
brand new functions not already coded for on the genome in this manner. And inevitably the organisms fine-tuned in the
laboratory for a single trait are less viable long-term, living freely in nature where all natural ranges of environmental
challenges occur. It is possible to optimize things such as the amount of sugar a beet produces, as long as this plant is later
protected from full competition with the original stock. The changes may be in mans interest, but at the price of the
organisms natural fitness (e.g. the large sugar production might result from a mutation damaging its control mechanism so it
over-produces; in the wild, this could not compete because it is wasting valuable resources).Outside of the laboratory the
matter is much worse. There is no intelligent guidance. The judge is also nearly blind (p. 7). There is a very long chain of
events separating the direct effects of a genetic change and the consequences for the whole organism level. There is a
logarithmic dilution at each step, a huge loss of cause-effect resolution and correspondence. It is like measuring the impact
of a butterflys strokeon a hurricane system which is a thousand miles away (p. 49). It is a little like trying to select for a
specific soldier, based upon the performance of his army (p. 49).The literature is full of statements and abstruse computer
programs claiming natural selection can perform near miracles.35 But after 25 years of searching, I have yet to find an
analogy or computer model backing up this claim which has any biological relevance. Generally it is enough to simply ask
what kind of organism would be suitable to check and perhaps calibrate the claims against, to reveal the irrelevance.
Sanford offers an illustration of how natural selection really works, which reflects formally the issues involved very
realistically, which I will modify to maximize correspondence to how selection really works in nature (p. 50).Lets imagine a
new method for improving biochemistry textbooks. A few students are randomly selected who will get a biochemistry
textbook each semester during the next four years, whether or not they take a biochemistry course. Each new book will
have 100 random changes in the letters. Those receiving the textbook are forced to read it (whether they take the
biochemistry course or not). Different teachers assign grades to all courses taken by all students across the country each

semester (whether they received the biochemistry textbook or not). The correlation between true ability and each grade
(math, history, Latin ) is weak and often wrong. At the end of the semester we compare the average grades of all students
nationwide and identify from among the best students those in possession of a mutated biochemistry textbook. Each of
these latter textbooks are borrowed, 100 new random changes are made, and then returned to the owner. The whole cycle
of reading and grading is repeated, multiple times. Will a better textbook result in this manner? No, since there is no
meaningful correlation between the small differences in textbooks and the grades. Too many other factors (noise), such as
home life, lack of sleep, classroom setting etc. override the effect of a few misspellings.Any trait such as intelligence, speed
or strength depends on gene characteristics and environmental factors (nutrition, training, etc.) (p. 90). For example, height
is about 30% (h2 = 0.3) heritable. For complex traits such as fitness heritability values are low (i.e. 0.004). This is because
total fitness combines all the different types of noise from all the different aspects of the individual (p. 91). Low heritability
means bad genotypes are very difficult to eliminate. Survival becomes primarily a matter of luck, and not better genes:If
Kimuras estimate is correct, then 99.6% of phenotypic selection for fitness will be entirely wasted. This explains why simple
selection for total phenotypic fitness can result in almost no genetic gain. (p. 93)Natural selection is a probabilistic matter.
Mother Nature does not compute for each member of a population a total fitness value based upon all phenotypic traits (p.
94).Furthermore, almost all mutations are recessive, camouflaging their presence and hindering selection against them (pp.
56, 76). Another consideration, not explicitly brought out in this book, is that key environmental factors (disease,
temperature, mutation, predators, etc.) affecting survival vary over time. Strong selection must be present for a huge number
of generations if fixation of a (temporarily) favourable trait throughout a population is to occur. Relaxation for just a few
generations could undo this process, since selection for a different trait would then be at the expense of the preceding
one.We must recognize clearly this lack of strong correlation between a mutation (whether having a positive or negative
effect) and reproductive success. It is a fact of nature, yet most people attribute incorrectly near miraculous creative powers
to natural selection.But then how could natural selection supposedly develop optimized proteins, such as enzymes, one
nucleotide mutation after the other, leading to almost identical versions throughout nature?68 Each improved nucleotide
would have to be selectable in the presence of all the other noise-causing mutations within the same linkage blocks. This
cannot occur by somehow selecting for superior individuals on averagewhich inherently involves thousands of different
genes and millions of different nucleotides (p. 117).We conclude that evolutionary theory has a major problem. If
mutation/selection cannot preserve the information already within the genome, it is even more difficult to argue that billions
of slight improvements were selected gradually over time (p. 106). The matter is not merely an issue of low probabilities.
Theoretically a huge number of offspring could be generated, each differing by many random mutations. Might not a lot of
luck bordering on the miraculous cherry-pick out the best? Not really. Sanford explains why there are physical constraints as
to what natural selection could do in the real world.
The cost of selection
The number of offspring which humans can produce is rather small. For a human population to maintain its size, about three
individuals per couple would be needed. This is because not all who live go on to have children, due to personal choice,
accidental death, etc. Eliminating individuals carrying bad mutations would require that additional children be born, to be
sacrificed to natural selection (p. 57). All selection has a biological costmeaning that we must remove (or spend) part of
the breeding population (p. 56). In other words, deleterious mutations in man must be kept below one mutation for every
three children for flawless, 100% effective selection to be able to eliminate all the mutations and still allow the population to
reproduce (p. 32).There are several kinds of costs, all additive, which must be paid for before real selection can be covered
(p. 59).9 As mentioned above, fitness has low heritability, meaning environmental factors are much more important than
genetic factors in determining who survives. This means that a very large number of additional offspring is needed, which
must die due to natural selection independent of genetic causes, simply to remove non-heritable variations (p. 59). In these
circumstances, having to additionally select the worse culprits which carry 100 or more mutations, every generation, is not
physically possible (p. 62).
Haldanes Dilemma

A process which steadily degrades a genome cannot produce a better organism.

Having demonstrated conclusively that the degradation of the human genome (in the presence of such high mutations rates,
preponderance of deleterious mutations and lack of huge expendable proportions of offspring) cannot be avoided, we return
to what evolutionary theory claims happened. Ever more complex and sophisticated genomes are supposed to have arisen,
step by step, over eons.In the 1950s, one of the most famous population geneticists, John Burdon Sanderson Haldane,
presented an observation known as Haldanes dilemma (p. 128): it would take (on average) 300 generations to select a
single new mutation to fixation. However, his calculations were only for independent, unlinked mutations. He assumed
constant and very strong selection for a single trait, which is not realistic. The interference by hundreds of random mutations
was not taken into account. Even so, selection for only 1,000 specific and adjacent mutations could not happen in all
putative evolutionary time. There is no way an ape-like creature could have been transformed into a human (p. 129). Man
and chimp differ at roughly 150 million nucleotide positions (p. 130) and humans show remarkably little variation worldwide.
Think for yourself
Advanced education is dominated by evolutionary theory taught as established fact. But are you really just a meaningless
bag of moleculesthe product of nothing more than random molecular mutations and reproductive filtering? (Prologue).
This doctrine is presented as unquestioned truth, an axiom accepted by faith because many scientists present it as
obviously true (p. 5). But if you come to the point where you feel that the Primary Axiom is no longer obviously true to all
reasonable parties, then you must not accept it on blind faith (p. 10). At best the materialist model could be basically right,
but it is absurd to continue believing that it is self-evident. At the very least, critical thought and fair discussion is required,
something scorned and denigrated by the current high priests of biology.Historically, the entire field of population genetics
was developed by a small, tightly knit group of people radically committed to the Primary Axiom. They were free to explore
many scenarios and adjust multiple parameters unconstrained by objective calibrations, and to optimize frameworks to
appear internally consistent. Their mathematical approach was to define the unit of selection as discrete genetic units, such

a gene or nucleotide, instead of whole organisms with all the contradictory influencing factors (p. 52).For the most part,
other biologists do not even understand their workbut accept their conclusions by faith (p. 46). The theorists models can
be shown to never have matched biological reality to the minimal degree expected of useful models, but these men were
undeniably intelligent and had an incredible aura of intellectual authority (p. 53). In many ways they deserve our admiration,
since transforming any scenario, correct or not, into an appropriate mathematical formulation requires a great deal of skill.
One can also admire honestly the brilliant lawyer who argues ever so cleverly against the truth in his clients interest. How
we wish they would contribute their gifts within a correct paradigm!
There is hope
Finally, professor Sanford makes it clear that no amount of human intervention can salvage the relentless degradation of our
genomes. We will experience much and increasing suffering on the part of our children and grandchildren. Read this book
twice. Then read it again with a highlighter. Technical aspects are easy to follow, and the specialist will benefit very much for
the highly relevant references offered.
Islands weeds dont support evolution
Any claim that evolutionary biologists have witnessed evolution in action is of interest to creationists. We recently talked
about a claim by Dr Jared Diamond (Creation 16(3):41) that evolution has been observed. He cited the changes in peppered
moths and insecticide resistance in mosquitos. We showed (from the work of other evolutionists around 20 years before)
that these were definitely not cases in which evolution was happening.Evolutionists of course claim large-scale evolution
has occurred (non-life turned into life, then the first simple life evolved all the way up to people). Yet all they point to as
proof of this are minor changes such as varying beaks in finches, or different colours in moths. Also, evolution is
supposed to be a process generating lots of new genetic information. Yet the examples they cite invariably turn out to show
no such thing. So we were interested to read in the scientific journal Nature, 14 March 1996, page 103, in another item by
Dr Diamond, that a case of rapid evolution had allegedly been observed off Canadas Pacific coast.Researchers Martin
Cody and Jacob Overton had reported direct detection of both rapid evolutionary change and the "founder effect" in
populations of wild plants. (The founder effect is the phenomenon whereby new colonies of a species may become instantly
distinct from the parent population, as a result of their few founding individuals being an atypical sample.)But is this a
genuine case of evolution? Was new information added to the plants DNA, so that something truly new could be said to
have arisen? The answer again is a resounding no.
In essence, what happened was this:
The researchers studied the loss of dispersal ability of plants confined to islands. Many species that are found only on
remote islands seem to lack any way of reaching those islands in the first place. So why are they different from similar plants
on the mainland?Cody and Overton did a detailed study over 10 years of some weeds whose seeds were dispersed by the
wind (in the way we see dandelion fluff distributed by the wind). The design features in these airborne seeds show some
natural variation; some of the plants produce airborne seeds which are able to travel further than others.They found that in
only a few generations, these plants on the island produced seeds less able to travel far and wide (on average) than those
plants on the mainland from which they had descended. This was said to be an especially clear and simple example of
evolution through natural selection, witnessed historically.While this may be a clear example of natural selection, it must be
realized that natural selection is not evolution (in the sense in which evolution is normally understood) since by itself it
cannot generate anything new.Natural selection does not produce any truly novel characteristics, such as feathers on
reptiles to turn them into birds. It simply operates on characteristics that are already present in the genetic code, like varying
shapes, colours, or sizes.This is what happened with the weedy plants on Canadas islands. On a small island, highly
mobile seeds would be likely to travel beyond the boundaries of the land. Or to put it another way, plants with genes for less
mobile seeds are more likely to establish their offspring on that island.The diagram makes it clear how this effect can
happen. It is an expression of the variation which was there all along, and has nothing to do with the imagined process of
how a one-celled creature could turn into peacocks, pears, and people.In fact, rather than proving evolution in the way
Charles Darwin thought it did, natural selection is really a wonderful example of the creationists principle of conservation in
operation. The genetic system maintains its identity as a specific kind, while the distribution of characteristics within that kind
is rearranged to allow the plant or animal population to survive changes more readily in the environment.Despite the fact
that Dr Jared Diamond opens his article with a sideswipe at creationists, the clear evidence is that the weed research on
Canadas islands points not to evolution, but to creation.
How selection might operate on weed species x (x-weeds) with airborne seeds
x-weeds with genes coding for mostly far-ranging seeds
=
=
=

x-weeds with genes coding for mostly short-range seeds

x-weeds with genes coding for both, producing mostly medium-range seeds but also occasional seeds of
both short- and long-range.

STEP 1 before the x-weeds colonize the island

A
mixtureEmpty
of gene typesweeds
in
the
x-weed
population
STEP

of

x-

STEP

The longer-range a plants seeds are, the more likely it is that it will
NOT contribute its genes to the next generation of plants on the island.
Plants with genes producing short-range seeds will be more likely to
transmit their genes to the next generation, and so with each
generation, these become more common on the island, even though
they began in the minority.
2STEP
5

Some of the wider-ranging seeds colonize the island Most of the seeds on the island are now of the short-range type,
(short-ranging seeds cant easily reach it)
creating the apparent (but easily resolved) conundrum of how their
seeds could have arrived here in the first place.
STEP
3

The offspring of the original seeds to reach the island

have a preponderance of long-range type genes. This
makes the population appear a little different from that
on the mainland an example of the so-called
founder effect.
Well-armed water fleas and radishes
Startling new findings show acquired changes arming the next generation. But its no help to evolution.
by Carl Wieland
When August Weisman cut off the tails of mice last century, he was trying to disprove a belief held by evolutionists like
Lamarck (and Darwin, whom he otherwise admired). That is, that changes acquired during a creatures lifetime, such as the
stretching of the neck from efforts to reach for food in higher trees, could be inherited.None of the offspring of Weismans
mice had any tail shortening. Thus arose one of the central dogmas of modern biology, that changes caused by the
environment cannot be inherited.1 However, recent findings have seemed to suggest otherwise.Wild radishes normally
respond to caterpillar attack by greatly increasing both the number of protective spikes in their leaves, and the production of
natural toxins which make the plant less palatable. 2,3 A careful, controlled study has shown that at least some of this
resistance to attack is passed on to the next generation.Similarly, water fleas (Daphnia) respond to certain chemicals called
kairomones, released by their natural predators when these are around, by growing protective helmet-like structures. A
surprising finding was that the offspring of mothers exposed to kairomones always had larger helmets than ones whose
mothers had never been exposed to the danger signal. And so did their offspring!2,3Since inheritance takes place through
coded instructions, using the DNA language convention, it makes sense that the environment should not affect inheritance.
It seems far-fetched to contemplate any way in which the cutting off of a tail, or the stretching of a neck, could specifically
re-write genetic instructions. So in general, this dogma, of information flowing only one way (from the DNA to the rest of
the organism), holds true.Do these new findings support Lamarckian inheritance, and do they suggest a new mechanism
for evolution? No, and no.The water fleas have a built-in mechanism to respond via larger helmets within their lifetime.
Evolutionists would say it somehow evolved through chance mutations and natural selection. Creationists would say it was
designed. Both agree that it aids the survival of the water flea.This may be via the switching on of genes which would
otherwise be dormant. (Other recent discoveries show that genes can be switched on or off depending on which parent they
are inherited from).4,5 If so, the findings discussed earlier may merely show a simple extension to this mechanismthe
switched-on genes stay switched on in the offspring. Or else there is a secondary mechanism which switches on genes that
are passed on to the offspring. In either case, it is clearly not a random response, but a programmed mechanismone
which helps the offspring to survive and propagate the line.A key point of this new discovery is that even in the parent
generation, the environment did not cause the responsee.g. the larger helmetsso much as induce it. In other words, it is
not a change caused by the environment, but a pre-programmed response induced by it. So there is no evidence that any
new information is generatedit is all there already.The central problem for all evolutionary theories is explaining how all the
new information arose to progressively transform microbes, over billions of years, into magpies, molecular biologists and
magnolia trees.6 Thus this finding, as such, gives no support to either Lamarckian or neo-Darwinian evolutionary belief.What
it does suggest is that there is another level of complexity in living things, which are even more ingeniously designed than
previously realized. This makes it even more difficult for those who insist that living things were not designed but arose by
natural processes.
What! no potatoes?
by Don Batten
Governments are waking up to the need to preserve the wild varieties of our food
plants, with their rich stores of information. A highly qualified plant scientist tells us
how this highlights the fallacy of evolution.

Why are there so many people of Irish descent in North America and Australia? It
harks back to the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s. Over 1.5 million people died in
Ireland when the potato crops failed due to a disease known as potato blight. Many
people emigrated.Why did the potatoes succumb to the disease? Potatoes came
from the Andes mountains of South America, where many different varieties were

grown, including some which could resist potato blight disease. When potatoes were introduced to Europe in the 1500s, this
did not include varieties with resistance to this disease.Therefore the crops in Europe were all susceptible to the disease
when it arrived. (Ireland suffered the most because of its very high dependence on potatoes for the complex carbohydrate
portion of their diet, whereas others had more grain crops). They succumbed because of the lack of genetic variety, which
included the genes for resistance to blight.The pattern has been repeated many times since. In 1970 in the U.S., genetic
uniformity resulted in loss of almost a billion dollars worth of maize because 80% of the varieties being grown were
susceptible to a virulent disease known as southern leaf blight.1
Too successful?
Plant breeders have been very successful in increasing the yields of all sorts of crop plantsso successful that farmers
have been replacing the local, traditional varieties with the new varieties. For example, in China, at least 9,000 varieties of
wheat have been lost since 1949.The Green Revolution saw the development of high-yielding rice and wheat varieties and
their rapid replacement of traditional, community-bred varieties (landraces). For example, by 1984 in Bangladesh, 96% of
the
wheat
grown
consisted of Green
Revolution varieties.A
Losing information on the farm
single variety of the
Some of our best cultivated plants have obviously lost genetic informationfor example,
miracle
wheat
navel oranges do not produce seeds. However, genetic uniformity also causes loss of
accounted for 67% of
information. Many crops are made genetically uniform by inbreeding 4 so that the farmer
all
the
wheat
will get consistent performance from each plantfor example, all the sunflower plants
2
planted. This
has
will ripen their grain at the same time. Wild sunflower plants have a range of ripening
contributed
to
the
times, seed size, etc.This means that the varieties bred for agriculture are lacking
feeding of many millions of people.
genetic information present in the wild strainsand they have to be this way to be most
However, the loss of the traditional
suitable for agriculture.The problem also applies to farm animals. Breeds of cattle, for
varieties, and the reliance on relatively
example, breed true-to-type. Friesian milking cows, mated with Friesian bulls, will
few new varieties, poses problems.
produce further Friesian milking cows, not a Beef Shorthorn (which does not produce as
Problems
much milk, but produces more meat). To get a strain of animal to breed true-to-type,
Large areas of a uniform variety are
they are inbred until variant individuals or off-types are no longer produced. This results
susceptible to new strains of pests and
in the two copies (one from each parent) of many genes being the same, whereas in
disease for which the variety lacks
wild animals, the two copies can be different, resulting in variation in the offspring. So
resistance. These new pest or disease
domestic breeds of animals are missing a lot of the genetic information in wild animals.
strains can be introduced from overseas,
or new varieties can occur through
normal reproduction which results in new
combinations of existing genes. Just as with antibiotic resistance, these new disease strains do not arise through the
development of new, functional genes,3 so this has nothing to do with particles-to-people evolution.To try to keep ahead of
new strains of pests and diseases, plant breeders introduce new genes from wild plants of the crop species, or from
landraces, into new varieties. New varieties generally last only five to seven years before they are replaced.However, with
loss of the wild types and landraces, plant breeders could lack the sources of genes for the further breeding needed to
increase yields, decrease dependence on fertilizers and pesticides, improve quality, breed for drought resistance, cold/heat
tolerance, salt tolerance, and many other things. So the loss of the genetic information needed to achieve these objectives
is a serious problem. The U.N.s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that about 75% of genetic diversity in
agricultural crops has been lost this centurylargely by the replacement of landraces with the new varieties. Authorities are
beginning to respond to this problemsee banking on genes.
Denying evolution
Many scientists believe the dogma that the blind, purposeless forces of evolution (random mutations and natural selection)
created all the genetic information in plants.Yet the (belated) push to preserve the wild varieties of our food plants highlights
the fact that no amount of selection (artificial, by breeders, or natural) can generate information which is not there!
If random copying mistakes (mutations) originally generated all the information, surely it should not be too hard for highly
intelligent scientists to create the required genes for breeding new improved varieties? However, with all that we now know
about genes, no one can yet create a genefor example, for rust resistancefrom scratch.7 Plant breeders recognize that
the information in the genes of plants is
irreplaceable.The evolutionist E.O. Wilson wrote:
Why dont strawberries taste like Dads used
Each species is the repository of an immense
to?
amount of genetic information. The number of
Many people remember the deliciously sweet,
genes range from about 1,000 in bacteria and
fragrant strawberries picked from their home
10,000 in some fungi to 700,000 or more in many
garden. They were smaller than the ones
flowering plants and a few animals . If stretched
available today, but they tasted and smelled
out fully, the DNA [in one cell] would be roughly a
better. What has happened?People buy with
meter long. But this molecule is invisible to the
their eyes, so nice big, red strawberries sell well.
naked eye. The full information contained
Plant breeders therefore concentrated on
therein, if translated into ordinary-size letter of
breeding big, red strawberries with high yield
printed text, would just about fill all 15 editions of
and good shelf life. In concentrating on these
the Encyclopdia
Britannica published
since
characteristics, flavour has been neglected.
1768.8Biologist David Janzen, University of
Indeed it is possible that selecting for high yield may (inadvertently)
Pennsylvania, said that destroying tropical forests
have selected for low flavour!The point is that selecting for one
for paper manufacture would be like pulping the
characteristic can be at the expense of something else. One
Library of Congress to get newsprint. 8Just as the
character can be accentuated while another is diminished. There are
information in books comes from an intelligent
biological limits to what can be achieved. Breeding cannot create
source, so the information in the genes of living
new features for which there are no genes, or which exceed the
things also comes from an intelligent source.This
biological capabilities of the organism.
source is clearly far more knowledgeable and
intelligent than we who cannot yet create the
genetic information ourselves and so we have to be
concerned about the loss of genetic diversity.In their concern for the loss of this diversity, plant breeders agree that the
genetic information is irreplaceable, and tacitly admit that it did not arise through random, non-intelligent processes, and that
selection cannot re-create it, once lost.Faith that the blind forces of evolution created all the genetic information is indeed a
blind faith.

Banking on genes
In recognition of the problem with crop plants, gene banks for various crops have been set up around the world. For example,
more than 80,000 rice varieties are maintained at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines. The gene
bank provides rice seed samples on request. When Cambodia got through the notorious evolution-inspired Pol Pot upheavals,
the rice farmers could resume growing their lost varieties from seed supplied from the rice seed collection.However, seeds
held in gene banks are vulnerable because of the need to grow the seed periodically to produce fresh seed. Gene banks are
labour intensive, costly to maintain, and not easy to raise funds for. Storage at 20C enables some seed to remain viable for
up to 100 years, but this depends on continuous maintenance of refrigeration facilities. From a survey, FAO estimated that
almost half of all stored seeds need to be regeneratedthat is, these strains are liable to be lost. 5Also, only major crop plants
are covered by such gene banks. Non-cereal plants which are an important source of food in subsistence agriculture in the
tropics tend to be neglected in gene banks. For example, wheat accounts for 14% of all gene banks, whereas cassava, a
major poor peoples crop, accounts for only 0.5%.6In addition to the large gene banks, there are Seed Saver groups who
voluntarily collect and grow traditional varieties no longer grown commercially by farmers. Folk involved in such seed saving
actions network with one another to share rare varieties.Organizations concerned with conserving genetic resources, such as
The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) in Rome, Italy, now recognize the importance of getting farmers
themselves to maintain their traditional varieties. Non-government organizations (NGOs) have been leading the way with this
approach.

Dawkins playing bait and switch with guppy selection

by Jonathan Sarfati
In September 2009, Richard Dawkins released his book The Greatest Show on Earth: The
Evidence for Evolution. In it, he disparagingly referred to creationists as history-deniers. But
its Dawkins who is denying true history, and his interpretation of the evidence is (sadly) faulty.
Published: 18 February 2010(GMT+10)In Dawkins new book The Greatest Show on Earth, he
supposedly presents proof of evolution, as he admits that the evidence for evolution is
nowhere explicitly set out in his previous books. But much of his book is guilty of the logical
fallacy ofequivocation or bait-and-switch, that is, switching the meaning of a single word
(evolution) part-way through an argument. For example, the real point of debate is whether all
living things come from pond scum, but Dawkins says: when there is a systematic increase
or decrease in the frequency with which we see a particular gene in a gene pool, that is
precisely what we mean by evolution. (p. 33)Yet throughout his book, Dawkins rails against
history deniers or 40 percenters who deny evolution. But if this is what he means by
evolution, then I cant think of anyone who denies it, including the staff at CMI!Dawkins uses
many of the pages in his book to prove that natural selection is a fact. Once again, creationists
taught this before Darwin, and its an important part of the modern young age model, explaining
how creatures adapt to the environment.However, Dawkins himself compares most examples of
natural selection to a human sculptor removing clay, i.e. chiselling genes from the gene pool
(p. 34). Such changes are in the opposite direction required to turn bacteria into biologists.
[Sexual selection theory]fails to account for the peacock tail, the very thing Darwin invented
the theory to explain! It also hindered discovery of animportant function for the huge toucan
beak: temperature regulation.
Also, creationists have little problem with sexual selection, i.e. the selection of characteristics
preferred by the opposite sex in mate choice. This is potentially a strong effect, since only
those creatures that find mates can pass on their genes to the next generation. However,
it fails to account for the peacock tail, the very thing Darwin invented the theory to explain ! It
also hindered discovery of an important function for the huge toucan beak: temperature
regulation.Dawkins does set out some good evidence that both natural selection and sexual
selection happen, but knocks down a straw man in thinking that this somehow proves
particles-to-people evolution or disproves the young age model. The following is a draft
extract from our forthcoming book, The
Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins
on Evolution.
Guppies
Dawkins colleague Dr John Endler studied
many populations of guppies in mountain streams in Trinidad, Tobago and
Venezuela. (pp. 1339).1 Brightly coloured males seem to impress the
females, who sexually selected such colours. But they stand out to
predators, who would naturally select against this. As strong support for
this, streams with strong predators contain drabber males, while streams
with weak predators have more brightly coloured males with larger,
gaudier spots.Endler noticed that the drab ones are camouflaged by
spots as well, which blend in with the pebbles at the bottoms of their
native streams. So he set up experiments in a number of ponds, half with
fine gravel and half with coarse. He allowed guppies to breed freely. The number of spots shot up, presumably since only
sexual selection was at work.
Then after six months, he left some ponds predator-free; in others, a fairly weak predator (given that no natural stream is
really totally predator-free); and in the remaining, he introduced a strong predator, a pike cichlid. In the ponds with weak or
no predation, the number of spots continued to rise, as sexual selection was still operating. But in the ponds with the strong
predator, the number of spots dropped sharply. Evidently males with lots of spots were easily spotted and devoured, so
despite the females preferences, they had to be content with the survivors.Also, Endler found that gravel size made a
difference. Both strong and weak predators promoted larger spots in pools with coarse gravel, and smaller spots with finer
gravel. This makes sensethe closer spot size matches gravel, the more camouflaged the fish are. But in ponds with no

predators, the reverse happened: fine gravel promoted larger spots and coarse gravel smaller. Again, this makes sense
the less camouflaged males stand out better to the females.
Evolution in action?
Belief in particles-to-people evolution is not necessary to understand real science, including experiments on natural and
sexual selection. And clearly belief in creation does not ruin fascination for such science.Dawkins relates a story Endler told
about an encounter with a fellow domestic airline passenger. This passenger showed much interest in Endlers guppy
research, and amiably asked what Endler himself calls excellent questions indicating that he was enthusiastically and
intellectually following the argument. Yet when this passenger asked what theory underlined the experiments, Endler
replied, Its called Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection. Then, by Endlers account, this passenger quit the
conversation, which Endler calls, really tragic. Dawkins calls this passenger closed-minded (p. 133).But even if this
account is unspun, it doesnt prove what they claim. This passenger might have been very annoyed at Endlers cheap baitand-switch. Dawkins commits the same dishonest equivocation when he claims, It is a spectacular example of evolution
before our very eyes. (p. 139). It might have been better to reply on the lines of, Indeed, these are most ingenious
experiments to support natural selection, a theory known to creationists before Darwin. But do guppies changing into
guppies prove that fish evolved into fishermen? The changes dont show any new features, just different expressions of the
same ones. Yet this type of change, which doesnt add any new information, is usually the best evidence of evolution and
alleged disproof of creation that evolutionists can come up with.Furthermore, it shows that belief in particles-to-people
evolution is not necessary to understand real science, including experiments on natural and sexual selection. And clearly
belief in creation does not ruin fascination for such science. So Dawkins scare-mongering about history deniers destroying
science education is showneven by his own accountto be wide of the mark.
Molecular limits to natural variation
by Alex Williams
Darwins theory that species originate via the natural selection of natural variation is correct in principle but wrong in
numerous aspects of application. Speciation is not the result of an unlimited naturalistic process but of an intelligently
designed system of built-in variation that is limited in scope to switching ON and OFF permutations and combinations of the
built-in components. Kirschner and Gerharts facilitated variation theory provides enormous potential for rearrangement of
the built-in regulatory components but it cannot switch ON components that do not exist. When applied to the grass
family, facilitated variation theory can account for the diversification of the whole family from a common ancestoras
baraminologists had previously proposedbut this cannot be extended to include all the flowering plants. Vast amounts of
rapid differentiation and dispersal must have occurred in the post-Flood era, and facilitated variation theory can explain this.
In contrast, because of genome depletion by selection and degradation by mutation, the potential for diversification that we
see in species around us today is trivial.
Darwinian evolution
Figure 1. Potential for variation in modular regulatory control
systems. The hair dryer (A) and the vacuum duster (B) consist of
similar components, but one is wired up to blow air, the other is
wired up to suck air. The axolotl (C) is an adult salamander that
has retained its juvenile gills; if thyroxin is given at the right time,
it develops into a normal salamander (D) with lungs.Charles
Darwin will always be remembered for turning descriptive biology
into a mechanistic science. His famous 1859 book The Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life argued persuasively that
species are not immutable creations but have arisen from
ancestral species via natural selection of natural variation. Two
main points contributed to Darwins success:he presented a
simple, testable, mechanical model that enabled other scientists
to engage experimentally with the otherwise overwhelming and
bewildering complexity of life;unlike others, Darwin approached the subject from many different angles, examined all the
objections that had been raised against the theory, and provided many different lines of circumstantial evidence that all
pointed in the same direction.He went wrong in four main areas, however. First, he proposed an entirely
naturalistic 1 mechanism, but we now know that it must be intelligently designed. 2 Second, he extrapolated his mechanism to
all forms of life, but we will soon see that this is not possible. Third, he went wrong in proposing that selection worked on
every tiny advantageous variation, so it led to the continual improvement of each creature in relation to its conditions of
life.3 By implication, deleterious variations were eliminated. We now know from population biology that selective advantages
only in the order of 10% have a reasonable chance of gaining fixation. 4 The vast majority of mutations are too insignificant
to have any direct influence on reproductive fitness, so they are not eliminated and they accumulate relentlessly like rust in
metal machine parts. The machine can continue to function while the rust accumulates, but there is no improvement in the
long term, only certain extinction. 5Fourth, he proposed that reproductive successproducing more surviving offspring than
competitorswas the primary driving force behind species diversification. If this were true, then highly diversified species in
groups like the vertebrates, arthropods and flowering plants would produce more surviving offspring per unit time than
simpler forms of life. This is not generally truequite the opposite. The ratio of microbial offspring numbers per year
compared with higher organisms is in the order of billions to one.
Facilitated variation theory
Kirschner and Gerharts facilitated variation theory provides a far better explanation of how life works. In a companion
article,2 I showed that this requires an intelligent designer to create life with the built-in ability to vary and adapt to changing
conditions, otherwise it could not survive. This leads us to the important question of the limits to natural variation.The limits
of natural variation today are extremely narrow, being evident only at the variety and species level. History requires a far
greater capacity for diversification in the ante-diluvian world to be available for rapidly repopulating the Flood-destroyed
Earth, and quickly restoring the ecological balances crucial to human habitability. Baraminologists have identified created
kinds that range from Tribe (a sub-family category, e.g. Helianthus and its cousins within the daisy family), 6 to Order (a
super-family category, e.g. cetaceansthe whales and dolphins).7
Theoretical limits to natural variation
Scope for change in core structure
According to facilitated variation theory, the capacity to vary requires:

functional molecular architecture and machinery,

a modular regulatory system that maintains cellular function but provides built-in capacity for variation through randomly
rearranged circuit connections between machines and switches,
a signaling network that coordinates everything.
Most variation occurs between generations by rearrangement of Lego-block-like regulatory modules. Over this timescale,
we can emphatically say that no change at all occurs in the molecular architecture and machinery, because it is physically
passed in toto from mother to offspring in the egg cell.
Variation between generations must therefore be limited to the regulatory and signaling systems.
Scope for change in regulatory modules
The law of modules2 says that the basic module of information has to contain functionally integrated primary information plus
the necessarymeta-information to implement the primary information. This information has to be kept together so that the
module retains its functionality.Genes only operate when they are switched ON. Their default state is to remain OFF. Genes
dont usually work alone, but as part of one or more complexes. Even the several different exons (the protein-coding
segments) within a gene can participate in different gene complexes, some being involved with up to 33 other exons on as
many as 14 different chromosomes. 8 And genes are not just linear segments of DNA, but multiple overlapping structures,
with component parts often separated by vast genomic distances.9Sean Carroll, a leading researcher in developmental
biology says, animal bodies [are] builtpiece by piece, stripe by stripe, bone by boneby constellations of switches
distributed all over the genome.10 Evolution, he believes, occurs primarily by adding or deleting switches for particular
functions, for this is the only way to change the organism while leaving the gene itself undamaged by mutation so that it can
continue to function normally in its many other roles. Carroll considers this concept to be perhaps the most important, most
fundamental insight from evolutionary developmental biology. 11Diversification via Carrolls proposed mechanism consists of
rearranging the signaling circuits that connect up genes, modules and switches, while retaining functionality of both the
modules and the organism. Carroll tells us that gene switches are extremely complex, comparable to GPS satellite
navigation devices, and easily disabled by mutations, so if switches can be spliced into and out of regulatory circuits, then it
must happen via a cell-controlled process of natural genetic engineering (the law of code variation2).Regulatory areas within
gene switches are hotspots for genetic change. An average gene switch will contain several hundred nucleotides, and within
this region there will be 6 to 20 or more signature sequences. These signature sequences are similar to credit card PIN
numbersthey allow the user to operate the bank accountand they are easy to change. The result of such change is that
different signaling molecules will then be able to operate the bank account of natural variation.There are about 500 or so
tool-kit proteins that are highly conserved across all forms of life and that carry out a wide range of basic life functions. For
example, bone morphogenetic protein 5 (BMP5) regulates gastrulation and implantation of the embryo, and the size, shape
and number of various organs including ribs, limbs, fingertips, outer ear, inner ear, vertebrae, thyroid cartilage, nasal
sinuses, sternum, kneecap, jaw, long bones and stature in humans, and comparable processes in other animals including
the beaks of Darwins Galpagos finches.The signature sequences recognized by such tool-kit proteins are usually about 6
9 nucleotides long. A 6-nucleotide sequence can have 46 = 4096 different combinations of the nucleotides T, A, G and C, and
a 9-nucleotide sequence can have 49 = 262,144 different combinations. But there are 6 to 20 or more signature sequences
that can be recognized by the 500 different tool-kit proteins, which gives somewhere between 500 6 (~1016) to 50020 (~1054)
different possible combinations.An obvious limitation to change in regulatory circuits is that switches can only switch ON
functions thatalready exist. It is easy to switch OFF an existing function, but it is impossible to switch ON a function that
does not exist.Two examples of regulatory variation are given in figure 1. The hair dryer and the vacuum duster both use
similar materialsmotorized fan, plastic housing, power circuit and switch. In one, the control circuit is wired up to blow air;
in the other, the circuit is reversed, and the machine sucks air. A biological example is the axolotl, a salamander that has
retained its juvenile gills into adulthood. This can happen if there is an iodine deficiency in the diet, or if a mutation disables
thyroxin production. By adding thyroxin, the axolotl will develop into a normal salamander. Both these switch-and-circuit
rearrangements seem to be simple changes, but they are possible only because complex mechanisms of operation already
exist within the system.
Scope for change in signaling networks
While there is enormous potential for variation built-in to the circuitry that connects up regulatory modules, it is signals that
trigger the switches and their functional modules. What scope is there for diversification in signal networks?Signal networks
are compartmented. They operate as a cascade within each compartmentone signal triggers other signals, which trigger
other signals etc. Each compartment cooperates with its adjacent compartments so that the unity and functionality of the
organism is maintained, but they do not influence activities beyond their local neighbourhood.
Figure 2. Embryonic switching cascades
represented as a domino cascade. The
domino cascade is set up on the left so
that when the Start domino is toppled, the
sequential falling of dominoes will trigger
the next activity in the series, but also
trigger other developmental modules in the
outer circles, until the Stop button is hit.
Once the cascade is complete, an
organism does not need any of the
sequence again so it is permanently shut
down, as on the right where all the
dominoes have fallen and will not get up
again. There is no coded information in this signal network because everything that has to be done has been designed into
the pattern of dominoes. With no coded information, no mutations or recombinations can occur, so this kind of signal
network probably marks a limit to natural variation.The two examples I used to illustrate this point in the companion article
How Life Works2 were the propagation of plants from cell culture, and the regeneration of double-headed and double-tailed
planarian flatworms. In both these cases, a single signal molecule triggered a dramatic developmental cascade (shoot/root
growth in the former, and head/tail growth in the latter) that was completely independent of, but cooperative with, the other
half of the whole organism.Some signals are hard-wired into the cell, while others are soft-wired. An example of a hard-wired
signal occurs within theapoptosis cascade for dismantling cells and recycling their parts. In a normal cell, apoptosis is
extensively integrated with a wide range of functional systems and can be triggered by a variety of causes through a
complex signaling network. However, in human blood platelets the system is isolated from its normal whole-cell environment
and we can see it operating in a much simpler form.A complex of two proteins, Bcl-xL and Bak, performs the function of a
molecular switch. When Bcl-xL breaks down, Baktriggers cell-death.12 In a normal whole cell, homeostasis maintains the

balance between Bcl-xL and Bak, but platelets are formed by the shedding of fragments from blood cells and there are no
nuclei in them. Once the platelets are isolated from homeostatic control, Bcl-xLbreaks down faster than Bak, so the complex
provides a molecular clock that determines platelet life spanusually about a week. No signal is sent or received in this
hard-wired system, so there is no room for diversification.Hard-wired signaling networks are probably a major component of
stasis. We can visualize them by using a domino cascade model, illustrated in figure 2. In this case, embryogenesis is
symbolized as a series of events in the main circle, which trigger other peripheral cascades as they proceed. Each cascade
continues until it meets a STOP signal, at which point the whole circuit is shut down. A similar thing happens in individual
cells when they differentiate. Embryonic stem cells have the potential to become any cell in the body, but once the cascade
is traversed, all options but one are shut down.In contrast, a soft-wired system sends actual signal molecules, raising the
possibility of adaptive changee.g. sending a different signal molecule. A recent study of red blood cells investigated cell
fate decision makingwhether to proliferate, to kill themselves or to call for help. This decision lies at the very heart of
homeostasis because it determines the robustness and stability of the organism in the face of change and challenge.
Figure 3. Grass flower (spikelet) structure and
some common variations. Aconventional spikelet
on the tip of a branch. Bexploded view of
spikelet: a = lower glume; b = upper glume; c =
lemma; d = palea; e = ovary (black oval) with bifid
filamentous stigmas, surrounded by 2 or 3
translucent lodicules and 3 anthers. Capex of
lemma may elongate to produce a straight awn, or
corkscrew several turns to produce a twisted
column with a straight or curved terminal bristle.The
researchers discovered that they did not need to
know the detailedstructure of the decision-making
system, just a knowledge of its network of signaling
interactions was sufficient to identify which
components were the most important.13 This finding
was confirmed in another study in which a wide range of perturbations were applied to white blood cells and the effect upon
the cell fate decision was examined. The decision came not from any particular target of perturbation, but as an integrated
response from many different nodes of interaction in the signaling network. The authors suggested that computations were
carried out within each node of the signaling network and the combination of all these computations determined what the
level of response should be from any particular perturbation. 14Does this indicate a potential for adaptive change? Or does it
suggest a system that is designed to resist change?The primary role of the signaling system is to coordinate everything
towards the goal of survival. Life can survive only by maintaining a balance between contradictory objectives. On the one
hand, it has to achieve remarkable results as accurately as possiblee.g. plants turning sunlight into food without the high
energies involved killing the cell. On the other hand, it has to do it in an error-tolerant and constantly variable manner to
maintain its adaptive potential and its robustness and stability.The solution to this dilemma is error minimization. All possible
routes will involve risks of error, but the optimal solution will minimize those risks. A computer simulation study of regulatory
networks found that using an error minimization strategy leads to the formation of control motifs (gene switching patterns)
that are widely found in very different kinds of organisms and metabolic settings. 15 When applied to the noise in yeast gene
expression that results from the ON/OFF nature of signaling, it was found to also be the case in real life. Genes that were
essential to survival exhibited the lowest expression-noise levels when compared with genes that were not directly essential.
The author concluded that there has probably been widespread selection to minimize noise in [essential] gene expression.
But there is a down sidenoise minimization probably limits adaptability.16
Figure 4. The grass inflorescence consists of (A) the basic unit of a
single terminal flower (spikelet) on a short stalk (pedicel) which is
repeated in a terminal group of branches (B). This terminal group
structure is then repeated on side branches (C), with the lower
branch(es) including further internal branching. This basic
inflorescence type is called a panicle.Since the goal of signal
coordination is survival, I suspect that the large, interconnected
signaling networks in all forms of life contribute more to stasis than
to change.
Practical
limits
to
natural variation
It is impossible to
describe the full range of natural variation across all life forms in a journal
article, so I will focus just on variation within the grass family (Poaceae), and
between it and other families of flowering plants (Angiosperms).The grass
family comprises about 10,000 species in about 700 genera. Is it possible that
maize, lawn grass and bamboo all arose from a common ancestor?
Baraminologists believe so.17
Grass morphology
The easiest way for us to conceptualize the extent of natural variation is
through illustrations of morphological variations. We need to keep in mind that
much more than morphological variation is involved in speciation, but it can
serve as a convenient surrogate for our present purpose. The basic structure
of a generalized grass flower (spikelet) is illustrated in figure 3.
Figure 5. Ordination and classification of specimens of the three
native Puccinellia species identified in Western Australia, based on 34 morphological characters. Principle Coordinates 1
and 2 provide a 2-dimensional representation of the differences between the specimens and a clustering algorithm identified
groups of similar specimens (ellipses).
A common variation on the standard structure is the development of an awn upon the apex of the lemma (or glume) in figure
1C. This transformation is fairly straightforward. The apex of the lemma is extended into a long straight awn, then a
regulatory change causes the edges to grow faster than the centre, which causes the base part of the awn to spiral around
into a twisted column, leaving a straight or curved bristle at the top.Grasses generally have a multitude of spikelets,
arranged into a terminal structure called theinflorescence, as shown in figure 4.

Species-level variation in the Australian salt grass Puccinellia

Salt grasses of the genus Puccinellia are distributed worldwide, from the Antarctic to the Arctic, and they occur right across
southern Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) in marine salt marshes, around the edges of inland salt lakes and on
salinised pasture lands. They have a quite generalized grass morphology, with no special adaptations for dispersal, as many
other grasses do, so they may represent a typical primordial grass.The most widespread species, found right across
Australasia, is Puccinellia stricta. When Edgar18 described the New Zealand species in 1996 she noted some differences
between Australian and New Zealand populations of P. stricta and suggested that further detailed study was warranted. I
was fortunately able to undertake that study,19 with results that are quite typical of many widespread plant genera. My study
focused on the genus in Western Australia (WA), where three native species were identifiedP. stricta, P. vassica and P.
longior. An ordination and classification of specimens based on their morphological characteristics is shown in figure 5.
Figure 6. Ordination and classification of specimens
of Puccinellia stricta from across Australasia. The group
labeled perlaxa had been identified as a subspecies of P. stricta.
Four geographically isolated regions were sampled: WA =
Western Australia, SE Aus = South East Australia (Victoria,
South Australia and New South Wales), Tas = Tasmania, NZ =
New Zealand. The axes of ordination and the ellipses of
classification have the same meaning as Figure 3 and were
based on the same 34 morphological characters.The plot shows
that all three species are well separated from one another, with
members of each species being more closely similar to members
of their own species than to other species.I then needed to know
how our specimens of Puccinellia stricta compared to specimens
of the same species from right across Australasia. Loan
specimens were obtained from other herbaria and the same
analysis was carried out as for the WA specimens. A very
different plot resulted, as shown in figure 6.In this case, a new
species was clearly separated out from the rest, while the
remainder spread broadly right across the ordination space. The
group labeled perlaxa (occurring only in southeast Australia) had
previously been identified as a subspecies of stricta, but from this
analysis it was clear that it warranted species status, so we named
it Puccinellia perlaxa.The big picture of the native Australasian species
of Puccinellia that emerged from this study was of a single widespread
species, P. stricta, that varied in a continuous manner right across the whole
region, and then localized species with restricted distributions that could
generally be explained in terms of local ecological and/or geographical
factors.Historically, therefore, it is most likely that the widespread species
was the progenitor of the all the other species. It has retained at least some
of its capacity for variation, and certainly a greater capacity (wider dispersion
in the ordination space) than any of the other species that I studied.
Morphological variation in Australian Puccinellia
Figure 7. Panicle variations within Australian species of Puccinellia. The
contracted panicle with a variety of branch lengths at A is typical. B has
numerous spikelets crowded along very short branches, while C has very
few spikelets on very short branches, and D has few spikelets that are
mainly on the ends of very long branches. Images were scanned from
dried herbarium specimens; in life, D would have had straight branches
and a more symmetrical shape.
Figure
8. Variations
in
upper
glume length
(marked with
black bars) in
spikelets of some Australian species of Puccinellia.
Figure 9. Paleas from five different Australian species
of Puccinellia. Note the variation in hair development on the
margins, ranging from glabrous (no hairs) on D, a few hairs
near the apex of E, the top half of B with hairs and the lower
region glabrous, with A and C having hairs extending into the

lower half.

Figure 10. Retrogression of Panicoid grass spikelets. The

characteristic condition in the Tribe is to have one terminal fertile
floret subtended by one sterile floret. The primordial condition at
A has the sterile floret male. Condition B has lost the anthers of
the sterile floret. Condition C has lost the palea of the sterile

floret. Condition D has lost the lower glume. The series E, F, G and H illustrate the same pattern of retrogression but with the
spikelet axis rotated in relation to its adjoining branch.
Figure 11. Transformation of a panicle into wheat. The side branches of A are eliminated to give B, the number of spikelets
is increased to form C, then the pedicels are reduced to form D.
Australian Puccinellia species vary most markedly in their panicle structure, a few of which are illustrated in figure 7.
Puccinellias have multiple florets per spikelet, ranging from 3 or 4 up to 10 or more. One feature that varies significantly in
spikelet structure is the length of the upper glume, illustrated in figure 8.
The palea also varies significantly, particularly in the extent of hairs on the
margins, as shown in figure 9.
Genus-level variations in Tribe Paniceae
The grass family is divided up into Tribes of genera that (ideally) reflect their
common ancestry. The largest Tribe is Paniceae, and Hfliger and Scholz have
suggested that the spikelet variations within this Tribe follow a fairly simple
pattern of retrogression from the original Paniceae spikelet,20 as illustrated in
figure 10.
Sub-family variation within Poaceae
Argentinian researchers Vegetti and Anton have shown that if we begin with a
panicle as the primordial grass inflorescence, then every other generic form can be derived simply by adding, subtracting,
shortening or lengthening the components of the panicle. 21 I will take just three types of transformations that represent
different sub-family groups within Poaceaewheat, maize and silkyhead lemon grass.
Wheat
The hypothesized transformation of a panicle structure into the reduced seedhead of a wheat plant via the Vegetti-Anton
theory is illustrated in figure 11.
Maize
Figure 12. Transformation of a panicle into maize. The middle branches of the panicle A are replaced with leaves and leafy
bracts, and the lower branches are transformed into
a spike (like wheat, Figure 9) to form B. The upper
spikelets lose their female parts, and the lateral
spikelets lose their male parts to form C. The male
spikelets multiply, and the female spikelets elongate
their pollen receptors to form a tassel that emerges
from the enveloping leafy bracts, to formD.
Transformation of a panicle into the compact
seedhead of maize is more complex, but still
conceivable, as illustrated in figure 12. The
primordial panicle could have been divided by the
panicle branches being switched OFF in the midsection, and leaf modules being turned ON. A leaf
within the inflorescence is called a spathe leaf.
Apical dominance is a common mechanism in all plants for repressing growth below the apex until conditions are
appropriate. This normally controls the proliferation
of fertile seeds within grass spikelets. It represses
female organ development more strongly than the
male parts, so in many grasses the apical florets
within a spikelet will be either male or sterile, and
only the lower florets (those furthest away from the
dominating apex) will produce fertile seed. This
mechanism is already in place to suppress female
organ development in the top branches of the
maize plant, making them all male. But the lower
branches of the inflorescence are now far distant
from the apex, so apical dominance is eliminated
and the female organs grow uninhibitedly, perhaps
out-competing the male organs and suppressing
them altogether. Leaf and bract growth in the lower parts is stimulated and they cover the female spike entirely. This causes
the female florets to lengthen their pollen receptors so that they can reach the open air and receive wind-dispersed pollen,
making the silky tassel at the end of a corn-cob.
Silkyhead lemon grass
Figure 13. Transformation of a primordial panicle into the spatheate panicle of Cymbopogon obtectus. The branching
pattern in A is reduced to a repeating set of branches in which a sessile fertile spikelet with an awn occurs at each
secondary branch point, accompanied by a pedicellate awnless sterile spikelet (B). Pairs of these branched structures are
subtended by a spathe leaf, from which they emerge at flowering time (C) to produce the complex mature panicle
(D).Transformation of the panicle into silkyhead lemon grass (Cymbopogon obtectus) can be hypothesized by reducing the
pedicel of alternate spikelets so that they occur in pairsone pedicellate, the other sessile. The pedicellate spikelet retains
apical dominance and is sterile or male, and the sessile spikelet is fully fertile, but it also develops an awn on its lemma (see
figure 3). The paired branching structures occur also in pairs, and a leaf growth module is switched ON within the
developing inflorescence to produce a spathe leaf surrounding each pair of branched structures. Hairs are normally present
in many parts of the inflorescence, and are usually short, but in Cymbopogon obtectus, the hairs are abundant and long,
producing a fluffy white silkyhead at flowering time, as illustrated in figure 13.
Origin of the angiospermsWithin the grass family, diversification from a common ancestor seems to be fairly straightforward,
and could have occurred via numerous rearrangements of parts that were already present in the primordial grass ancestor.
But can we continue this process back to a common ancestor with daisies, orchids and all other flowering plants?A recent
review of the subject was entitled After a dozen years of progress the origin of angiosperms is still a great mystery. 22 The
progress referred to was the enormous effort put into DNA sequence comparisons, in the belief that it would give us the
true story of lifes origin and history. While such comparisons have proved of great value in sorting out species and genus
relationships, the results for family relationships and origin of the angiosperms has often been confusing and/or

contradictorythus the remaining mystery.Recent discoveries of fossil flowers show that angiosperms were already well
diversified when they first appeared in the fossil record. The anthophyte theory of origin, the dominant concept of the 1980s
and 1990s, has been eclipsed by new information. Gnetales (e.g. Ephedra, from which we get ephedrine), previously
thought to be closest to the angiosperms, are now most closely related to pine trees. To fill the void, new theories of flower
origins have had to be developed, and Identification of fossils with morphologies that convincingly place them close to
angiosperms could still revolutionize understanding of angiosperm origins.22
Conclusions
Theoretically, the greatest scope for natural variation appears to lie in the almost infinite possible permutations of the
KirschnerGerhart Lego-block regulatory module combinations, and these could rapidly produce the enormous
diversification implied by the young age history. In contrast, there is no scope at all for change in the machinery of life from
one generation to the next because it is passed on in toto from the mother in the egg cell. Signaling networks appear to be
limited in their scope for diversification, particularly those that are hard-wired (designed into the system) into compartments
and cascades that have symmetry and functional constraints. The elaborately interconnected signaling networks are very
robust in the face of perturbation, and provide a crucial component of stasis. There is some potential for variation in the
signaling molecules that are sent, but error minimization limits its functional scope.From a practical point of view,
diversification of the whole grass family from a common ancestor is conceptually feasible via switching ON and OFF the
original component structures within a primordial grass. It is not possible to switch ON components that dont exist, however,
so this mechanism cannot be extrapolated to include a common ancestor between grasses and other angiosperms such as
daisies and orchids.Flowering plants display an enormous amount of differentiation and dispersal (between 250,000 and
400,000 species in 400 to 500 families worldwide) and appear only in the upper levels of the fossil record. Most of this
diversification appears therefore to have happened rapidly, possibly in the post-Flood era. This is not Darwinian evolution. It
is intelligently designed, built-in potential for variation in the face of anticipated environmental challenge and change. The
word evolution is still useful in describing processes of historical diversification, but its Darwinian component is now only a
minor feature. In contrast to Darwins proposed slow development of variation, the evidence supports a vast amount
of rapid differentiation in the past, degenerating into only trivial variations todaya far better fit to KirschnerGerhart theory
and the young history.
DO MUTATIONS THAT CONFER RESISTANCE TO ANTIBIOTICS,POISONS, ETC PROVE EVOLUTION
Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
15 November 2001; updated 8 April 2005
After the terrorist attack on 11 September, many people fear a new dangerbiological warfare in the form ofanthrax.
Perhaps understandably, many Americans are taking antibiotics such as Cipro (ciprofloxacin) as a preventative measure.
Data from the pharmaceutical tracking company NDCHealth of Atlanta, Georgia, show that almost 63,000 more Cipro
prescriptions have been issued in the third week of October alone than for the entire previous year. However, this has
caused some concern in the medical profession that antibiotic overuse could result in antibiotic resistance in many types of
bacteria. Not surprisingly, the humanist-dominated secular media has used phrases such as Bacteria evolve drug
resistance very quickly. Fortunately, in the current round of articles, I havent seen repeated the hysterical outburst of one
particular evolutionary propagandist who claimed that people will die because of creationists, because they will allegedly fail
to understand this vital fact of evolution of drug resistance.We have covered antibiotic resistance in many articles on this
website. So here it will suffice to summarize the main issues to enable people to assess critically any articles on this current
scare. First some principles:Watch for equivocation, i.e. using the same term in different ways in the same article. Its very
common for evolutionary propagandists to define evolution as (1) simply change in a population over time, as well as (2)
the idea that all life came from a single cell, which itself came from a chemical soup. Then they produce examples of
evolution (1) and use this to prove evolution (2), and then claim that the young age model is wrong! However the
model does imply that organisms change over timebut these changes would always involve sorting or loss of already
existing (created) genetic information, never the gain of new information. But evolution (2) requires the gain
of new information. Even if information losing (or neutral) processes could continue for billions of years, they
would never add up to a gain of information. Rather, to support evolution (2), evolutionists must demonstrate changes that
increase information. If this theory were true, there should be plenty of examples, but we have yet to observe even one.
Since evolution (2) is the only issue at stake in the creation/evolution controversy, we advise against referring to any mere
change as evolutionnot even micro-evolutionand reserving the term evolution for (2).
Natural selection is not evolution. This merely weeds out organisms and the information they contain; it doesnt generate
new information. The creationist Edward Blyth discussed natural selection 25 years before Darwin, but recognized that it
was aconservative, not a creative, force.
Mutations are not evolution. They are copying mistakes in the genes. No mutation is known to increase information
content; every known mutation has either decreased information content or was informationally neutral. This applies even to
the rare examples of beneficial mutations.
To apply these principles to antibiotic resistance, there are several ways that germs can acquire resistance to drugs, none of
which have anything to do with evolution from goo to you via the zoo:
Natural selection: the drugs wipe out all the non-resistant germs, so the most resistant germs survive and multiply. This
leads to a whole population thats resistant to antibiotics. This is not evolution because the resistance already existed in the
population. Despite this, the PBS Evolution propaganda series used selection of pre-existing antibiotic resistance in
tuberculosis germs as a major proof. In fact, some bacteria revived from corpses frozen before the development of
antibiotics have shown resistance.
Selection for resistant bacteria is a real danger when a patient fails to complete a prescribed course of antibiotics (60 days
for Cipro)i.e. stops taking the drug when the symptoms ease, which just means that most germs have been destroyed.
The remnants require the final doses of antibiotic to finish them off, but if the treatment stops, they are free to multiply. This
time the drug is far less effective, since the remnant population will tend to be the more resistant ones.This problem of
selection of resistant varieties applies not only to the targeted germ, but all the other types affected by the same antibiotic.
This is the main reason that the medical profession is concerned with people taking Cipro for a few days because of the
anthrax scare. Indeed the over-use of Cipro could result in many germs that are resistant to this drug, so the concern is very
well founded. Antibiotics as a preventative measure are warranted only where theres evidence that people were in a
breathing zone of the deadly airborne anthrax spores, not for the milder skin form of anthrax.Sometimes bacteria can pass
on information to other bacteria, via loops of DNA called plasmids. Sometimes plasmids contain information for antibiotic

resistance. But here too, the information already existed, so this is not evolution.Information-losing mutations can confer
resistance. Such mutations are often harmful in an ordinary environment without antibiotics. It is well documented that
many superbugs are really superwimps for this reasonsee Superbugs not super after all . Also, some sorts of
information-losing mutations evidently cause HIV resistance to antivirals, because the wild types easily out-compete the
resistant types when the drugs are removed. Despite this, this was promoted as another proof of evolution by the PBS
series.So, how can an information loss confer resistance? Here are some observed mechanisms:
A pump in the cell wall takes in the antibiotic. A mutation disabling this pump will prevent the bacterium pumping in its own
executioner. But in the wild, a bacterium with a disabled pump will be less fit than other bacteria because the pump also
brings nutrients, etc., into the cell.A control gene regulates the production of an enzyme that destroys the antibiotic, e.g.
penicillinase which destroys penicillin. A mutation disabling this gene destroys the regulation of the production, so far more
enzyme is produced. Such a bacterium can cope with more antibiotic than others can, but in the wild, it would be less fit than
normal because its wasting valuable resources producing more enzyme than is needed.An enzyme is highly specialized to
break down one specific type of chemical very well, and hardly affect other chemicals. A mutation could reduce its
specificity, i.e. it no longer does its main job so well, and affects other chemicals to some extent too. Normally, a biological
system with such a mutation would not function as well, and reduced specificity is reduced information by definition. But
sometimes the other affected chemicals happen to be antibiotics, so this type of mutation confers resistance. See further
discussion in this refutation of a critic and Not By Chance (top right), ch. 5.The antibiotic streptomycin works by attaching
onto a precisely matching site on the surface of a bacteriums ribosome, where decoding of DNA information to proteins
occurs. When the streptomycin attaches, it stops this machinery from producing the right proteins, and the bacterium dies.
Resistance to the drug can be caused by an information-losing mutation that degrades the surface of a bacteriums
ribosome, which reduces the binding ability of the drug to the ribosome, preventing it from ruining the protein manufacturing
machinery.More detail on information-losing resistance-increasing mutations can be found in the article Is bacterial
resistance to antibiotics an appropriate example of evolutionary change?These principles should be enough to demonstrate
that these latest claims about bacteria evolving resistance are not a threat to the model. Despite all this, many evolutionists
crow about antibiotic resistance as an amazing prediction of evolution. Even aside from the above points, this is revisionist
history. Historically, antibiotic resistance first took the medical profession by surpriseeven as late as 1969, experts stated
that infectious diseases were a thing of the past. I.e. antibiotic resistance was hardly a prediction of evolution, but is really
a phenomenon explained after the fact by evolutionary language. But as shown, the young age model explains it better.
Poison-resistant tomcods and the meaning of evolution
Published: 19 May 2011(GMT+10)
The Atlantic tomcod only benefits from its information-losing
mutation in the heavily polluted Hudson River.
In response to the article on the mutated tomcod fish in the
polluted Hudson River, evolution-defender Steven L. wrote in
claiming that it contained blatant mistakes and gave
substantial detail and detailed reasons. We first publish his
email intact, then again with a point by point interspersed
response by the article author, Dr Carl Wieland of CMIAustralia.
Steven wrote:
Your article on the evolution of the Tomcod possesses a few
blatant mistakes.
First of all, it assumes that mutations are some form of
damage. That is not the case. Mutations are a fact of life (and
are necessary for evolution to occur), and the vast majority of
mutations are strictly neutralthat is, they are not expressed,
or their expression has no effect on the life of the organism.
Secondly, the article posits that information gain is a necessity of evolution. This is falseevolution is simply change,
whether it be through the addition, deletion, or alteration of base pairs. While we tend to see a net gain of information as
demonstrated by the increasing complexity of the fossil record over time, it is not a requirement.
Third, the article references the deletion of the base pairs in the tomcod as a sort of downhill damage, but it is not taking
the environment in to account with this assessment. In their current environment, the mutation is anything but. The overall
cost/benefit analysis of a mutation has to be made within the context of the environment in which it occurs.
Fourth, the article states as fact that the mutation happened in one generation. This is not necessarily the case, but the
author has assumed it to be true and has stated as such without any evidence to back his position. Because the mutation
also exists occasionally in the non-poisoned populations elsewhere, it suggests that the mutation already existed in the
overall population of the animal. It is a similar situation to the 1952 Lederberg experiment. Further still, the continued
existence of the mutation in roughly 5% of the population from uncontaminated waters shows that the relative cost of the
mutation isnt so large as to make it a major hindrance to reproductive success. Like any other healthy, genetically diverse
population, we see a variety of different genes existing in greater or lesser numbers within the population.
In summary, you should strive to have a bit more accuracy in your articles.
Carl Wieland responds:
Thank you for your email.
You wrote:
Your article on the evolution of the Tomcod possesses a few blatant mistakes.
Well, its important to know of any mistakes, even in a brief item responding to a news article meant for the layperson; but
lets see how accurate this confident assertion of yours is. I would ask you to try to lay aside your presuppositions and [try]
thinking the matter through carefully for yourself, because there is a lot at stake. My responses are interspersed with your
email below.First though, note that the article was not on the evolution of the tomcod, but on how it adapted to pollution.
When people hear the word evolution, they assume it means the same sort of change as would, given time, turn protozoa
into people, etc. The article was about demonstrating that this is an inappropriate description of what happened.
First of all, it assumes that mutations are some form of damage. That is not the case.
The article actually used the word damage in the specific context of those mutations that cause antibiotic resistance, and
gave one such example of exactly thatdamage to a functioning mechanism. It then indicated that
mutations mostly damage existing structures. So that is not the same as your representation of the articles claims.

Mutations are a fact of life

Agreed. In this fallen world, such genetic copying mistake are exactly thatmistakes. What do we observe in the process of
heredity in living things, if not a highly complex mechanism which functions to produce a letter-by-letter copy of the genetic
information (DNA). Even those who deny purpose (teleology) in living things overall would have to agree that this
machinerys role is to produce such a copy. It even incorporates error-correcting and proof-reading machinery. Most
mutations occur when, despite this, there is a deviation from an exact copy. Not surprisingly, then, the biological machinery
that is coded for on the DNA that undergoes a mutation is generally not likely to result in an improvement, but the opposite
for the same reason that a random change in a software code that has a specific function is very, very unlikely to generate
an improvement in that function, but more likely the opposite. So to say that mutations will mostly damage things makes
sense even at first glancebut see more shortly. The argument is one from probability; there are many more ways to break
things than make them.
(and are necessary for evolution to occur),
You are right that ultimately mutations are the only game in town for evolutionists as a theoretical source for the raw
material for nature to select from. Natural selection (NS) in and of itself culls genes, gets rid of information. See Muddy
waters: clarifying the confusion over natural selection. If copying were perfect, all the selection in the world could never
generate any real evolutionary novelties, being restricted to differing combinations of what is already there. But the big
question then is: are mutations capable of doing what they are supposed to have done over billions of years, i.e. generated
all the information needed for all the biological machinery in all organisms on Earth? For those whose kneejerk, even
socially conditioned, answer is yes, its interesting that the examples in textbooks of evolution happening are either
examples where there is not even demonstrable mutation involved (i.e. the selection which led to adaptation was from
existing variety in the population, and involved a loss of genes or thinning of the gene pool). Or else, where a
mutation was involved, the mutation was a definite loss or degradation of information. For example, wingless beetles on
windy islands.
and the vast majority of mutations are strictly neutralthat is, they are not expressed, or their expression has no effect on
the life of the organism.
In fact, it is nowadays more accurate to say that the vast majority of mutations are near-neutral; i.e. they are deleterious, but
the effect is so small that it is to all intents and purposes just as you put it, that it has no discernible external effect and thus
is transparent to selection (which simply means that NS has no way of eliminating these near-neutral mutations). This is
actually a severe detriment to evolutionary theory, as former Cornell University (and still courtesy) professor, and genetic
engineering pioneer Dr John Sanford has shown in his bookGenetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome (a good
introduction to the subject is the DVD of an excellent presentation he gave on the subject to a conference involving both lay
and professional folk.) To explain: the latest figures show that these near-neutral mutations are accumulating so rapidly that
our human genome is actually facing a very serious decline, a situation worsening with every generation. Their nearneutrality is actually a detriment, precisely because of what was stated above, namely that NS cant get rid of them
individually fast enough. But their combined, cumulative effect is very deleterious, since they are so numerous. See this
interview with Sanford for a foretaste of what the other items go into in more detail. It was this that helped bring Sanford
around from his former position as an evolutionist to being not only a creationist, but a convinced believer in recent creation.
The human genome simply cant have been around for more than a few thousands of years at most, in order to have
avoided what is known as error catastrophe. This reality has been backed up by sophisticated supercomputer modelling of
the mutation-selection process (see http://mendelsaccountant.info/).
Secondly, the article posits that information gain is a necessity of evolution. This is falseevolution is simply change,
whether it be through the addition, deletion, or alteration of base pairs. While we tend to see a net gain of information as
demonstrated by the increasing complexity of the fossil record over time, it is not a requirement.
With respect, the last sentence of the above paragraph reveals the flaw in the reasoning of the entire paragraph. If we define
evolution as genetic change, then that change can be in any direction. But that would be a self-serving, question-begging
definition, since a Creation-Fall model would also expect genetic change, but in a net downhill direction. To put it very
simplyan evolution model would expect change happening in all directions, so downhill change per se does not falsify the
idea of evolution by any means, nor was that claimed in the article. However, we need to remember that Im defining
evolution in the way most people understand itand the way Darwin proposed, not mere genetic change, but, as the
article stated, a process that has allegedly turned microbes into magnolias, mosquitoes and microbiologists. So to
demonstrate that a particular proposed mechanism (neo-Darwinism) is able to produce genetic change adds no credibility to
that mechanism [as a driver of evolution, and a demonstration of evolution happening] if it seems to mostly, if not
exclusively, lead to downhill change.To focus once again on your last sentencea net gain of information is not what we
tend to see. It is, however, what you must believe has occurred, since you believe that a microbe with ~0.5 million base
pairs on its DNA did eventually turn into a microbiologist with 3,000 million base pairs. We can also think of the traits that
humans have that microbes dont: muscle, skeleton, blood vessels, nerves, skin, hair, etc. These traits require new
specifications to be added to the DNA (a minimalist microbe has a few hundred proteins, but humans can make over
100,000 different ones). So by definition, there must have been a huge net gain of information. Which means that gain of
information has to be a major part of the alleged evolutionary process (especially since it has to overcome the overwhelming
tendency of mutations to destroy the information). A businessman making lots of $10 sales cannot make a net profit on all of
them combined unless most of them make an actual profit. Do you see the point? By you conceding, in effect, that a net
gain had to have happened to turn microbes into mudskippers, you are reinforcing the fact that there needs to have been a
lot of actual gain by mutation. And in fact, if we saw lots of information-gaining mutations in the process of building new
structures and functions all around us, it would be legitimate for an evolutionist to take this as a positive and strong support
for his proposal. However, if virtually all known mutations associated with adaptive change are in this opposite direction,
then wouldnt you agree that it is misleading to use such adaptive change as an example of evolution happening? That was
the point of the Tomcod article.
Indeed, your definition of evolution as merely change can be shown to be an extraordinarily lame one, since it makes all
and any genetic change evolution. So if every type of genetic change in the world were to be such as to lead to extinction,
by your definition that would still be evolution.
Third, the article references the deletion of the base pairs in the tomcod as a sort of downhill damage, but it is not taking
the environment in to account with this assessment.
First, a description like downhill damage is never going to be a rigorous statement, but it makes a valid point nonetheless,
and second, the article most definitely took the environment into account. To clarify: as our article on wingless beetles points
out, a defect can have a survival advantage in a particular environment. A beetle having a mutation that in its offspring
destroys the ability to produce normal wings is better able to survive and have offspring on a windy island, as it is less likely
to be blown into the sea and drown. So in time, all those beetles on that island are likely to be of the wingless variety. But

this shows us a complex information-transfer and construction system (the machinery by which the genetic information in
beetles gives rise to wings, with their specific function able to be defined in engineering terms) and how this system is then
subject to corruption, loss of function, etc. This can hardly of itself give any clues as to how such a process of random
change could have led to that complex system in the first place. Sheep with crippled legs might be better able to survive
because they are less likely to jump over a fence into the jaws of a hungry dingo, so in that environment, once again, a
defect is a survival advantage, but is still a clear defect. The neo-Darwinian mechanism could gain some credibility if
Darwinists could point to hundreds of mutations (among the vast numbers occurring constantly) that can be seen to
be building structures, adding functional complexity, etc. (in a complex world, one would expect the occasional tiny bit of
information to arise by chance, and that may have occurred with bacterial ability to digest nylon, though note the careful
analysis in our article on this). But that is simply not what happens in the real world.
In their current environment, the mutation is anything but. The overall cost/benefit analysis of a mutation has to be made
within the context of the environment in which it occurs.
Of course. Thats simple population genetics, which is quite independent of the truth or otherwise of the neo-Darwinian
postulate. The issue still remains this:
there has to have been a massive net gain of information if evolution has actually happened in history.
Such a net gain requires substantial amounts of informationally uphill change, no matter how much downwards or sideways
movement may have occurred along the way.It is the extreme paucity of any informationally uphill changes by mutation
(virtual absence), which is actually expected on probabilistic grounds, that justifies extreme scepticism about neo-Darwinism
as a credible mechanism for any evolution, and to call downhill change evolution is only convincing if there is already a
prior belief that evolution has happened.
Fourth, the article states as fact that the mutation happened in one generation. This is not necessarily the case, but the
author has assumed it to be true and has stated as such without any evidence to back his position.
I find it hard to see why its not obvious that mutation, by definition, always happens in one generation. It may take time to
spread through the population, but a mutation is a one-time event (though it can sometimes occur more than once, i.e. the
same mistake can just happen to be repeated in another individual). The relevant sentence in the article started with
Mutation happens in one generation, which by both the absence of either the or this in front of it, as well as by the use of
the present continuous tense should, I would have thought, made it clear that this was a statement about mutation in
general, and not just about this mutation. It then went on to talk about the expected rapidity of spread of the mutated gene
after that initial event (obviously now referring to the tomcod one in question, i.e. in this poison-rich environment). It
specifically said that this took just a few decades. Since this is obviously a lot more than one generation, its obvious that
your comment here substantially misrepresents the article. I presume you have simply misunderstood.
Because the mutation also exists occasionally in the non-poisoned populations elsewhere, it suggests that the mutation
already existed in the overall population of the animal. It is a similar situation to the 1952 Lederberg experiment.
I have no problem with the possibility that the same mutation may exist in non-poison-exposed populations, though note that
in the case of antibiotic resistance to penicillin studied by Lederberg in his classic experiment, it was not necessarily the
case that the resistance that was already in the population had itself arisen by mutation, i.e. the experiment itself did not
demonstrate that. But my question to you is: Why would that affect any point in the article, and in this reply, in the slightest? I
could have just as easily said (and maybe should have, for clarity) that the mutation arose at some point in one generation
and then took only a few decades to spread in that poison-rich environment. But see my next point for what may be
a better explanation for the low level of the mutation in the non-poisoned populations elsewhere.
Further still, the continued existence of the mutation in roughly 5% of the population from uncontaminated waters shows that
the relative cost of the mutation isnt so large as to make it a major hindrance to reproductive success.
Thats possible, but given the comments about the disadvantages to the organism that were reported from this mutation, it is
not likely. A major point you seem to have overlooked when referring to the 5% from my article is that these waters were
nearby. So that allows for a supply of mutated fish to these less contaminated waters (which may in any case have
previously been contaminated, but cleaned up relatively recently, for all I know) from the Hudson where the gene is kept at a
high frequency. Thus, as the Hudson contamination presumably declines from legislative efforts, etc., one would expect a
decline of the genes frequency not only in the Hudson, but also to much lower levels than the current 5% in nearby waters.
A gene with such effects as mentioned in the article would be expected to approach zero frequency in due course in waters
with no such poisons and no nearby feeder source of this mutation.
Like any other healthy, genetically diverse population, we see a variety of different genes existing in greater or lesser
numbers within the population.
This benign-sounding description makes it sounds as if these fish are as healthy as any other. It ignores the fact that the
researchers themselves concede that the fish carrying this mutation are not as healthy as those without itto use their
words again, these fish have suffered in other ways.
In summary, you should strive to have a bit more accuracy in your articles.
We strive for accuracy at all times, and are grateful when people point out perceived inaccuracies, as sometimes they are
correct, of course. It seems though that in this case a commitment to evolution as established fact may have detracted from
what I think might otherwise have been a careful reading of the article.I hope that you will understand a little more where the
creationist argument is coming from via this exchange, including following the links provided (and those provided on those
linked articles).
Superbugs not super after all
by Carl Wieland
After over 12 years as a medical practitioner, I suddenly found myself an avid consumer, rather than a provider, of medical
care. Involved in a serious road accident in 1986, I spent many months in hospital, including weeks in an intensive care unit.
While in intensive care, I became infected with one of the varieties of so-called supergerms, which are the scourge of
modern hospitals. These are strains of bacteria which are resistant to almost every (and in some cases every) type of
antibiotic known to man.Several others in the same unit with me died as a result of infection by the same bacterial strain.
The germs overwhelmed their immune systems and invaded their bloodstream, untouched by the most expensive and
sophisticated antibiotics available.This supergerm problem 1 is an increasingly serious concern in Western countries. It
strikes precisely those hospitals which are more high-tech, and handle more serious illnesses. Applying more disinfectant is
not the answer; some strains of germs have actually been found thriving in bottles of hospital disinfectant! The more
antibacterial chemical weapons are being used, the more bacteria are becoming resistant to them.The reality of increasing
bacterial resistance seems at first to be an obvious example of onwards and upwards evolution. But the facts, when
carefully examined, show otherwise.
Natural selection, but not evolution

Evolution is basically the belief that everything has made itselfthat natural processes (over millions of years, without
miraculous, divine input of intelligence) have created an increasingly complex array of creatures. According to evolution,
there was once a time when none of the creatures in the world had lungs. This means that there was no genetic information
(the blueprint for living things, carried on the molecule DNA) for lungsanywhere. Then, at a later time, lung information
arose and was added to the world, but no feather information as yetfeathers evolved later.In other words, for every
feature which arises by evolution, there would need to be new genetic information added to the total information in the
biosphere (i.e., all the information in all creatures on earth). Some features could be lost subsequently, of course, so there
will not always be a gain, but if microbes turned into magpies, maple trees and musicians, there must have been a massive
net increase in information. This is not just any jumble of chemical sequences, but meaningful information, since it codes for
complex structures which have purposeful functions.So if new information, new functional complexity, can be shown to be
arising by itself where previously there was none, this would give some credibility to the idea of molecules-to-man evolution,
although it would not strictly prove that it had occurred. However, it can be shown that in every situation where populations
of living things change, they do so without increase (and often with a decrease) of information. Thus, it is completely
illegitimate for anyone to claim that such changes show evolution happening. Lets look at what is known about how the
superbugs became resistant, and askdid any new structures or functions arise in the process (which is another way of
asking whether there was any evidence of evolution)?There are a number of different ways in which germs can become
resistant to these poisons. A superbug is, by definition, resistant to many different antibiotics. It may have become resistant
to antibiotic A in one way, to antibiotic B in a completely different way, and to antibiotic C in another way again. So if we look
at all the known ways of resistance arising in a population of germs, we will see if any of them are uphill, information-adding
processes.
1. Some germs already had the resistance.
If out of a million bacteria, five already have a feature which makes them resistant (however that arose) to, say, penicillin,
then soaking them in penicillin will kill all of them except for the five. Now the bodys natural defences will often mop up
such a small population before it can multiply and cause harm, so resistance will not become a problem. However, if that
doesnt happen, then those five germs can multiply, and their offspring will obviously also be resistant. So within a short
time, there will be millions of germs resistant to penicillin. Notice that:
(i) This is why multiple resistance to major antibiotics is more common in hospitals which treat more serious conditions
these are the hospitals which will frequently be using the sophisticated, expensive heavy artillery antibiotics, so this sort of
natural selection will happen more often.
(ii) In this kind of instance, the information to resist the antibiotic was already there in the bacterial populationit did not
arise by itself, or in response to the antibiotic. That some germs were already resistant to man-made antibiotics before these
were invented is common knowledge to microbiologists. Soil samples from villages where modern antibiotics had never
been used show that some of the germs are already resistant to drugs like methicillin which have never existed in nature.
Bacteria revived from the frozen intestines of explorers who died in polar expeditions carried resistance to several modern
antibiotics, which had not been invented when the explorers died.2
2. Some germs directly transfer their resistance to others.
In an amazing process, the closest thing to sex in bacteria, one germ inserts a tiny tube into another, and a little loop of DNA
called a plasmid transfers from one to another. This sort of gene transfer, which can obviously pass on information for
resistance to a drug, can even happen between different species of bacteria.Notice, again, that the information for the
resistance must already exist in nature before it can be passed on. There is no evidence of anything totally new arising
which was not there before. This is information transfer, not information creation.So far, we have dealt with situations in
which resistance was obviously already there. Evolutionists would claim, of course, that such resistance evolved originally in
the (unobservable) past. However, if observed changes in the present do not show us new information, what support is there
for the idea that such information arose in the past? The mechanism that is put forward for this past evolution is invariably
mutationa copying mistake, an accidental change in the DNA code passed on to the offspring. So that brings us to the
final way in which bacteria can become resistant.
3. Some germs become resistant through mutation.
Interestingly, where this happens, there is no clearcut evidence of information arising. All such mutations appear to be
losses of information, degenerative changes. For example, loss of a control gene may enhance resistance to
penicillin.3Some antibiotics need to be taken into the bacterium to do their work. There are sophisticated chemical pumps in
bacteria which can actively pump nutrients from the outside through the cell wall into the germs interior. Those germs which
do this efficiently, when in the presence of one of these antibiotics, will therefore efficiently pump into themselves their own
executioner.However, what if one of these bacteria inherits a defective gene, by way of a DNA copying mistake (mutation)
which will interfere with the efficiency of this chemical pumping mechanism? Although this bacterium will not be as good at
surviving in normal circumstances, this defect actually gives it a survival advantage in the presence of the man-made
poison.4 Once again, we see that information has been lost/corrupted, not gained.
Superwimps
It is precisely because the mutations which give rise to resistance are in some form or another defects, that so-called
supergerms are not really super at allthey are actually rather wimpy compared to their close cousins. When I was finally
discharged from hospital, I still had a strain of supergerm colonizing my body. Nothing had been able to get rid of it, after
months in hospital. However, I was told that all I had to do on going home was to get outdoors a lot, occasionally even roll in
the dirt, and wait. In less than two weeks of this advice, the supergerms were gone. Why? The reason is that supergerms
are actually defective in other ways, as explained. Therefore, when they are forced to compete with the ordinary bacteria
which normally thrive on our skin, they do not have a chance. They thrive in hospital because all the antibiotics and
antiseptics being used there keep wiping out the ordinary bacteria which would normally outcompete, wipe out and
otherwise keep in check these superwimps. 5If they are weaker, then why do they cause so much death and misery in
hospitals? These bacteria are not more aggressive than their colleagues, it is only that doctors have less power to stop
them. Also, those environments which will tend to select such resistant germs, like intensive care units, are precisely the
places where there will be critically injured people, physically weakened and often with open wounds.This is why more than
one microbiologist concerned about these super-infections has mused (only partly tongue in cheek) that the best thing to
happen in major hospitals might be to dump truckloads of germ-laden dirt into the corridors, rather than keep on applying
more and more chemicals in a never-ending arms race against the bacteria. In other words, stop using the antibiotics
(which of course is hardly feasible), and all this evolution will reverse itself, as the bacterial populations shift back again to
favour the more hardy, less resistant varieties.
Summary and Conclusion
1. Supergerms are actually not super at all. They are generally less hardy, and less fit to survive outside of the special
conditions in hospitals.

2. There are many instances in which germs become resistant by simple selection of resistance which already existed
(including that imported from other bacteria).
3. Where a mutational defect causes resistance, the survival advantage is almost always caused by a loss of information. In
no case is there any evidence of an information-adding, uphill change.
4. Supergerms give no evidence to sustain the claim that living things evolved from simple to complex, by adding
information progressively over millions of years.
Postscript
Death, suffering and disease (including infection) are part of the curse which came upon a once-perfect world through the
rebellion of our original ancestor, Adam, against his Maker.Bacteria actually provide evidence against evolution. Bacterial
populations multiply at incredibly high rates. In only a matter of a few years, bacteria can go through a massive number of
generations, equivalent to millions of years in human terms. Therefore, since we see mutation and natural selection in
bacterial populations happening all the time, we should see tremendous amounts of real evolution happening. However, the
bacteria we have with us today are essentially the same as those described by Robert Koch a century ago. In fact, there are
bacteria found fossilised in rock layers, claimed by evolutionists to be millions of years old, which as far as one can tell are
the same as bacteria living today.The famous French biologist Pirre Grass, who held the chair of evolution at the
Sorbonne for many years, admitted that mutations in bacteria simply showed shifts back and forth around a mean, but no
net effect. Overall, he said, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.6
Patterns of change over time: organophosphorus resistance in the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina
by Jean K. Lightner
A deeper understanding of patterns of change in creatures over time is necessary to advance the creationary view of
biology. While much research has been done at a molecular level with bacteria, there is a need to evaluate changes in
sexually reproducing organisms. The development of insecticide resistance in insect populations has been studied in
considerable detail. A literature review focusing on insecticide resistance inLucilia cuprina, the Australian sheep blowfly, was
conducted. While the development of resistance to malathion can be easily explained by natural selection, resistance to
diazinon is not so easily explained. It is suggested here that diazinon resistance and multiple resistance from gene
duplication may be the result of designed mechanisms that allow for adaptation in created life. It is pointed out that
evolutionists are increasingly discussing genetic and metabolic systems within the context of computer programming. A
deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms involved in genetic changes may explain the considerable variation
within created kinds (baramins) and the ability of these creatures to adapt to changing environments. In other words, we can
gain a deeper understanding about the world.
Figure 1. Lucilia cuprina, the Australian sheep blowfly, is an introduced pest
that costs the Australian wool industry over $160 million a year. Eggs laid on
living sheep hatch and the maggots eat through the animals flesh in what is
called flystrike.
To further develop a creationist view of biology, it is necessary to more fully
understand patterns of change within creatures and the likely role of these
types of changes during history. Unfortunately, since evolution is sometimes
defined as change through time, creationary apologists have sometimes
responded with vague arguments that creatures dont really change much. It is
not so much the amount (very small genetic changes can result in large
phenotypic changes) as the pattern of the changes that is important. The
evolutionary model predicts an overall upward trend from chance processes to
account for the origin and subsequent major restructuring of well integrated
morphology and biochemical pathways. This trend should be obvious since
this model claims to be able to account for the diversity of extant kingdoms and
phyla. The young age model may include providential changes or degenerative changes (since the world was cursed as a
result of mankinds rebellion2 ), but not the overall creative changes by purely random processes that characterize the
evolutionary model.Considerable research has been done describing changes in different life forms. Much research has
been done at the molecular level in bacteria since they are so convenient to study in the laboratory. It is interesting that
researchers in this field who are not part of the creation or intelligent design movements have pointed out that many
changes in the genetic code appear as a result of far more complex mechanisms than just random, chance processes. 3 For
example, when bacteria are starved, directed mutations may occur to alleviate the stress. It is unclear if similar directed
mutations occur in sexually reproducing life forms. 4 One issue is that there must be a mechanism for introducing these
mutations into the germline.
Insects as models for studying adaptive genetic change in sexually reproducing organisms
Insects cause tremendous damage to crops and livestock. Numerous insecticides have been developed to control or
eliminate these pests. Much to the dismay of those involved in agriculture, insect populations regularly develop resistance to
insecticides. Due to its economic impact on agriculture, this resistance has been fairly well studied and provides a logical
place to look for patterns of change in sexually reproducing animals. Emphasis will be placed here on a specific pest, Lucilia
cuprina, the Australian sheep blowfly (figure 1).There are several popular organophosphorus insecticides (OPs) used to
control ectoparasites in sheep. These poisons target acetylcholinesterase, a product of the Ace gene. Normally this enzyme
breaks down acetylcholine after it has been used to transmit nerve impulses (figure 2). The OPs inactivate
acetylcholinesterase so it cannot break down acetylcholine. This results in a build up of acetylcholine at the nerve synapse
and a hyperexcited central nervous system which kills the insect. While some insects (e.g. Drosophila
melanogaster5and Musca domestica6 ) have developed OP resistance through mutations in the Ace gene, L. cuprina has
not, despite the fact that it has a highly homologous gene in which All major structural and functional features of the protein
are conserved.7 Further study indicates that the product of the Ace gene in L. cuprina does not interact as readily with OPs
as does the product of another gene (E7). The reverse situation occurs in Drosophila.
Malathion resistance and natural selection
Malathion is an OP often used to control lice in sheep. L. cuprina has developed resistance to this pesticide through a point
mutation in theLcE7 gene which results in a Trp251Leu substitution. The LcE7 (sometimes known as Rop-1 or Rmal)
gene normally produces a carboxylesterase, E3. The mutation decreases the carboxylesterase activity while improving the
enzymes ability to break down dimethyl OPs, particularly malathion.8 In an attempt to determine if this variant was present
prior to selection by OP use, pinned specimens were sampled. It was found that this particular mutation was fairly

widespread prior to the introduction of OPs.9 Thus, the development of resistant L. cuprinapopulations appears to be a
classic case of natural selection. It is not that the data precludes the possibility of directed mutations playing a role, but such
an explanation appears unnecessary.
Diazinon resistance
Diazinon is an OP that is used to directly control the sheep blowfly. Resistance to this OP is associated with a separate point
mutation in theLcE7 gene that results in a Gly137Asp substitution. In this case the carboxylesterase activity is abolished
and a new OP hydrolase activity is conferred on the enzyme, making it more effective against diethyl OPs such as
diazinon.10 Initially this was associated with significant asymmetry and fitness costs in the absence of the insecticide.
Eventually, a mutation appeared in a modifier gene which ameliorated these deleterious effects. 11 Since diazinon is used
widely in sheep producing countries such as Australia, this mutation is present in the majority ofL. cuprina sampled in these
areas. However, this polymorphism has not been detected in any of the pinned specimens collected prior to OP use. 9The
development of diazinon resistance has been cited as evidence for evolution. 12 Clearly this research has advanced our
understanding of the molecular mechanisms of adaptation, but it sheds no light on the origin of molecular systems. Genetic
changes which result in a shift of an enzymes substrate hardly explain the origin of the gene for the enzyme. 13There are still
many unanswered questions. For example, it could be argued that diazinon resistance was present in the population prior to
the use of this OP, but was not detected due to low frequency in the population and the small sample size of pinned
specimens. However, if this is true, it seems odd that natural selection would not have effectively eliminated it given the
significant fitness costs associated with the loss of carboxylesterase activity. Conversely, it could also be argued that both
the appearance of the resistant mutation and of the subsequent modifier mutation were the result of directed mutations
resulting from the selection pressure. Interestingly, the same mutation conferring diazinon resistance has been found in a
sister species, L. sericata,9 and in the housefly M. domestica.14 This has been interpreted as suggesting convergent
evolution around a finite set of resistance options. 9 Evolutionists have yet to provide credible explanation of how molecular
systems that putatively originated by random, chance processes come equipped with options that allow for adaptation. It
appears that evolutionists generally accept that this mutation arose independently in separate species. The fortuitous timing
of the appearance of this mutation that corresponds with OP use suggests something more than just random processes at
work to allow for such dramatic adaptation.
Gene duplications
No variants have been found where both mutations occur together within the same gene. Moreover, it is predicted that if
both mutations existed within a single gene, it would not confer effective resistance against both these OPs. This is because
effective malathion resistance appears to require the presence of some carboxylesterase activity, and the mutation which
confers diazinon resistance abolishes this.15However some isogenic strains of L. cuprina are resistant to these two OPs as a
result of gene duplication. Intriguingly, three different gene duplications were identified and each involved a resistant form of
the gene. No gene duplications were identified with any of the various susceptible alleles.8 This suggests that gene
duplication may be a designed adaptive mechanism, rather than just an accidental occurrence as the standard evolutionary
paradigm predicts.Recently, there have been articles in the scientific literature that seem to confirm this idea. For example,
in humans differences in the copy number of genes are a significant source of variation. 16 Researchers examining gene
duplications in fungal genomes concluded, that gene duplication and loss is highly constrained by the functional
properties and interacting partners of genes. In particular, stress-related genes exhibit many duplications and losses,
whereas growth-related genes show selection against such changes. By characterizing the functional fate of duplicate
genes we show that duplicated genes rarely diverge with respect to biochemical function, but typically diverge with respect
to regulatory control. Surprisingly, paralogous modules of genes rarely arise, even after whole-genome duplication. Rather,
gene duplication may drive the modularization of functional networks through specialization, thereby disentangling cellular
systems.17
Laboratory development of resistance
Figure 2. Acetylcholine is used to transmit nerve impulses.
Acetylcholinesterase normally breaks down acetylcholine so the
signal doesnt last indefinitely. Organophosphates bind
acetylcholinesterase so it is unavailable resulting in a
hyperexcited nervous system and, if the dose is high enough,
death.
At least one study has been done attempting to develop strains
resistant to diazinon in the laboratory. Some of the blowfly males
were mutagenized using ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS). When
both susceptible and mutagenized strains were selected with a
diazinon concentration that kills 100% of susceptible flies
(0.0004% w/v), the LC100, no susceptible flies survived. Some of
the mutagenized flies survived and appeared indistinguishable
from natural populations carrying the LcE7 resistant allele. In
contrast, when susceptible and mutagenized strains were
selected on low doses of diazinon (0.0001% w/v), there was no
significant difference in the responses between strains. The
insect populations developed a low level, polygenic resistance.
The specific genes involved varied with each trial. However, none
of these insects survived a challenge of diazinon at the
LC100 concentration which discriminates between susceptible flies
and heterozygotes for the LcE7 resistant allele.18
It is intriguing that mutagenesis resulted in LcE7 resistant phenotypes with selection above the LC100 , but not in selection
significantly below this concentration. Perhaps some resistant insects were generated in both cases, but the selection with
low levels of diazinon did not favour them significantly enough for that genotype to remain in the population. Alternatively,
perhaps EMS did not directly generate the resistant allele, but instead affected the genetic stability which resulted in the
resistant phenotype when significant pressure was applied.A study attempting to induce particular mutations in bacteria
found that low exposure times to radiation that killed roughly half the population failed to produce the desired mutants. As
the exposure time increased killing 93% of the population, some mutants were found. Further increasing the time until there
was a 9699% mortality left only the desired mutants. 19 In both the bacteria and diazinon resistance in blowflies, the
mutations are costly in terms of loss of normal function. Thus from a creationary viewpoint, it is not surprising that these
changes are generally resisted. The example in bacteria suggests that selecting diazinon mutants might be most effective

just below the LC100. It would be interesting to see if the mutation can be induced in susceptible flies under these
circumstances without the aid of EMS. In any case, there are many questions waiting to be answered to gain a deeper
understanding of how, when and why these changes occur.
Evolving ideas of evolutionists
The neo-Darwinian view of random mutations driving variability is increasingly seen by evolutionists as inadequate to
account for observational data. Recent theories have been advanced including natural genetic engineering 3 and facilitated
variation.20 Both these views encourage an understanding of genetic and metabolic systems within organisms in terms of
computer programming. The properties of modularity, reusability and robustness presented in the theory of facilitated
variation correlate with well thought out, good design patterns in computer engineering.21 These and several other properties
are combined in a way which allows for genetic variation and adaptation.These special properties reduce the number of
genetic changes needed for phenotypic change, increase the number of targets for regulatory change, reduce lethality, and
increase genetic variation retained in the population. Although the core processes are constrained in their own change of
function, they deconstrain regulatory change.22The authors assume a naturalistic explanation for the origin of these
properties; they never attempt to explain their origin. Nevertheless, many of these concepts may prove useful for creationists
to explain the remarkable variation that occurs within created kinds (baramins) and the ability of creatures to adapt to
changing environments.
Conclusions
Although the study of the development of insecticide resistance is often considered a topic in evolutionary biology, this type
of research is essential for understanding the types of changes which occur in living things. The information derived from
observations in this area are critical to further development of our understanding of the world.
It is fascinating that evolutionists are increasingly describing living things in terms of programming. The notion that genetic
changes are always from chance processes should be rejected by creationists. Instead, evaluation of conditions surrounding
the appearance of particular changes can help elucidate what underlying mechanisms may be involved. Scientific research
continues to reveal the amazing complexity and design of creatures as well as their astounding ability to overcome immense
environmental challenges; facts inconsistent with nave naturalistic explanations of the origin of life. This area holds great
promise as a fertile field for creationary researchers.
Creationist article saved my favourite cow
A Dr T.W. (his doctorate is not to do with medical or veterinary sciences) wrote
saying :
I was travelling in New Zealand and met a man (he was a farmer)who said that an
article by CMIs Carl Wieland about superbugs [ Supergerms not super after allEd]
saved his favourite cow.
This cow apparently had mastitis and the vet had tried a whole range of antibiotics
and nothing worked. [Mastitis is an inflammation of the mammary gland or udder, the
part designed to suckle its calf. The bacteria normally enter through the teat opening
Ed]
They tested to find a suitable antibiotic but could find nothing, he said. So the vet
suggested they put the cow down.
The farmer had just read Carls article which explained how superbugs (those which
are resistant to many antibiotics) said that the superbugs were less able to compete
with normal bacteria and he wondered where he could get normal bacteria.
He got some dirty water from the ground with cow manure in it and he injected some
of the liquid (filtered, I assume) into the cows udder. The vet was furious. But the
mastitis cleared up and the cow survived. A few days later the cow got mastitis again
but this time the normal antibiotics fixed it.
The cow is still alive and well after several years. He told me that he was always
intending to tell Carl about it if he had the chance. I thought you would like to know.
The author of the article, Carl Wieland (who used to practice as a medical doctor)
replies, along with a very important caution towards the end:
Dear Dr T.W.
Thank you for letting me know of that. Its encouraging, of course, and given the way many evolutionists claim that their
belief system, not creationism, gives rise to practical results, I can see how one might want to use it as an example of
creationist principles at work in a practical setting.
Is evolution really necessary for biology?
The challenges one hears from many evolutionists about such matters are in any case mostly wrongheaded. See for
example this feedback I wrote in 2002, or this section in the response to recent National Academy of Sciences evolutionary
agitprop. Most medical and scientific advances, even in biology, have had little to do with evolution (see this feedback).
We have also noted that evolutionary theory has held back science, e.g.:
The notion of useless vestigial organs has hindered discoveries of their important functions.
This applies to the notion of junk DNA, a notion which one geneticist called the biggest mistake in the history of molecular
biology; science belately discovered functions for at least 93% of our DNA. Conversely, creationists have predicted functions
for this junk for a long time, e.g. writing in 1994:
Creationists have long suspected that this junk DNA will turn out to have a function. In fact, junk DNA research is now a
hot topic; not only are more functions being detected, but it is suspected that junk DNA is full of yet-to-be-discovered
intellectual riches.1
The faulty naturalism-motivated big bang theory is held with such dogmatism that even secular cosmologists charge that
fudge factors are required to prop it up. These include dark matter, dark energy and inflation. Conversely, the CMI speaker
and physics professor Dr John Hartnett has proposed an alternative cosmology using Moshe Carmelis physical model.
This explains many vexing problems in astrophysics without needing to fudge with dark matter or dark energy.
The big bang is likewise unable to explain the Pioneer anomaly, yet CMI physicist Dr Russell Humphreys cosmological
model does so.
The faulty dynamo theory of planetary magnetism, proposed to preserve the magnetic field for billions of years, led to
hopeless predictions for the fields of Mercury, Uranus and Neptune. Conversely, Russell Humphreys proposed a creationist
model that predicted the fields correctly, and which has been strongly supported by recent Messenger satellite
measurements of Mercurys field.

What happened with the cows superbugs?

In this case of the cow, if one were to assume that the farmers treatment actually caused the cure (and Ill return to that
question shortly), one could rightly say that it would not have been thought of without first demolishing the standard belief
that superbugs really are super (stronger, better), a belief which best fits the evolutionary notion.But the real facts about
superbugs can still be held to by evolutionist true believers, i.e. fitted into their framework. Indeed, evolutionists didpromote
a similar therapy to cure antiviral resistant HIV, which evolutionists crowed about, but of course it was also consistent with
the creation model, as my colleague Dr Sarfati wrote:
HIV resistance to drugs
This episode claims that Darwin didnt really see evolution in action, but now we do. Supposedly the HIV, the cause of AIDS,
evolves resistance to drugs faster than we can make them. Because the virus can produce billions of copies per day, it can
evolve in minutes to hours. One researcher said that this rapid change would be a surprise if we didnt have the concept of
evolution. There were also attempts to tug heartstrings, by portraying AIDS patients as victims of evolution.The major error
in much evolutionary propaganda is equating natural selection with evolution. In reality, natural selection was discovered by
creationists before Darwin, is an important part of the young age model, and is a culling rather than a creative force.First, we
see the equivocationHIV producing HIV is supposed to show that particles could turn into people; but theyre still HIV
they havent changed into something else. Second, in Episode 4, its made clear that the related phenomenon of antibiotic
resistance in bacteria took the medical community by surprisethis means that it wasnt a prediction of evolution, except
after the fact. Third, they fail to demonstrate that new information is involved, and the next segment shows that the opposite
is true:Veronica Miller of Goethe University in Germany experimented by ceasing all antiviral drug treatments to a patient.
Then the few surviving original (wild) types easily out-competed the vast numbers of resistant forms. She said this was a
risk, because the wild types were also more dangerous, more efficient. The superior efficiency and reproductive success of
the wild type implies that the others have acquired resistance due to a loss of information somewhere. This should not be
surprising, because the same is true of many examples of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. E.g. the bacterium has an
enzyme that usually has a useful purpose, but it also turns an antibiotic into a poison. So a mutation disabling this enzyme
would render the antibiotic harmless. But this bacterium is still disabled, because the useful process the enzyme usually
enables is now hindered, so it would be unable to compete in the wild with non-resistant ones. The information loss in both
HIV and the bacterium is the opposite of what evolution requires. CMI has already explained antibiotic resistance
in Superbugs: Not super after all, and answers the question Has AIDS evolved?This shows that such experiments neither
prove creation nor disprove evolution as such. The major error in much evolutionary propaganda is equating natural
selection with evolution. In reality, natural selection was discovered by creationists before Darwin, is an important part of
theyoung age model, and is a culling rather than a creative force.An interesting question, though, is whether the farmers
initiative (certainly worth a try for him, seeing as he was told the cow was otherwise doomed) was actually what led to the
cure. In the clinical sciences, isolated reports of cures (as opposed to larger-scale controlled trials) are of very limited value,
especially when they are anecdotal. Im sure that all of us have heard of sensational cures, where someone you know took
wonder pill X or magic herb Y and, lo and behold, whatever it was all went away. There is a well known fallacy in formal logic
called thepost hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (Latin for after this, therefore because of this). Sometimes shortened to be
called simply the post hoc fallacy, its easy to understand. Someone may have been eating a carrot two minutes before
having a heart attack, but it doesnt follow that therefore eating carrots causes heart attacks. See more in the article Logic
and Creation.
Would the recovery have happened anyway?
The short answer is that there is no way of knowing. Cows as well as humans have amazingly designed mechanisms for
repair and recovery. Spontaneous cures do occur, even in situations where ones normal clinical judgment, based on what
usually happens and should happen, says otherwise. In my own former medical life, for instance, had I accepted the same
cause and effect reasoning, I would have had to share the beliefs of the patients in question that:Epsom salts cured severe
arthritis in someone whose joints were so deformed and inflamed they could not even
walk.A pencillin injection cured a viral illness (penicillin targets bacteria, not
viruses).Rubbing a mixture of kerosene and violets picked at midnight onto the chest
reversed advanced secondary lung cancer.And several more.One should also not
overlook the possibility that the simple act of injecting the udder might have
contributed to the cows natural defences being able to overcome this, perhaps by
relieving pressure or allowing builtup infection to drain in some way.
Warningdont try this at home!
Most importantly of all, I would give a major caution, before anyone decides to ignore
antibiotics and inject themselves with dirty water! When my article on superbugs
referred to rolling in the dirt as a way of more rapidly overcoming the superbugs on
my skin, this was notin the context of treatment for an established infection. As the
article indicated, these bugs were passively colonizing my skin, so the roll in the dirt
advice I received from a specialist was to ensure that the population on the skin
shifted progressively in favour of the more home-brand-normal-variety germs. But
that is not the same as having a raging infection, and then injecting one type of germ
to somehow fight another. To inject such homeboy germs in any situation would be
inviting potential disaster. As I said before in this feedback to someone,a raging
infection with a superbug is regarded as more serious than one of the same species
that is not multiply resistant only because of the fact that the usual antibiotics dont
work. The ordinary Staph. aureus that are not multiply resistant are very capable of
causing very serious infection, its only that antibiotics are effective against such
infections. In fact, as pointed out, the nonresistant ones are if anything more capable
of causing such infection; they are more virulent, if anything, i.e. stronger than the socalled supergerms.And of course, there are many different types of bacteria. To inject oneself with something derived from
garden dirt is particularly serious, because this often contains the spores of the germs that cause tetanus and gas
gangrene. These types of bugs love to multiply in an environment with little oxygen. That is why a seemingly insignificant
puncture wound by a contaminated nail or thorn is far more likely to have a fatal outcome with one of these diseases than if
the injury were a slash with a razor, for instance, with profuse bleeding; the oxygen in the blood saturating the area would be
unfavourable to these particular bugs. Whereas a puncture wound with no bleeding means that the very small blood vessels
feeding an area of tissue will have been crushed, rather than cut. Even a tiny amount of dead tissue with no blood supply
carrying oxygen to the area will be a fertile breeding ground for these sorts of deadly germs, especially if the individual is
unvaccinated.In short, while it is possible that the treatment attempted on this cow was the cause of its recovery, it is by no

means certain. (The fact that the recurrent infection a few days later seems to have been by antibiotic-sensitive bacteria,
seemingly a different type to the original infection gives a little bit of support to the hypothesis, but does not prove it.)As
much as one would love to use this interesting incident to answer the common objection that evolution, not creation, leads to
scientific advances, I would resist it. Especially since it is quite unnecessary. As Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the
Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, said:In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has
proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not
taken evolution into account at all.2
Has AIDS evolved?
by Carl Wieland
They can conquer smallpox, so why not AIDS?
Indeed, why not the common cold? Smallpox was (hopefully) overcome by vaccines. These are specific substances which
are used to trigger the bodys soldier factories into making lots of soldiers (antibodies) which are designed to kill only a
specific, particular type of virus before it can do much damage. (Smallpox, AIDS and the common cold are caused by
various types of virusesAIDS is caused by a virus called HIV, Human Immunodeficiency Virus.)The reason why vaccines
have not succeeded in eliminating influenza, for example, is because the viruses change. Soldiers trained to attack only
enemies in grey uniforms will be useless if the enemy changes into blue uniforms. Effective vaccines against particular
strains of flu virus constantly need to be updated for this reason.The same potential problem plagues the development of an
effective vaccine against HIV. As the virus multiplies, the copies which are made of it often have copying mistakes
(mutations) which can change those parts of the virus that your bodys defences are geared to recognize. Only a very small
change may be enougha change which otherwise is completely irrelevant to the structure or function of the virus. So a
new strain emerges, and although you were able to fight off the first one, now you cant.
World Health Problem
It is thought that HIV may have arisen as a problem for humans by just such changes. From a fairly harmless virus infecting
the green monkey population in Africa, it has now become a major world health problem for humans. 1Well then, do viruses
evolve? Has HIV evolved? If you define evolution simply as genetic change, the answer would seem to be yes. But does
this give us evidence for the evolution of all living things on earth from humble beginnings (e.g. an amoeba) to man and
other organisms living today, which are therefore all related by common descent? After all, this is what people mean by the
word evolution.This issue is important when considering all types of observed changes in living things, including speciation
in fruit flies, for example.Are the observed changes, on analysis, heading in the right direction? That is, are they the type of
changes which, given enough time, would be capable of producing a massively complex organism like a horse from a onecelled creature? If they are not, it is misleading to call such changes evolution. Should we call them micro-evolution? This
may be technically correct, and a proper term for creation scientists to use. However, at the risk of semantic hair-splitting, I
suggest that what most people understand by the word micro-evolution is a little bit of that which would, given enough
time, cause real macro-evolution.
Horizontal Hopping
A small example may help here. Lets say that you are on the first floor of a building and you find there is a baby kangaroo
on the same floor. You and a friend are arguing as to whether he could have come up via the stairs. To obtain evidence to
make this explanation plausible, it would certainly help if you could demonstrate the animals ability to hop from one step to
the next higher one. But to observe its ability to hop horizontally across the room tells you nothing at all about the question
being contemplated. Evolution to most people means hopping up the stairs. So if hopping across the room and down the
stairs is labelled micro or mini evolution or whatever, it risks being misleading.Observed changes in viruses, even if these
involve the conversion of a harmless virus into, say, the deadly AIDS virus, cannot, in terms of the above discussion, be
called evolution, as we will see.To understand why, we first need to look into what a virus really is. We may regard a living
cell (for example, a cell in your skin or liver or other tissue, or a bacterial cell) as a very, very complex chemical factory. This
factory is capable of many functions, including that of reproducing itself. Directing all this machinery is a blueprint, which is
the coded information contained in the molecule, DNA. A virus is very differentit consists of a small amount of this
blueprint material (DNA or RNA). Note that it has no factory of its ownit cannot move itself, it has no power source, and it
has no machinery with which to duplicate itself.By means of simple chemical programming, its able to latch on to a cell wall.
The material it contains is automatically released into the cell, and the information on the blueprint takes over and starts to
direct the cells factory, which starts to manufacture many copies of the virus.
Package with a Code
The cell eventually swells and bursts, releasing lots of new viruses to start the process all over again. 2 So we see that a
virus is nothing much more than a package containing a code, which takes over from the cells code so that the cell then
makes more code-containing packages. The cell is destroyed in the process.Many semantic arguments have raged over
whether a virus can be called a living thing or not. This is one reason why many people feel it is sort of half and half
therefore a good candidate for a kind of transitional stage between life and non-life.Whether you call it living or not is a
matter of definition, but I hope to demonstrate that however you define life, the virus can in no way be used as an
evolutionary intermediate. The reason is simpleit needs to have all the complex machinery of a living cellular organism
available to it! Without a fully functioning, living cell, the virus cannot reproduce (or should we say, arrange its own
reproduction).So, regardless of your ideas about either evolution or creation, a virus will not be able to exist before a cellular
creature is on the scene. Viruses do not really fit anywhere on the evolutionary tree of life. They cannot represent early
forms of life because they can only multiply within living cells. This chicken and egg problem is often overlooked. They
obviously could not, therefore, have been the ancestors of one-celled creatures, and it is difficult to see how they can be
their evolutionary descendants.
Little Value
So we see, then, that any changes which might occur in viruses have very little, if any, apologetic value for evolutionists
trying to show us how a fish supposedly changed into an amphibian, for instance.Wouldnt a change in a disease-causing
agent, converting it from a minor nuisance to a serious health threat, be a major evolutionary step? Surely, say some, this
could not be labelled horizontal change or change within the kind? Once again, though, we will see that this has little
relevance to evolutionary apologetics.To assess the significance of any genetic change (real or proposed) as an argument
for the idea of vertical evolution (that is, change to a higher overall level of complexity) we must look at
the informational change required. Thus, for evolution to have converted a reptile into a bird, we can tell by looking at the
gross morphological and physiological differences that the amount of new highly ordered genetic information required would
be incredibly large.The same would be true of every significant step along the wayit requires the addition of new,
teleonomic (project-oriented) genetic information. Such information would reflect the required increase in functional
complexity. When we discuss disease-causing agents, we need to remember a few things about the ability of such an agent

(not just viruses) to infect. These include its ability to withstand host defencesfor example, immunologic mechanisms,
antibiotics and antisepsis. Thus, the informational change required may be very small, horizontal if you like, even though it
has a major impact on us as sufferers of disease.
Life and Death
For example, the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus may exist as penicillin-sensitive and penicillin-resistant strains. From all
other standpoints, they are identicalsuch as their morphology. They are even classified as the same species. But to a
human being suffering from a Staphinfection who has access only to penicillin, the difference may be one of life or
death.Someone may say at this pointisnt there a vast informational difference between the two? After all, the resistant
strain has the genetic information necessary to produce penicillinase, which is a complex chemical.However, the sensitive
strain may have this same information, only that it has not been switched on, or else the resistant strain has gained its
information in toto by a special transfer process from an already resistant one. Here also, the complex information has not
evolved, but was already there.Incidentally, the reason why it is much easier to have an antibiotic against a bacterium than
against a virus is because it is possible to find or design a chemical which throws a spanner in the machinery of a
bacterium without doing the same for the machinery of the human cells it infects. Because, as we have seen, a virus uses
the humans machinery, it is extremely hard to do anything to destroy viruses without at the same time destroying the cells of
the human host.
Alteration To Coat
Returning to our main point about viruses, a virus may need only a slight variation in its protein coat to alter the way it is
recognized by the bodys defence mechanisms. Consider a population immunized against an otherwise deadly virus, which
we will call V1. Now suppose that a mutation manages to cause a slight transformation in the protein coat of one of these
viruses by interfering with the sequence of letters in the alphabet of the genetic code. Lets call the new virus strain V2. In
all other respects, these two are identical. Nothing new in the way of complexity has been added, but this minor structural
change causes the bodys immune defence mechanism not to recognize it as V1. Before a new vaccine has been
developed and put into use, it wipes out millions of people. Emotionally, people would assess this as a change of major
proportions.Therefore we see that in micro-infective agents, minor genetic shifts can easily have catastrophic consequences
out of proportion to the actual change in informational content. When compared to the usual, supposed evolutionary
transformations in higher creatures we can easily see that there is no comparison left at all, in spite of the obvious
favourable selection which occurs.
To Summarize
Viruses can have no evolutionary relationship to any other form, and so whatever may have happened to say, the AIDS
virus, has no relevance to the supposed history of truly living organisms in any case.An apparently major effect is probably
caused by only a horizontal or even a negative change in informational content, and therefore does not relate to the sort of
evolution postulated generally. It certainly does not involve any increase in functional complexity.So to answer the question
posed by the title of this article, while viruses may change considerably, and while the AIDS virus may have changed its
infectivity, it is certainly not the type of change, in quality or direction, which would or could cause that virus to become a
totally new, more complex type of living organism. In that sense, AIDS has not evolved.
Addendum
Long after this article was published, the PBS/SBS Evolution series used HIV/AIDS as proof of evolution. Yet the new data
has done nothing to make the principles in this article obsolete. Rather, in one case, HIV resistance to drugs was clearly
caused by a deleterious mutation, as shown by their inability to cope with the wild type when the drugs were removed;
and immunity to AIDS can be conferred by a mutation that causes loss of certain receptors on the immune cells preventing
the HIV from docking on them.
HOW DOES NATURAL SELECTION FIT INTO A CREATIONISTS PARADIGM
Natural selection evolution
by Marc Ambler

This is an important equation1 that all people should be aware of, namely Natural Selection does not equal ()
Evolution.2 People should know it so they do not get conned, and evolutionists should know it as a reminder that they still
have lots of work to do to be able to claim that they have a mechanism for evolution.How often we hear an example of
natural selection being used as proof of evolution. Changing sizes, colours, skin patterns and shapes are often paraded as
evolutions honour roll. This bait-and-switch tactic has been so often exposed for what it is, its a wonder that it is still used,
or that people are still taken in by it.
The very term should put people on their guard that something is missing. If we think of the word selection, in our common,
daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. Think of being asked to select cards from a pack. You could select
cards from a pack every second for the rest of your life and all you would only ever produce is different groups of the same
cards. You would not have created anything newonly re-arranged cards, or removed cards or added cards from another
pack.
If we think of the word selection, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing.

If an illusionist asks you to select a card from a pack, and surprises you with something new, you know it is an illusion, a
sleight of hand. We need to learn to see the evolutionists sleight of hand when they claim to have pulled something new
out of the pack. Selection is always from a pre-existing series or range; it creates nothing new.This illustration applies
equally to selection in the biological context. Those features that would interact with the environment: the overall size of a
plant, animal or person; the size of individual organs or limbs such as beaks and noses, leaf sizes, skin colours, hair and
feather lengths, textures and colours. All of these and many more variations were programmed into the DNA of the
creatures in order that as populations of the various kinds moved into new environments, expression of those variations
enabled individuals to survive those environments. Individuals with those variations then passed them on to their young.
When these variations and the habitat of the population expressing that variation are distinct enough, we might distinguish
different species. In all of this selection process, new information is never added. It can be conserved or lost, but never
gained.
The creationist chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (18101873) wrote about
natural selection about 25 years before Darwin misappropriated it to support his
theory of evolution. But whether variation is selected naturally by the
environment, or artificially by breeders for a particular trait, it remains just that,
selection from existing genetic information. Nothing new is created.
Evolution desperately needs Natural Invention, Natural Novelty and
Natural Creation.
Patent law calls for a product to have an inventive step in order for it to be
patented. Mere changes in design of an existing product cannot be patented.
Many legal battles over patent rights have been waged over this point.
Evolution requires the same thingan inventive step, a novel organ or body
part, facilitated by new information in the DNA that wasnt there before. Despite
the huge resources thrown at evolution in universities and research institutions,
natural selection has never been shown to bring about this type of inventive
step.Todays Darwinists point to mutations as the mechanism which provides
this novelty from which Natural Selection selects. Evolutionists should then
focus on mutations to defend their theory, instead of Natural Selection. When
pressed for examples of novel genetic information or body organs created by mutation, they typically point to instances such
as wingless beetles4 on islands, or the flightless cormorant on the Galapagos islands. 5 The problem with these examples is
obvious. While they may confer a benefit to the creatures in a specific, very unusual environment, nothing new is added to
the DNA or creatures body parts. They actually involve a loss or corruption of existing genetic information.6
Evolution desperately needs Natural Invention, Natural Novelty and Natural Creation. Natural Selection just does not
pass muster as exhibit A for evolution.. Natural Selection Evolution.
Darwins finches
Evidence supporting rapid post-Flood adaptation
by Carl Wieland
Thirteen species of finches live on the Galpagos, the famous
island group visited by Charles Darwin in the 1830s. The finches
have a variety of bill shapes and sizes, all suited to their varying
diets and lifestyles. The explanation given by Darwin was that
they are all the offspring of an original pair of finches, and that
natural selection is responsible for the differences.Surprisingly to
some, this is the explanation now held by most modern
creationists. It would not need to be an evolutionary change at
all, in the sense of giving any evidence for amoeba-to-man
transformation. No new genetic information would have been
introduced. If the parent population has sufficient created
variability (genetic potential) to account for these varied features
in its descendants, natural selection could take care of the
resulting adaptation, as a simplistic example will show.Say some
finches ended up on islands in which there was a shortage of
seeds, but many grubs were living under tree bark. In a
population with much variation, some will have longer, some shorter, beaks than average. Those birds carrying more of the
long-beak information could survive on those grubs, and thus would be more likely to pass the information on to their
descendants, while the others would die out. In this way, with selection acting on other characters as well, a woodpecker
finch could arise.The same thing is seen in artificial selection, with all the various modern breeds of dogs being
more specialized than the parent (mongrel) population, but carrying less informationand thus less potential for further
selection (you cant breed Great Danes from Chihuahuas). In all these sorts of changes, finches are still finches and dogs
are dogs. The limits to change are set by the amount of information originally present from which to select.Creationists have
long proposed such splitting under selection from the original kinds, explaining for example wolves, coyotes, dingoes and
other wild dogs . The question of time has, however, been seized upon by anti-creationists. They insist that it would take a
much longer time. Artificial selection is quick, they admit, but that is because breeders are deliberately acting on each
generation. The usual guesstimate of how long it took for Darwins finches to radiate from their parent population ranges
from one million to five million years.However, Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant recently released some results of an
intensive 18-year study of all the Galpagos finches during which natural selection was observed in action. 1 For example,
during drought years, as finches depleted the supply of small seeds, selection favoured those with larger, deeper beaks
capable of getting at the remaining large seeds and thus surviving, which shifted the population in that direction.While that is
not very surprising, nor profound, the speed at which these changes took places was most interesting. At that observed rate,
Grant estimates, it would take only 1,200 years to transform the medium ground finch into the cactus finch, for example. To
convert it into the more similar large ground finch would take only some 200 years.Notice that (although the article fails to
mention it) such speedy changes can have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation, but are based
upon the process described, that is, choosing from what is already there. It therefore fails to qualify as evidence for real,
uphill (macro) evolution though many starry-eyed students will doubtless be taught it as evolution in action.Instead, it is
real, observed evidence that such (downhill) adaptive formation of several species from the one created kind can easily take

place in a few centuries. It doesn't need millions of years. The argument is strengthened by the fact that, after the Flood,
selection pressure would have been much more intense with rapid migration into new, empty niches, residual
catastrophism and changing climate as the Earth was settling down and drying out, and simultaneous adaptive radiation of
differing food species.
DOES IT TAKE LONG PERIODS OF TIME FOR NATURAL SELECTION TO OCCURE
Brisk biters
Fast changes in mosquitoes astonish evolutionists, delight creationists.
by Carl Wieland
About 100 years ago, bird-biting mosquitoes called Culex pipiens entered the tunnels then being dug for the London
Underground (the Tube). Cut off from their normal diet, they changed their habits to feed on rats and, when available,
human beings. During WW2, they attacked Londoners seeking refuge from Hitlers bombs. Their plaguing of maintenance
workers may be the reason the underground variety has been dubbed molestus.British scientists have now found that it is
almost impossible to mate those in the Tube with the ones still living above ground, thus suggesting that they have become
a new species1 (or almost so). This has astonished evolutionary scientists, who thought that such changes must
take many times longer than this.2 Informed creationists have long pointed out that the yong age model of earth history
would not only allow for the possibility of one species splitting into several 3 (without the addition of new information, thus not
evolution as commonly understood), but would actually require that it must have happened much faster than evolutionists
would expect. The thousands of vertebrate species 4 emerged into a world with large numbers of empty ecological niches,
often as varied as the two worlds of our mosquito example here. They must have split many times into new species in the
first few centuries thereafter, as the bear population, for example, gave rise to polar bears, grizzlies, giant pandas and
more.5 The observations on these underground mosquitoes are thus exciting news.Actually, creationists have long
suspected that organisms had built-in genetic mechanisms for rapid variationeven beyond the normal processes of
adaptation where genes, reshuffled by sexual reproduction, are selected in various environments. 6 Thus, recent discoveries
of such mechanisms being still viable today are of very great interest.For example, there are genes which can jump around
the chromosome. These are normally kept in check, but Drs Jenny Graves and Rachel ONeill of La Trobe University in
Melbourne, Australia, have found that in hybrids, these can undergo rampant changes.This may even be the general
mechanism for speciation in all multi-cellular creatures (by making it impossible to back-breed with a parent population).
Graves says, We thought it took millions of years of long-term selection for a jumping gene to be activated. Weve now
shown that it can happen maybe in five minutes after fertilization.7 These are exciting times to be a creationist.We think that
expanding genetic research will likely reveal even more examples of built-in, pre-fab mechanisms for rapid change in
response to environmental pressures. Ironically, as more such created mechanisms (very far from normal Darwinian ideas)
are discovered, they will probably be misconstrued as support for evolution
Book review: The Beak of the Finch
Evolution in Real Time by Jonathan Weiner, Random House, 1994.
by Carl Wieland
Some years back, I was due to have a
creation/evolution
debate
with
a
university academic in South Australia.
Just before the event, I happened to be
part of the crowd standing next to my
opponent-to-be, a population biologist.
Unaware that his creationist opponent
was standing close by, he was busily
expounding his bewilderment about
having to defend what he knew to be
Figure 2. The Linnaean lawnthe kinds were the same as today's
true.He explained that he felt like an
species.
astronaut who had just returned from
observing the earth from space, only to
have to defend the planets sphericity in
public debate. After all, biologists like
himself routinely see evolution, so
what is there to debate?By seeing
evolution, he meant seeing examples
of inherited changes in populations
but this demonstrates evolution only if
Figure 3. The creationist orcharddiversity has occurred with time within
the old straw-man argument is
the original kinds.
accepted that any such heritable
change is fatal to the young age model.
Using the evolutionary tree metaphor,
demonstrating genetic change (even to the extent of speciation) is only fatal to the old idea of the Linnaean lawn, not the
creationist orchard, which has been a part of the modern scientific creation movement since its inception.1,2,3
There is a very heavy burden of proof on those propounding the doctrine that bacteria have self-transformed into palm trees
and fish, and the latter turned into tigers and nuclear scientists. For one thing, it demands a natural process capable of
generating vast amounts of new, bio-functionally significant, coded information. To watch natural selection sifting and sorting
through existing information, deleting chunks of it, begs the question of the origin of all that information.
Of course adaptation will occur in variable populations subjected to selection pressure. Plants with a mixture of genes
coding for deep roots and shallow roots, if growing in an area where the climate is becoming more arid, will show this
phenomenon. Those members of the population with naturally deeper roots will be more likely to survive to pass on their
deeper-rooted genes, so in time the population will adapt to its conditions by becoming deeper-rootedutilizing the store of
information already present in that population.However, this process will occur regardless of whether the genetic information
(variability) needed for it to take place arose in the first place by creation, or by some process of mutation/selection over
countless ages. So a demonstration of such changes can of itself have no real apologetic value for the evolutionist.The
anecdote at the beginning relates very much to the subject of this book review. I can identify (in reverse) with the
evolutionists sense of bewildermenthow is it that, so many years on in the modern creation/evolution debate, intelligent,

educated evolutionists have not grasped

this simple point? How can they keep
resurrecting the same straw-man (any
inherited change due to selection proves
that the young age model is wrong,
Darwin was rightparticles did become
people)?
Seeing evolution?
The Beak of the Finch: Evolution in Real
Time is consciously and deliberately a
hymn of praise to evolution, a drawn-out
celebration of what the author perceives
as a logical deathblow to creationists,
Figure 1. The evolutionary treeall todays species are descended from
who are represented (I should say
the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from non-living chemicals).
misrepresented)
smugly
and
patronisingly. Without detracting from
the authors brilliant and readable style, I
believe that this is the key reason why the book has received near-religious adulation by science journalists and other
reviewers.The message is that now, for the first time, those foolish, bigoted creationists have no leg left to stand on
Weiners book:tells the extraordinary story of two scientists, Peter and Rosemary Grant, whose ingenious, meticulous and
extended work in the Galpagos has culminated in the sight of evolution occurring before their eyesnot in fossils but in
living, breathing creatures, Darwins own famous finches.We are told this book permanently alters ones view of nature and
even of life and death.None of what follows is meant to detract from the dedicated fieldwork of the Grants, whose incredibly
detailed measurements of thousands of birds over a 20-year period on the small island of Daphne Major are a major
contribution to the study of population dynamics and ecology. Others have demonstrated natural selection occurring before
(although you might not think it from the hyperbole and fervour accompanying this book), but never with such precision and
clarity. I think that their observations of sexual selection are of great importance, also.
Evolution: more than selection
What a pity that neither the researchers nor Weiner appear to understand the logical fact that, while natural selection may
be an intrinsic part of a particular evolutionary model, demonstrating it does not of itself demonstrate the fact of evolution
if by that you mean a one-celled organism becoming todays complex biosphere. This fact was apparently grasped by the
renowned biologist L. Harrison Matthews F.R.S. writing in the foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwins The Origin of
Species. Discussing Kettlewells experimental observations on the famous peppered moths, Matthews pointed out that while
this beautifully demonstrated natural selection, or survival of the fittest, it did not show evolution in action.The book has
much of interest for creationist readers. It makes it clear, for instance, that despite the common myth, Darwin did not deduce
his theory under the eureka-like inspiration of seeing the finches on the Galpagos. In fact, as Gould has pointed
out,4 Darwin did not know at the time that they were finches. I was also interested to read again of Darwins experimental
finding (with its implications for post-Flood biogeography) that garden seeds still sprouted after 42 days soaking in seawater.
Weiner recounts how Darwin was able to apply selection to breed pigeons so different from each other that if found by
biologists in the wild, they would not only have been categorized as separate species, but even separate genera. This is of
course a marvellous demonstration of the amount of variability built into each created kind, allowing it to respond to
changing environmental pressures and thus conserve the kind. It also opens a window of understanding into how the
intense selection pressures after the Flood could have acted on gene pools of rich variability to allow rapid
speciation/adaptive radiation from the restricted number of land-dwelling kinds.
No new information
Not only are all the varieties of pigeons still pigeons, however, but if allowed to interbreed they will revert to the common
wild-type rock pigeon. There is no evidence that any truly novel, functional information arises de novo in such artificial
selectionnor, one finds after reading this book, is there any evidence for this from the Grants observations of natural
selection, either.Darwins finches exhibit an unusually high degree of variability. This, coupled with the fact that the Grants
and their co-workers were fortunate enough during their 20-year vigil to experience a severe drought and the very opposite,
means that it is no surprise that they were able to document some quite rapid changes under selection. When the drought
brought a shortage of easily available small seeds, is it any wonder that the birds with big beaks survived better because
they were the only ones to be able to crack big seeds, and so on?In fact, as a 1992 article in Creation magazine (actually
based on the Grants work on the Galpagos finches) emphasized, observations showing rapid selection/speciation are
helpful to the creation model, which has only a relatively short time in which post-Flood adaptive radiation/speciation must
have occurred (see Darwins Finches).5
Finches: no net change!
After all the hype about watching evolution, one reads with amazement that the selection events observed actually turned
out to have no net long-term effect. For example, for a while selection drove the finch populations towards larger birds, then
when the environment changed, it headed them in the opposite direction. The author says concerning this sort of effect (also
seen in sparrows) that Summed over years, the effects of natural selection were invisible (p. 108). So that when Darwin
looked at the fossil record and found it static and frozen for long stretches (p. 109), this was the reason. Consider, he says:
how much less visible these [natural selection] events will be in the strata of rock beneath our feet, in which the generations
have been summed for many millions of generations.Evolutionists have long argued the oppositethat evolution is invisible
in the short term, but would become visible if we had enough time. Yet according to Weiner, we can see evolution happening
in the (very) short term, but any longer and it becomes invisible! The mind boggles at how evolutionists can be blind to this
inconsistency.Weiner quotes a researcher as saying that:A species looks steady when you look at it over the yearsbut
when you actually get out the magnifying glass you see that its wobbling constantly.Obviously, since macroevolution is
supposed to be about long-term, directional change (even the creation/Flood model requires more directional change than
the Grants documented) such wobbling back and forth (fluctuation around a mean) over short time-spans, with no net
change over longer time periods, is hardly supportive of the case for evolution. Yet instead of acknowledging this, the
researcher goes on to say, So I guess thats evolution in action.Most creationists would agree that Darwins finches
probably came from an ancestral pair or two (which were themselves finches), so the idea that some of the descendant
species might hybridize, even to the extent of leading to a new species, is hardly threatening. The Grants not only observed
such hybridization between species of finches which did not interbreed as a rule, but that under certain conditions the
hybrids appeared to be fitter than either of the parent populations. I was surprised when the book hinted that here we were

approaching the answer to the mystery of the origin of species. Perhaps the obvious needs to be restated; the mingling of
two sets of pre-existing information can scarcely tell one anything about the ultimate origin of that information.
There is a particularly misleading sideswipe at creationists on page 216 in the section on DNA and genetics; we are told that
if species were created as functional entities, the genes in each species would not change. We are then told that the genes
in each generation are shuffled and cut like a mammoth deck of cardsergo, creation is wrong. Of course, the
reshuffling of pre-existent information by such recombination neither denies original creation of that information nor confirms
its naturalistic origins by Darwinian mechanisms. From a creation viewpoint, the deck-shuffling achieved in this way by
sexual recombination is an amazingly effective mechanism for maximizing variability (without any de novo information
having to arise post-creation). It enhances the ability of species to avoid or postpone extinction in changing environments,
and assists the rapid filling of empty ecological niches (adaptive radiation), such as after the Flood.
Mutations
The real key to the credibility or otherwise of macroevolutionism is not natural selection, but the question of the origin of the
information on which natural selection may act. In the current materialist paradigm, the only conceivable source of such
information is mutation (random mistakes as the information on DNA is copied). Yet information theory, common sense and
observation unite to indicate that randomness fails as a source of functional information. Thus it is no wonder that the
section on mutations/DNA is markedly fuzzyalmost skipped over in haste. A casual reader could gain the impression that
random mutations have been involved in the changes observed by the Grants, but close reading reveals that there is no
evidence for this at all. Nor is it likely in view of the rapidity of the changes, and the lack of net effect already discussed.
Thestorehouse of variation is already there, allowing the populations to shift this way and that, as required.What about the
observation on page 217 that three out of three hundred bases (letters) of the cytochrome c sequence are different in two
of the finch species? I think these differences are indeed the result of mutations. However, such mutations are unlikely to
have, historically, generated the raw material for the differences in the two finch species. They are almost certainly
functionally meaningless or neutral mutations, not expressed in the phenotype, and thus transparent to selection. Why?
Cytochrome c is a crucial enzyme for life; any copying errors of functional significance (that is, in those stretches of gene
critical to the function of the resultant enzyme) are likely to be lethal.The probable course of events which gave rise to the
current base-pair differences (which, because of the redundancy of the code may not have resulted in an amino-acid
substitution, or if so, this has been in a non-critical segment of the enzyme, not altering its function) is this: selection
operating on existing, functionally significant (created) genetic variation gave rise to the initial divergence of the populations.
Because of their reproductive isolation, the populations were free to independently accumulate such neutral mutations in
the cytochrome cgene at varying rates and loci.Towards the end of the book, the author seeks to cement his imagined
Darwinian triumph with other examples of evolution such as antibiotic and pesticide resistance. Farmers in US would
oppose evolution, yet at the same time are spending increasing amounts on spraying their crops as insects become more
resistant to pesticides, are treated with the bemused contempt deserved by such closed-minded fundamentalists. Yet his
attempts to provide further observations which deal death-blows to the creation have the same logical and scientific
weaknesses as the beak arguments. The reader is referred to a recent article in this journal on the subject. 6 Interestingly,
Weiner shows in some detail how a mutational change in one particular bacterium (p. 260) gives a survival advantagebut
the enhanced survival comes via a loss of information/function.
Conclusion
In summary, this book will reinforce the prejudices of the evolutionary faithful; it will delight the shallow-thinking evolutionist
who has not bothered to think through or become informed about the matters raised by creationist biologists such
as Lester and Bohlin, in their classic The Natural Limits to Biological Change.7 Careful reading of The Beak of the Finch:
Evolution in Real Time will reveal much to support the creation model, and nothing to dismay the discerning creationist
except frustration at the continuing, seeming wilful ignorance displayed towards creationist biological arguments.As a very
polished, readable account of a piece of classic fieldwork demonstrating natural selection in the wild, the book is noteworthy.
As an alleged empirical proof that Darwin was right about the origin of all things, it is easy to show that it fails completely. It
never once comes to grips with the crucial question of the origin of biological information. No doubt creationists confronted
by bright-eyed evolutionary disciples inspired by this tale of finches beaks and straw-men will end up feeling like astronauts
debating flat-earthers all over again.
Do toads goad snake evolution?
David Catchpoole
18 April 2006
When leading public institutions repeatedly broadcast as fact that we see evolution happening today, 1 its not surprising that
many people believe it.One example is a recent prime-time breakfast radio segment on Australias national broadcaster,
ABC Radio National. The University of Sydneys Professor Richard Shine told the presenter Fran Kelly that he and his coresearchers studying snakes have observed genuine evolutionary changes. 2What were they? Allegedly snakes are
evolving to cope with the spread of cane toads across the Australian continent. (Cane toads were introduced to north
Queensland in the 1930s, and have steadily expanded their range, moving south into New South Wales and west into the
Northern Territory.) The changes are making snakes much less vulnerable to the toxin in the toads skin. (One reason that
the cane toad has spread so rapidly is its toxic gland that can kill native predators that eat it.)But as the interview
progressed, the discerning listener would have picked up from Professor Shines own words that he and his colleagues had
not observed evolution at all. Rather, it was an example of natural selection acting to favour certain already-existing
genetically determined traits in the snake populations. Creationists do not dispute natural selectionindeed it is
an important part of the young age model, and was theorized by creationists even before Darwin!The researchers had
firstly been able to rule out learned behaviour as a factor in this case. Weve done a bunch of trials to see if it could just be
that the snakes are learning and so forth but they seem to be remarkably stupid , said Professor Shine, going on to
emphasize the genetic basis to snake behaviour:Basically youve got a strong genetic component to feeding responses,
and some snakes really go mad on eating frogs and others really want to eat nothing but mammals and so forth, and its
actually pretty sophisticated. And theres a lot of work overseas showing that even within a single litter of baby snakes
youve got genetic variation in what kinds of things they treat as prey. And its just that the only snakes that survive after the
toads arrive are the ones that happen to be born with a set of genes saying: If it looks and smells like a cane toad, dont eat
it.And genetically-determined physical attributes such as the snakes head dimensions and body size are key factors too.
Essentially the size of the toad you can eat depends on the size of your head, so if youve got a small head you cant eat a
very big toad.So, if youre a snake, having a small head stops you eating big toads, which have more poison, therefore
helps you to survive. And having a big body helps as well:The size of toad it takes to kill you depends on the size of your
body. So if youve got a really big body, it takes more poison. So, basically, the right shape to be when the toads arrive is to
be a big snake with a small head and thats exactly the evolutionary change that were seeing in a couple of species of
snakes, through the history of the toads invasion in Queensland.But the toad-goaded natural selection favouring large-

bodied, small-headed snakes and/or snakes with an apparently genetically-predetermined aversion to eating cane toads
is not evolutionary change. To get from pond scum to snakes requires an increase in genetic information but all that
Professor Shine and his colleagues have observed is a culling of genetic information. Genes that code for large heads,
small bodies and an urge to swallow a cane toad are being removed from snake populations, no doubt reducing the aforenoted existing genetic variation. See also The evolution trains a-comin (Sorry, a-goinin the wrong direction).
And youd expect it to happen quicklyi.e. in just one generation youd expect to see, in a population of snakes, an increase
in the numbers of snakes with large bodies, small heads, and a decided lack of interest in hunting cane toads. But
evolutionists, used to thinking that slow-and-gradual evolution is how we got here, and that change through natural selection
is evolutionary, are often caught by surprise at the rapidity of such changes.When ABC presenter Fran Kelly put it to
Professor Shine that what hed observed was pretty quick for evolutionary changes, physical changes like this, isnt it?
Professor Shine responded:Yes, look, Im amazed at the speed that its all happening. I mean, were used to antibiotics
eliciting very rapid change in microbes, and insects evolving to pesticides and so on, but these are pretty big vertebrates
that take a couple of years to mature and so on. So you would have expected that evolutionary change would be fairly slow.
But of course the toads are a massive selective force in evolutionary terms. The only way to make a living as a black snake,
once the toads have arrived is to somehow have a trick that makes you invulnerable, and that seems to be exactly whats
happened.Toads are indeed a massive selective force, but not in evolutionary terms. The gene-coded trick favouring
snake survival when cane toads are present did not evolve out of nowhereit was already present in the snake population.
But such is the ruling evolutionary paradigm that many people cant (or wont?) see this point. (A New Zealand atheistic
evolutionist writing in Wellingtons main newspaper has likewise invoked this natural selection in Queensland toad-eating
snakes as proof of evolution in action; see CMI refutation published in the same paper.)If only Professor Shine and his
colleagues knew that the antibiotic-elicited rapid change in microbes (see also here and here) and pesticides selective
culling of insects do not show any evidence of evolution either, it would put what they really observed in a whole new light,
as was the case for the former evolutionist who gave his testimony on this DVD.
Rapid tomcod evolution by pollution? Yeah, right and wrong
by Carl Wieland
Published: 22 February 2011(GMT+10)
The Atlantic tomcod only benefits from its informationlosing mutation in the heavily polluted Hudson River.
Headlines have screamed that fish in New Yorks
Hudson River have evolved into super mutants, able
to resist the toxic effects of PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenyls) in that heavily polluted waterway. And all this
evolution has happened in less than 50 years.1
As
reported
in
the
respected
journal Science,2 researchers have indeed shown that
some 95% of the Hudsons bottom-feeding Atlantic
tomcod have become resistant to these poisons. It is
the first recorded case of poison resistance (similar to
antibiotic resistance or pesticide resistance) developing
in vertebrates (creatures with backbones). And this is
almost certainly via mutation, which is then favoured by
natural selection.
Why would the same article that made those frank
admissions about these damaged, weakened fish have
a headline that referred to them as having evolved into super mutants?
So the fish have adapted to this new environment by a Darwinian mechanism. But as we have already extensively shown in
detail (for example, in this article on supergerms), such resistance to poisons in bacteria, for instance, most definitely
does notdemonstrate the sort of biological change required to have turned microbes into magnolias, mosquitoes and
microbiologists. It is in fact demonstrating the opposite, if anything, especially in those cases of antibiotic resistance where
mutations have generated the resistance.This is something that is simple to understand and demonstrate; the germs
become resistant due to various forms of damage (which is what mutationsinherited genetic copying mistakesmostly
do) to their internal engineering. A good example is where a germ that uses biological pumps to draw in its nutrition has a
mutation that damages the pumps. That makes it harder for it to pump in not just nutrients, but also antibiotics when these
are in its environmentin short, it is no longer as good at sucking in the poison that kills it.So the ones that have this defect
do better when there are such poisons around (natural selectiona fact of life). But they are damaged goods, unable to
pump in nutrients as efficientlyso, once the poison is removed from their surroundings, they dont do as well as the
normal, undamaged germs. So the normal type of germ will come to dominate the population once more, because it is
more efficient at what it needs to do.This is not evolution (as most people understand that word to mean) at all, since that
requires a net uphill gain of information, improvements giving greater viability and efficiency, building new and improved
biological machinery, not damaging that which exists. In short, even a committed evolutionist should concede that this sort of
mutation that breaks things is not the sort that he would like to see to demonstrate the viability of his belief in uphill
evolution.Andsurprise, surprisedespite the media hype, all indications are that the same sort of downhill damage as in
the bacterial example just given has taken place in the case of the Hudson tomcod. All such Atlantic tomcod fish have a
gene called AHR2. This codes for a receptor protein which in its normal state allows PCBs to bind to it, causing severe
problems (some 30 years ago, 94% of Hudson tomcods were found to have a PCB-induced liver tumour, for instance). The
Hudson River variety, according to one of the researchers, Dr Mark Hahn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Research
Institution, appear to be missing two of the 1,104 amino acids normally found in this protein. This is apparently the result of
six of the bases in the genes DNA sequence having been deleted (two lots of three bases, each coding for one amino acid).
This loss mutation has damaged the receptor such that PCBs and dioxins cannot bind as readily to it. Mutation happens in
one generation, and since in such a poison-rich environment the non-damaged fish would be rapidly eliminated, its no
wonder (and in keeping with other instances in non-vertebrates of poison resistance) that the mutated gene would spread
quickly enough to dominate the population in just a few decades.Given that these mutant fish are damaged goods, and in
keeping with our comments earlier, its also no surprise to read about the Hudson tomcod that the fish have suffered in
other ways. They likely grow slower than other tomcod, and they may have reduced resistance to other dangers. 3One
would therefore expect that these genetically damaged fish would not do as well in less polluted areas, and so again its no

surprise to read that only 5% of the fish in the nearby, relatively clean waters off Connecticut and Long Island possess the
mutated gene.Of course. About the only surprise is, why would the same article that made those frank admissions about
these damaged, weakened fish have a headline that referred to them as having evolved into super mutants?
But then, maybe one shouldnt be surprised there, either. It seems that in this day and age sensationalist headlines that
keep reinforcing the idea that there is all this evidence of evolution happening are just par for the course. If anything, it
should encourage us all to get involved much more with passing on the sort of information that can counter this propaganda
war; tell your friends and acquaintances about this site; subscribe to our free email newsletter; give them gift subscriptions
to Creation magazine, hand out books and DVDs of quality creation information. And keep yourself informed. Yes, it helps
us to keep going and growing, but it is also one way in which all of us can do our thing to help combat this relentless
onslaught of misinformation. As you get behind us, we can make the bullets in this spiritual war, but we need you to help
fire them.
DOES SEXUAL SELECTION EXPLAIN HOW FEATUERS LIKE PEACOCK`S TAIL DEVELOPED
The beauty of the peacock tail and the problems with the theory of sexual selection
by Stuart Burgess
The peacock tail contains spectacular beauty because of the large feathers, bright, iridescent colours and intricate patterns.
The colours in the tail feathers are produced by an optical effect called thin-film interference. The eye pattern has a high
degree of brightness and precision because the colour-producing mechanisms contain an extremely high level of optimum
design. According to the theory of sexual selection, the peacock tail has gradually evolved because the peahen selects
beautiful males for mating. However, there is no satisfactory explanation of how the sexual selection cycle can start or why
the peahen should prefer beautiful features. In addition, there is irreducible complexity in both the physical structure of the
feather and in the beautiful patterns.
Figure 1. Peacock with tail feathers displayed.
Most birds have two types of tail feather: flight
feathers and tail-coverts. The flight feathers
provide stability during flight, while the tailcoverts cover and protect the tail region. In
the vast majority of birds, the tail-coverts are
small feathers, just a few centimetres long.
However, some birds like the peacock have
very large tail-coverts for decorative purposes.
These decorative feathers are also referred to
as ornamental feathers, or display feathers. 1 It
should be noted that a peacock is a male
peafowl and a peahen is a female peafowl.
The peahen does not have any decorative
feathers.When a peacock displays his tail
feathers during courtship, a magnificent fan
formation of feathers forms a beautiful
backdrop to the body of the peacock as shown
in Figure 1 (below). An adult peacock has an
average of 200 tail feathers and these are
shed and re-grown annually. Of the 200 or so feathers, about 170 are eye feathers and 30 are T feathers. The eyes are
sometimes referred to as ocellations.This paper describes some of the complex structures that are responsible for producing
the beautiful features and why the beauty of the peacock is evidence for intelligent design. The paper also describes the
theory of sexual selection and shows that there are serious problems with the theory.
Fan formation of displayed feathers
When the peacock feathers are displayed there are several beautiful features that can be seen:
Fan formation of feathers
Uniform distribution of eyes
Intricate eye feathers
Intricate T feathers
One reason for the beauty of the displayed feathers is that they form a semi-circular fan over an angle of more than 180
degrees. The fan formation is very even because the axis of every feather can be projected back to an approximately
common geometrical center. The radial alignment of feathers requires the root of each feather to be pointed with a
remarkable degree of accuracy. Another remarkable feature of the displayed feathers is that they are deployed into position
by muscles in the peacocks tail. Not only can the peacock deploy
the feathers, but he can also make them vibrate and produce a
characteristic hum.Another beautiful feature of the displayed
feathers is the uniform spacing of the eyes. Even though the
display contains around 170 eye feathers, they are all visible and
all spaced apart with a remarkable degree of uniformity. All the
eyes are visible because the feathers are layered with the short
feathers at the front and the longer feathers at the back. The eyes
have an even spacing because each feather has the right
length.Each eye feather and T feather is an object of outstanding
beauty in itself. The eyes contain beautiful patterns, and the Tshaped feathers form a beautiful border to the fan.
The eye feather
Figure 2. Structure of the eye feather.
Figure 2 (right) shows a sketch of the top section of the eye feather.
There are several beautiful features to the feather:
Bright colours
Intricate eye pattern
Loose barbs below the eye pattern
Absence of stem in the top half of eye pattern

Narrow stem in the bottom half of eye pattern

Brown coating of the stem near the eye pattern
The bright colours and intricate shapes of the eye pattern are the most striking aesthetic features. The loose barbs on the
lower part of the feather are beautiful because they make a contrast with the neatness and precision of the barbs in the eye
pattern.
The last three features in the list above are usually only noticed by very careful observers. However they represent
important finishing touches which make an important contribution to the beauty of the feather. The absence of a stem in the
top half of the eye is an important detail because it prevents the pattern from being divided into two sections. The stem is not
needed because the barbs fan out around the top of the feather. The narrowness of the stem in the bottom half of the eye
pattern is important because this makes the stem fairly obscure. The stem can be narrow because it has a deep section in
the area of the eye pattern. The brown coating of the stem in the area of the eye pattern is very important because the stem
is a natural white colour and this would be too conspicuous for the eye pattern. It is interesting to note that the stem is white
everywhere except local to the eye pattern. This strongly indicates that the brown coating near the eye pattern is a
deliberate feature.
A large eye feather has been examined at Bristol University to determine the number and size of each part of the feather.
The number and size of barbules was estimated by examining sample sections of barbs with a microscope. The data for the
feather are summarized as follows:
Length of feather = 1.3 m
Number of barbs = 290
Maximum length of barbs = 200 mm
Average length of barbs = 105 mm
Barbules per mm on one barb = 32 (16 each side)
Length of barbules in eye pattern = 0.8 to 1 mm
Length of barbules below eye pattern = 2 to 3 mm
Total number of barbules in feather = nearly 1 million
The results show that a large peacock tail feather is very large both in terms of size and number of barbules. The unique
length and structure of the peacock display feathers is acknowledged by bird experts.2,3
The colours in the eye feather
The colours in the peacock tail are particularly beautiful because they are bright and iridescent. An iridescent colour is a
colour that changes with the angle of view. The colours are not produced by pigments but by an optical effect called thin-film
interference that takes place in the barbules.4 In technical terms, the peacock has structural colours.
In the eye pattern, the barbules appear bronze, blue, dark purple and green. Away from the eye region, the barbules are
uniformly green. The colours in the eye feather can only be seen on the front surface of the feather because this is where
the barbules are positioned. The back of the feather is uniformly brown because the barbs contain a brown pigment. To
understand how thin-film interference is produced in the peacock tail, it is first necessary to understand the detailed structure
of the feather.
Structure of the barbules
Figure 3. Peacock barbules.
The basic structure of the peacock tail
feather in the eye region is shown in Figure
3(a) (right). For comparison, the structure of
a typical flight feather is shown in Figure
3(b) (right). Like the flight feather, the
peacock tail feather has a central stem with
an array of barbs on each side. Also,
individual barbs have an array of barbules
on each side of the barb. Even though there
is a basic similarity with a flight feather, the
peacock tail feather has an unusual barbule
structure. The barbules are like long flat
ribbons that overlap to form a flat surface on
top of the barbs. (Under a microscope the
barbules are actually slightly curved and segmented and the surface has a bubbly appearance). In contrast, a flight feather
has narrow barbules which do not cover the barbs. Other types of birds such as hummingbirds, pigeons and kingfishers
have some patches of flat iridescent barbules, but the peacock has the largest iridescent barbules of any known bird. 5The
colours of the barbules dominate the front face of the tail feather because they completely cover the barbs. The barbules are
not very visible from the back of the feather because the barbs are quite close together.
Thin-film interference in the barbules
Figure 4. Cross-section of peacock barbule.
Thin-film interference can be produced in one
or more layers of a very thin and transparent
material. Usually the thin film is placed on a
dark surface. The thickness of the transparent
material must be close to the wavelengths of
visible light. Visible colours have wavelengths
between 0.4 and 0.8 m and thin films
typically have a thickness of between 0.3 and
1.5 m. Another requirement for thin-film
interference is that the thin film must have a
refractive index that differs from air so that the
light is retarded when it passes through the
thin film. Thin-film interference commonly
occurs in oil slicks on a wet road. The oil will
often form a thin layer on the wet surface of the road or on the surface of a puddle, the thin-film producing blue and green
colours.In the case of the peacock, thin film interference takes place in three layers of keratin which cover the barbules as

shown in Figure 4. Each barbule is about 60 m wide and 5 m thick. 6 The barbules have a foam core that is 2 m thick and
this is covered with three layers of keratin on each side, as shown in Figure 4. The keratin layers are very thin, being about
0.40.5 m thick.7The principle of thin-film interference in a single layer of keratin is shown in Figure 4. White light is
reflected off the front and back surfaces of the thin film. The light which passes through the keratin is retarded and therefore
when it emerges from the keratin, some of the colour components of white light are out of phase with the light-waves that
were reflected from the front surface. When two wave trains of the same colour are out of phase, destructive interference
removes the colour. In the case of white light, the result of the interference is a reflected colour due to the remaining colour
components of white light. In practice, interference occurs simultaneously in all three thin films.The only pigment in the
peacock tail is melanin, which gives the barbs a uniform brown colour. This provides a dark background colour for the thinfilm interference in the keratin layers. The different colours in the eye pattern result from minute changes in the depth of
thickness of the keratin layers. 8 In order to produce a particular colour, the keratin thickness must be accurate to within
about 0.05 m (one twenty thousandth of one millimetre!).The barbules in the peacock feather contain a high degree of
optimum design. The thickness of the keratin layers is optimal for producing the brightest thin-film colours. The dark brown
background colouring is optimal because it prevents light shining through the back of the feather. The three layers add to the
brilliance of the colours in the feather by adding multiple components of light. The barbules are also slightly curved in the
longitudinal direction.9 This curvature causes a mingling of slightly different colours, which produces a softening of the
colours seen in the keratin layers.9
The eye pattern
Figure 5. Mathematical curves in the eye pattern.
The particular beauty of the eye pattern comes from the rounded
shapes that have a high degree of resolution as shown in Figure
5 (below). The pupil of the eye is formed by a dark purple
cardioid and the iris is formed by a blue ellipsoid. These shapes
are located within a pointed bronze ellipsoid that is surrounded
by one or two green fringes.
A very important feature of the eye pattern is that it is
a digital pattern which is formed by the combined effect of many
thousands of individual barbules. Some patterns in nature are
formed by natural growth mechanisms, as with the spiral shape
of the nautilus shell. However, the eye pattern in the peacock tail
requires the precise coordination of independent barbs and this
cannot be achieved by a simple growth mechanism. Barbules on
adjacent barbs coordinate perfectly with each other to produce
the eye pattern.The spacing of colours on each barb must be
specified by instructions in the genetic code. To specify the
pattern, there must be timing or positional instructions in the DNA
which causes the right thickness of keratin to be grown on the
right barbule and on the right barb. To help appreciate the precise
nature of the information in the genetic code, it is helpful to consider the mathematical complexity involved in calculating the
required spacing of colours on each barb.
Required colour spacing on barbs
Figure 6. Intersection points on barbs.
Figure 6 (right) shows the colour spacing on a
single barb. Along the first part of barb n, the
thickness of the keratin films on the barbules
gives a bronze colour. Then an abrupt and
minute change in thickness of the keratin films
produces a blue colour. Another abrupt and
minute change in thickness of the keratin films
so produces a bronze colour. The abrupt
nature of the changes in thickness is important
because if the changes were gradual then
there would be a gradual change in
colour.10 The abrupt changes in thickness of
keratin along a barb are an amazing feature
because it involves sudden and precise
changes in the dimensions of the barbule.
Even more amazingly, along the length of the
barb the thickness of the keratin does not
continually get thicker and thicker (or thinner
and thinner) but it involves both increases and
decreases in thickness.The required length of
the colour sections on each barb can be
determined mathematically by finding the
points where the barbs intersect with the curves as shown in Figure 6. For example, to find the positions of the points Bn
and Cn the following procedure can be followed. Firstly the equation for the ellipsoid (conic function) can be written as:

(1)
Then the equation for the straight line of barb n can be written as:
(2)
By taking the equation for the ellipsoid (1) and substituting it into the equation for a straight line (2) and eliminating y we get
an equation forx as follows:

(3)
This equation can be solved as a quadratic to get two solutions for x, the two intersection points xB(n) and xC(n).
The y coordinates of these points then can be found from either (1) or (2). Then, the length of the first section of bronze
colour on barb n can be found by geometry:

(4)
A similar procedure can be used for the intersection points on the cardioid shape and the outer green fringes. For each barb
there are on average about four points at which colour changes and so there are on average four positions to calculate.
Since there are around 50 barbs on each side of the pattern and since every one of these barbs has a unique spacing of
colour, it is necessary to calculate 200 intersection points in order to construct the whole eye pattern.
T border feathers
The long T border feathers provide a beautiful border to the tail feathers because they form an inverse shape to the
peacock eye as shown in Figure 7 (below). An inverse shape is beautiful because the inside profile of the T feather follows
the outline of the eye pattern. The T feathers often form an ogee curve on each side of the feather as shown in Figure 7. An
ogee curve is beautiful because it is both concave and convex. For this reason, ogee curves are used in architecture in
structures such as arches. The formation of an ogee curve from individual barbs is yet another remarkable feature of the
peacock tail. Each barb at the end of the T feather has a unique length and curvature and all the barbs coordinate exactly
with each other to form the curved T.
Information content in the genetic code
Figure 7. The T feathers and eye feathers.
Every detail in the peacock tail must be
defined by genes in the genetic code of the
peafowl. Since the tail feathers have very
complicated structures and colour-producing
mechanisms, there must be a large amount of
design information in the genetic code.It is
difficult to determine how many genes would
be required to specify the aesthetic features of
a peacock tail feather because it is not known
how the tail feather grows. However, a
conservative estimate can be made by
assuming that each separate aesthetic feature
is specified by one gene. By assuming that
each colour and each shape within the eye
pattern represents a separate feature, and
taking into account the other features discussed in this paper, the total number of aesthetic features in a single feather
comes to about 20. Therefore an estimated 20 genes are required for the peacock tail. This may be a very conservative
estimate. In particular, it may be that many genes are required to produce each shape in the eye pattern since the eye
pattern is formed from the coordinated arrangement of over 100 barbs. In addition, the fanning-out of barbs in the top of the
feather, where there is no stem, is a complex feature that may well need several controlling genes.Even if only 20 genes are
required to specify the beautiful features of the peacock tail, this still amounts to a lot of genetic information. A gene typically
consists of 1,000 chemical units of information (base pairs). Therefore, 20 genes would contain many thousands of chemical
units of information. According to evolutionists, all of this information has appeared gradually by genetic mistakes and by
sexual selection.
The theory of sexual selection
The theory of sexual selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man.11 Even though this theory has
always been controversial, most evolutionists now believe that it can explain how beautiful features could evolve from
nothing.12According to sexual selection, a female can have a preference for a mate with a feature such as a long tail. Over a
long period of time, sexual selection is believed to be able to develop a particular feature to a great extent. For selection to
work, a number of things are thought to be typically required. Firstly, the male must have an aesthetic feature. Secondly, the
female must have a preference for that particular aesthetic feature. Thirdly, the female must be able to have the opportunity
to view a number of different males before mating. Fourthly, the female must be able to have some control over which male
mates with her.Sexual selection is a circular process based on a particular fashion. When females have a preference for a
long tail, the selection of a male with a long tail is an advantage because the male offspring will have long tails and therefore
be more successful at mating. A key aspect of sexual selection is that fitness is not measured in ability to escape from
predators but in ability to produce offspring. Evolutionists fully recognize that sexual selection would often produce features
that reduce the ability to escape from predators because aesthetic features often make a creature more conspicuous and
slower. However, if females prefer beautiful males for mating, then the advantage of beauty can outweigh the advantages of
camouflage and maneuverability. According to the theory of sexual selection, ornamental features will develop to the point at
which the disadvantages of being caught by a predator outweigh the advantages of being selected by a
female.13Evolutionists recognize that a female such as a peahen does not have aesthetic appreciation and that the
preference of the female is based on an instinctive response. In addition, it is recognized that the instinctive response needs
to be specified by one or more genes in the genetic code14 called preference genes.
Do the peacock tail feathers play a role in the courtship ritual?
There is no doubt that the peacock tail feathers do play a role in the courtship ritual of peafowl. Many creatures have a
courtship ritual that acts as a cue for mating. In the case of the peafowl, the peacock shows his intention to the peahen by
displaying his feathers. However, even though the display feathers have a role in the courtship ritual, this does not
necessarily mean that the female is attracted to the feathers. When the peahen observes the feathers of the peacock, it
may be that her only reaction is to understand that the peacock is ready for mating.Of course, the beauty of the peacock tail
display is vastly beyond what is required to make a cue for the peahen.
Do preference genes exist in the peahen?
Biologists have carried out studies on the behavior of peafowl during courtship to try to determine if the peahen is really
attracted to particular features of the peacock. One study has revealed that peahens do recognize obvious features in the

peacock such as the number of eye feathers. 15 The results of this study indicated that the peahen prefers males with a
greater number of eyes. However, other studies have indicated that the peahen has little or no interest in the appearance of
the peacock.16 There is no evidence that peahens can recognize subtle aesthetic features.If there is a preference gene for
aesthetic features, this does not prove that the sexual selection theory is true. The reason for this is that a preference gene
were installed as a means of maintaining beautiful features. Beauty generally gives a disadvantage in terms of escaping
from predators. If a peacock lost its colours due to a gene mutation, it would suddenly find itself more protected from
predators. This is an example of where a loss of information could be a great advantage in terms of survival. Even in the
case of subtle aesthetic features, it is conceivable that a intelligent designer may have created preference genes in order to
root out genetic mistakes. However, there would be less selective pressure for subtle features to be lost since they do not
affect the ability of the peacock to escape from predators.At present, there is no conclusive evidence about the existence of
preference genes. Future experiments in this area should be very interesting, especially if a preference gene could be
directly identified in the genetic code. It is possible, though, that the peahen does have preference genes for obvious
features like colour. However, it is unlikely that preference genes exist for subtle features like the brown coating of the stem
near the eye pattern.
Problems with the theory of sexual selection
If future experiments show that there are no preference genes in the peahen, then the theory of sexual selection would
absolutely collapse. However, even if future studies do reveal a preference gene for obvious aesthetic features, there are
still some very serious problems with the theory of sexual selection. Five of the problems are:
(i) Why should the female select a beautiful feature?
When females have a preference, that preference becomes self-perpetuating. 14 However, there is no reason a fashion
should always be a beautiful fashion. According to evolution, preference genes appear by totally random processes and
therefore there could be a fashion for all kinds of features including ugly features. In reality, where males have decorative
features, such as the birds of paradise and the peafowl, it is clear that every aesthetic feature contains a very high degree of
aesthetic merit.
To overcome the problem that females always prefer beautiful features, evolutionists have proposed the good genes theory
that proposes that beauty is directly related to health and fitness. 17 However, the decorative features found in nature are so
overwhelmingly beautiful that it would require an extremely strong correlation between beauty and health and there is no
evidence for such a strong correlation.
(ii) How can the sexual selection cycle start by chance?
Another big problem with the theory of sexual selection is the question of how the sexual selection cycle can start by
chance. The cycle cannot start until there is both a trait gene and a preference gene. Therefore for a sexual selection cycle
to get started there must be the appearance of two new genes in the DNA. Since genes contain complex information and
since the preference gene and trait gene are useless on their own, it must be concluded that sexual selection could never
spontaneously commence on the basis of incremental changes to the DNA.To overcome the problem of the simultaneous
appearance of two new genes, evolutionists have proposed that the two genes appear at different places and different times
in the following way.18 First, a female spontaneously produces a preference gene for a male with, say, a long tail. This gene
lies dormant for perhaps many generations without any opportunity to be expressed. Then one day, a male spontaneously
generates a gene which produces a longer tail. The female then selects that male and some of their offspring have both the
trait gene and the preference gene. Therefore, the cycle is in place and ready to develop and perpetuate long tails.At first,
this scenario may seem plausible. However, it still relies on simultaneous chance events. Firstly, there must be a preference
gene thatmatches a trait gene. Secondly, there must be a chance meeting between the right female and male. The first
gene to arise also has to survive genetic drift until the male gene arises. Therefore, even with the scenario given by the
evolutionists, it is clear that the sexual selection cycle is extremely unlikely to get started.
(iii) How can multiple aesthetic features start by chance?
The starting of one sexual selection cycle is difficult to explain by chance. However, when a creature contains many
separate aesthetic features, the problem becomes even more pronounced because many cycles must be started. In the
case of the peacock, there are many aesthetic features in the tail. In addition, the peacock also has several aesthetic
features in the rest of its body. For example, it has a bright blue neck, patterns around the eyes, a crown on the head and
speckled contour feathers. This array of features would probably require many sets of preference genes and trait genes.
(iv) How can the female appreciate subtle features?
It may well be possible that a peahen has a preference for obvious features such as a long tail. However, there are some
extremely subtle features in the peacock which are not easy to recognize. These subtle features include an absence of a
stem in the upper part of the eye pattern, the brown colouring of the stem near to the eye pattern and the intricate shape of
the T feathers. It may be reasonable to argue that a peahen could recognize whether a peacock had lost its eye feathers or
T feathers. However, to discern subtle changes in these feathers would require tremendously detailed observation.The
above features are so subtle that many people do not notice them. In addition, it is necessary to get quite close to the
feather to recognize such features. Since peahens do not undertake close visual inspections of the peacock, they would
have to have a much better eye for detail than a human being in order to recognize the subtle features of the peacock
tail.Darwin himself recognized the problem of subtle aesthetic features. Darwin said, Many will declare that it is utterly
incredible that a female bird should be able to appreciate fine shading and exquisite patterns. It is undoubtedly a marvellous
fact that she should possess this almost human degree of taste.19 What is really incredible is that evolutionists really believe
that a peahen is able to recognize fine shading and exquisite patterns. There is no evidence that the peahen can recognize
such subtle aesthetic features.
(v) Some features contain irreducible mechanisms
Some of the structures that produce the aesthetic features in the peacock tail are irreducible. This means that they require
several features to be simultaneously present in order for the structure to function. One example of an irreducible structure
is the thin-film interference. Thin-film interference in a feather requires all of the following features to be simultaneously
present:
1. Flat barbule(s)
2. Keratin layer(s)
3. Correct thickness of keratin layer(s)
Since evolution is supposed to work by changing one parameter at a time, thin-film interference cannot be produced by a
process of evolution. For example, if there was a random gene mutation that suddenly caused a barbule to become flat, this
change would not be enough to cause thin-film interference. Even if a barbule were to become flat and acquire a layer of
keratin, this would still not produce a thin-film colour unless the keratin was the right thickness.Getting the right thickness of
keratin by chance is very difficult because the keratin thickness has to be within a very narrow range for thin-film
interference to work. For thin-film interference to work, the thickness of keratin normally has to be within a range of 0.41.5

m. However, keratin can be formed in thicknesses from 0.2 m up to 1 mm. For example, nails and feather stems have
keratin with a thickness of around 1 mm. If one considers 1,000 different layers of keratin which all have a different thickness
ranging from 1 m, 2 m, 3 m, etc., all the way to 1,000 m (1 mm), only one or two out of the thousand thicknesses would
produce thin-film interference. Therefore, it is inconceivable that a peacock could acquire a flat barbule and exactly the right
thickness of keratin simultaneously. The only way to produce iridescent feathers is to make a fully functioning flat thin-film
barbule from the beginning.The fact that thin-film interference is a delicate and sophisticated mechanism is fully
acknowledged by evolutionists. For example, Mason says the following:The theory of thin films as the cause of iridescence,
although it fits all the observed facts, cannot but inspire one to marvel at the perfection of natures method of producing
these colours with such uniformity through successive generations, especially when a slight general variation in thickness of
the films of the feathers of a bird, such as a peacock, would be enough to alter its coloration completely. 20This is an
important quote because Masons studies on the colour of peacock feathers are referred to by most modern texts on bird
coloration. Notice how the author refers to the perfection of natures method, and marvels at how the thin-film is maintained
in successive generations. If it is hard to understand how the peacock maintains its delicate structures through successive
generations then how does the evolutionist explain how it could have evolved in the first place?
(vi) Some features contain irreducible beauty
According to evolution, a complex pattern like the eye pattern in the peacocks feather has evolved by the accumulation of
hundreds of genetic mistakes occurring over vast periods of time. However, patterns like the blue ellipsoid in the eye are
irreducible, i.e. they require several features to be simultaneously present in order for there to be a clear pattern. If only one
barb in a peacock tail feather was to have a patch of blue colour this would not produce a beautiful pattern. Such a random
change would arguably cause the peahen to deselect, not select the pattern. Since evolution requires every step change to
have a selective advantage, the eye pattern cannot evolve but must be designed complete from the beginning.
Alternative theories for the existence of beauty
The difficulties with the theory of sexual selection have led some evolutionists to develop alternative theories for the origin of
beauty. The existence of these alternative theories suggests that the theory of sexual selection is not sound. The main
alternative theories are:
(i) Male pecking order
Some evolutionists believe that males like the peacock compete with other males in order to win a privilege of mating with a
female.21 It is believed that the competition can be based on the beauty of a display. The idea is that the male with the most
impressive display frightens the other males into submission. A major problem with this theory is that it cannot explain why
there should be subtle aesthetic features.
(Ii) Camouflage
Some evolutionists claim that the peacock tail gives a camouflage advantage. 22 The reason they believe that camouflage
plays a role is that the peacock train (i.e. undeployed tail feathers) is mostly green and supposedly provides camouflage
when it hides in trees. However, the theory of camouflage also has serious problems. Firstly, the tail makes the peacock
more conspicuous on the ground, which is arguably where the greatest danger is to be found. Secondly, camouflage does
not explain how the subtle eye patterns could have evolved. Thirdly, if the function of camouflage were really effective then
the peahen should also have such a tail.
(Iii) Recognition
Some evolutionists believe that the colour and pattern of the peacock tail has the sole function of making the peacock
recognizable to the peahen.23 However, this theory cannot begin to explain the origin of the subtle aesthetic features of the
peacock.
Added beauty
Figure 8. Added beauty in a column.
The beauty of the peacock tail can be termed
added beauty because it appears to be
surplus to that necessary to survive. In other
words, the beauty of the peacock tail is not a
by-product of the function of the tail. Added
beauty can be a powerful evidence of design
because it is a common hallmark of an
intelligent designer. The hallmark of added
beauty can be seen in all kinds of human
design. For example, an architect often adds
decorative features to the different parts of a
building. The adding of beauty to a column is
illustrated in Figure 8 (left), which compares a
classical column with a plain functional
cylinder. The decorative features of the classical column have the sole function of providing a beautiful spectacle. But they
also present evidence that an intelligent designer has designed the column. So also the added beauty of a peacock tail
reveals an intelligent designer.Most evolutionists accept that creatures like the peacock have added beauty. This is why the
peacock tail feathers are referred to as decorative feathers in standard biology textbooks. Darwin said this about beauty in
nature: A great number of male animals have been rendered beautiful for beautys sake; the most refined beauty may
serve as a charm for the female, and for no other purpose. 24 Considering that evolutionists recognize added beauty in
nature, and considering that added beauty is very much a hallmark of an intelligent designer, beauty in nature must be seen
as an important evidence of design. A study of added beauty in nature has been described in my bookHallmarks of Design.25
Conclusion
There are many beautiful features in the peacock tail such as bright iridescent colours, intricate patterns and the fanformation of the displayed feathers. The mechanisms that are responsible for producing these beautiful features are very
sophisticated. In particular, the barbules contain an astounding level of precision design in order to produce optimum thinfilm interference.There are several serious problems with the evolutionary theory of sexual selection. There is no satisfactory
explanation of how the sexual selection cycle can start or why the peahen should prefer beautiful features. In addition, there
is irreducible complexity in both the physical structure of the feather and in the beautiful patterns.
Darwin once said, The sight of a feather in a peacocks tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!26 If Darwin knew about
the modern discoveries re the complexities of the peacock tail, he would have even greater reason to feel sick.
WHAT ABOUT PEPPERED MOTHS?WHY ARE THEY FREQUENTLY USED TO SUPPORT EVOLUTION.

Goodbye, peppered moths

A classic evolutionary story comes unstuck
by Carl Wieland
The textbook story of Englands famous peppered moths (Biston betularia) goes like this. The moth comes in light and dark
(melanic) forms. Pollution from the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree trunks, mostly by killing the light-coloured
covering lichen (plus soot).The lighter forms, which had been well camouflaged against the light background, now stood
out, and so birds more readily ate them. Therefore, the proportion of dark moths increased dramatically. Later, as pollution
was cleaned up, the light moth became predominant again.The shift in moth numbers was carefully documented through
catching them in traps. Release-recapture experiments confirmed that in polluted forests, more of the dark form survived for
recapture, and vice versa. In addition, birds were filmed preferentially eating the less camouflaged moths off tree trunks.The
story has generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm. H.B. Kettlewell, who performed most of the classic experiments,
said that if Darwin had seen this, He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his lifes work. 1Actually,
even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural
selection, within one created kind. It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design
information needed for ameba-to-man evolution.Even L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished he was asked to
write the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwins Origin of Species, said therein that the peppered moth example showed
natural selection, but not evolution in action.However, it turns out that this classic story is full of holes anyway. Peppered
moths dont even rest on tree trunks during the day.Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps in the forest either
with light, or by releasing female pheromonesin each case, they only flew in at night. So where do they spend the day?
British scientist Cyril Clarke, who investigated the peppered moth extensively, wrote:But the problem is that we do not know
the resting sites of the moth during the day time. In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls
adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere. 2The moths filmed being eaten
by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm
them up on his car bonnet (hood).3And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done
dead moths were glued to the tree.4 University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees
for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured a lot of fraudulent photographs. 5,6Other studies have
shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations. And when one group of
researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones,
as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light onesthe opposite of textbook predictions!
7
University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was the prize horse in
our stable, has to be thrown out.He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus
was not real.5Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a proof of evolution
which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.8
The Moth Files
An UPDATE on the Peppered Moth fiasco
by Carl Wieland
Most people learned about these little moths in school as the ultimate triumph of Darwinismevolution captured in
action. Creation magazine reported (21(3):56) how the Peppered Moth story has fallen apart, with revelations of faked
photos and more. So now that much of the dust has settled, what is the latest concerning this sensational debunking?
Background
The story concerning Englands Peppered Moths (Biston betularia) originally seemed very straightforward. The research is
attributed to one H.B. Kettlewell, who is reported to have said that Darwin would be overjoyed to see the vindication of his
theory. The insects used to be mostly of a light form, with occasional darker (melanic) forms. Light-coloured lichen growing
on tree trunks meant that the light forms were very well camouflaged, while the dark ones would stand out to the eyes of
hungry birds.Pollution from the Industrial Revolution is said to have killed off much of the pale lichen covering the tree
trunks, thus darkening them, so that now the dark forms were better camouflaged. Therefore, it made sense that hungry
birds would eat more of the lighter ones, so the dark ones would become the dominant form.Kettlewells experimental
observations were supposed to have shown that this is indeed what happened. Then, as pollution began to be cleaned up,
the tree trunks became lighter again, so light moths resting on the tree trunks would now be less easily seen, thus the ratio
shifted the other way.Photographs were taken of the dark and the light forms resting on the tree trunks, showing how
obvious the camouflage differences were. To further clinch the case, birds were filmed preferentially picking off the less
camouflaged forms.
Selection, not evolution
As we reported, the whole issueratios of dark to light moths shifting back and forth in response to their environmentis no
big deal in the creation/evolution argument anyway. The famous evolutionary biologist L. Harrison Matthews, writing in the
foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwins Origin of Species, pointed out that the Peppered Moths observations showed
natural selection, but not evolution in action. Selection is an important part of evolutionary theory, but it is not the same thing.
However, most evolutionists, including H.B. Kettlewell, write as if they were the same thing, muddying the waters for the lay
public.1 Natural selection is also an important part of the Creation/Fall model, and was even discussed by the creationist
Edward Blyth, 25 years before Darwin.Since there is that confusion, and since the moth story is so easy to understand and
explain, it is not surprising that evolutions apostles were motivated to push the Peppered Moth scenario as hard as
possible in educational and media circles. This made it doubly embarrassing for them when key elements of the story fell
apart.
The whistle blows
The bubble started to burst as people finally faced the awkward fact that Peppered Moths do not rest on tree trunks in the
daytime. Instead, they hide under leaves in treetops. As the story unravelled, it turned out that:The famous photos of light
and dark moths resting on a lichen-covered tree trunk were faked by pinning and/or gluing dead moths onto logs or
trunks.The filmed experiments involved either dead moths, or laboratory moths (so stuporous they had to be warmed up
first), placed on tree trunks in the daytime.We reported the reaction of evolutionist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago.
He said that finding out the moth story was wrong was like when he found out at age six that it was actually his father who
was bringing the Christmas presents.So what has happened since this story (which should never have been seen as proof
of evolution anyway) collapsed so badly for evolutionists?The author of the main book that revealed the flaws, Michael
Majerus, still defends the basic textbook story. He and other defenders admit, however, that there are serious problems with
Kettlewells experiments, and that Kettlewells successors tested the birds feeding behaviour using dead moths.The
previously mentioned Dr Jerry Coyne, apparently furious that creationists are making good use of his comments, seems to
be hastily backpedaling, saying that the moths are still a good example of evolution.Others, like the University of

Massachusetts Theodore Sargent, are less forgiving, pointing out that the situation was totally artificial. The birds would
have quickly learnt of a free lunch in the woods.Judith Hooper, the author of a just-released book 2 on the moth saga points
out the serious clouds over some of Kettlewells results, which others have not been able to confirm. Noting that his field
notes have conveniently disappeared, she says, The unspoken possibility of fraud hangs in the air.3The consensus appears
to be, however, that the proportion of dark to light moths did indeed rise and fall in concert with the rise of (and subsequent
decline in) industrial pollution. The main argument concerns whether this was due to differential predation by birds. (Even if
it was, most now agree that Kettlewells lichen story may have had less to do with it than simple discolouration of the trunks
by soot.)Whether or not it turns out that the moth population change was due to bird predation, two issues stand out. The
first is the way in which evolutionists eagerly seized upon and promoted a story reeking with incompetence,navet and
outright fraud. How come it took 50 years to wake up to the fact that no-one had ever actually seen Peppered Moths on tree
trunks? (Why should moths of any colour spend their sleep time sitting in the open, anyway?)
More importantly, this saga gives us the opportunity to repeatedly point out to an indoctrinated public the difference between
natural selection as an observable, logical fact, and goo-to-you evolution. The evolutionary story demands creative additions
of new information. Natural selection merely filters information by culling it; it can never add anything new.4
The bottom line
Three statements sum up the biological reality about this issue.
Before the industrial revolution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.
During the worst days of pollution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.
Today, there is genetic information for dark and light moths.
In other words, the only thing thats happened is that the relative numbers of each have gone up and down. What do I think
should be the real take-home lesson of the Peppered Moth saga? The fact that this amazingly banal set of events has been
hammered worldwide as ultimate proof for a belief that microbes originally turned into moths (and moth researchers)! This
is far more stupefying to contemplate than even all the faked photos and talk of fraudulent experiments.
More about moths
A recent attempt to restore the reputation of the peppered moth as an evolutionary icon falls flat
T.F. writes:
To Dr CarlI read your stuff a while back where you claimed that
the peppered moth stuff was based on fraud.
I was disturbed when someone showed me a recent science
article that unfortunately for you undermines this claim. It shows
that the moths are a classic example of evolution after all.
I hope you will retract your claims now in the light of this new
evidence.
Carl Wieland replies:
Thanks for your email. By our stuff on the peppered moths, I
presume you are referring to one section of our tract, Frauds
used to support evolution, or most likely to my 1999 article
in Creation magazine on which it was based,Goodbye Peppered
Moths. And/or to the follow-up Creation article in 2002, The Moth Files.And I presume that the recent evolutionist article you
refer to would almost certainly be The Moths at War in New Scientist.1 Your comment comes at a convenient time, as I had
already started writing about this rather bald-faced attempt to falsely smear creationists. Rebutting it will be helpful to others,
too, so please excuse if I am overly detailed in my reply.If one reads both our items and the New Scientist article carefully, it
becomes clear that far from our comments having to be retracted, this latest story seems to be a classic case of misleading
evolution-spin, trying to convert a public embarrassment into a PR victory against creationists.This concerns the classic
example of evolution in action, Englands peppered moth, Biston betularia. The story in brief: The moth comes in two forms,
light and dark. After the industrial revolution, pollution darkened Englands tree trunks.2 The Darwinian enthusiast H.B.
Kettlewell claimed to have shown that after the industrial revolution, the darker moths predominated, and that this was the
result of birds preferentially picking off the lighter forms on the now darkened tree trunks. This example became known as
industrial melanism.3Our items highlighted the comments of other evolutionists that indicated that this example could no
longer be regarded as proof positive of Darwinismand that its iconic status for evolution was based on some rather
dubious practices. The key points in our items:
That biologists have noted that it is extremely hard to find moths resting on tree trunks during the daytheir favoured place
appears to be in hiding under leaves.
That Kettlewell released lab moths onto tree trunks that were in a state such that they may not have naturally rested on the
tree trunks.
Classic textbook photos of the moths resting on tree trunks were faked, as dead moths were pinned or glued to the tree
trunks.
The teaching film of the moths being eaten by birds was also staged and not a true natural situation.
That such industrial melanism type of natural selection due to differential predation could easily be real, but would be trivial
anyway. As we have pointed out countless times in our articles, natural selection is fact, and does not equal evolution of
itself. (Whether by differential reproduction or differential survival, it occurs via culling or loss of genetic information, not its
creation.)That evolutionists were misrepresenting natural selection as evolution in action was a secondary point; the main
one was that there was so much seeming desperation to convince students of evolution that its proponents were willing to
overlook these serious flaws, and even use fake photographs to buttress the point.
The New Scientist article claims:
That creationists have exploited legitimate scientific debate over the fine details concerning these moths to unfairly attack
the whole example, and with it, evolution itself.That when Chicago evolutionist Jerry Coyne said, For the time being we
must discard Biston as a well-understood example of natural selection in action, he was taken out of context, selectively
quoted, was unfortunately unclear, etc.That non-creationist journalist Judith Hooper, who in her book Of Moths and
Men not only highlighted what even this New Scientistarticle agrees is the flawed nature of Kettlewells experiments, but
also accused him, without adequate evidence, of fraud (which was unfairly seized upon by creationists). 4That one of the
biologists who had raised some of the initial issues about the moth observations, Michael Majerus, has finished an
exhaustive experiment to reverse the creationists advances and that his preliminary results are enough to fully reinstate
the moth as the prime example of Darwinian evolution in action.Importantly, the article does not even attempt to refute what
we reported about the fakery involved in pinning dead moths to tree trunks. And the article itself concedes that Kettlewells

procedures were substantially flawed.Instead, it pushes the strawman premise (so far as CMIs articles are concerned,
anyway) that the creationist articles were attacking natural selection as such, or at any rate were gloating that natural
selection had been seen to fail precisely in the situation where it was touted the most. 5 But, as shown, our items made it
clear that the validity of natural selection as such was never in doubt and not the issue at all.What about Majeruss
exhaustive experiment that has allegedly triumphantly restored the moths trophy status for Darwinists? Well, let me say
once again that if it had been convincing, one would have said, Big dealwhats surprising about that? But ironically, what
we see once more is the desperation of Darwinists in the propaganda war, as well as a total
misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the creationist position on natural selection. Majerus spent seven years releasing
moths (overcoming the procedural flaws in Kettlewells experiments) such that some came to rest on light-coloured trunks,
and he watched birds eat some of them. His earth-shaking results?Birds found it easier to spot (and hence eat) darker
moths on light surfaces than their lighter counterparts. (One finds it hard to resist a duh )This accounts for the fact that
the ones he released that went missing (thus presumably eaten) were 29% of the dark ones compared to 22% of the light
ones.As if that were not trivial enough, even this article attempting to present the experiment as a coup de grace for
evolution makes it plain that it doesnt satisfy all evolutionary biologists. Some of these evolutionist critics point out that
other animals also eat moths in nature, and may have different preferences for light and dark moths. And, most significantly
of all, the article points out that the frequencies of light and dark moths do not always correlate with the level of pollution
anyway. But one can overlook all the frantic arm-waving and trumpet-blowing over whether the article demonstrates natural
selection, (which is a process we dont think needs to be demonstrated anywayit is a self-evident logical deduction, as
well as having been amply observed elsewhere). What is truly disturbing is the way in which the leap is made from an
observed change of gene frequencies (which is what industrial melanism, if adequately demonstrated, would be) to, in
Majeruss quoted words, the proof of evolution. The word evolution, of course, means in most peoples minds the whole
notion that particles have turned into people.To say that because evolution requires a change in gene frequencies,
demonstrating such a change demonstrates evolution is a logical fallacy of the following type (technically called affirming the
consequent):
For me to be a good driver requires that I have good eyesight.
I can demonstrate that I have good eyesight.
Therefore I am a good driver.
That should be amply clear from such articles on this site as Muddy Waters, The Evolution Trains A-comin , and Beetle
Bloopers.
A young age model would also predict changing gene frequencies with time, but within the limits of the original kind plus the
addition of (mostly information-losing) mutations.
Even as renowned an evolutionist as Pirre-Paul Grass, holder
of the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne, made it clear that one
can have mutations and selection in bacteria, for example,
changing gene frequencies, but that this is a shift to the left, a
shift to the right, with no net long-term result. Equally, the moths
have shifted with pollution towards darker forms, then as the air
has cleared up over the decades, the moth population has
generally headed back again towards the situation where the
lighter forms predominate once more. Where, then, is the net
evolutionary change, the generation of novelty that is required by
the theory?The biologist L. Harrison Matthews was prominent
enough to be asked to provide the foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwins Origin of Species. He was at the time clearly
also quite happy to see the moths, as does Majerus, as an example of selection in action (which would be no big deal to us,
too). So its worth noting what he says in that foreword (emphasis added):The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural
selectionor survival of the fittestin action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may
alter in their content of light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston
betularia.Towards the end of the article, Majerus is cited as making a revealing statement. He says that the birds-eatingmoths story is easy to understand because it involves things we are familiar with. Exactly. It makes it easy to indoctrinate
students with an example that makes sense, and then have them thinking that they have seen a process that somehow
creates new things in biology. It is all part of the passion for the moth story, a story that evolutionists bolstered with not only
inadequate procedures, but faked photographs. (And this passion has ensured that some major noses got out of joint when
creationists made legitimate use of the revelations.) 6 This is the reason why, to ensure it was understood and ingrained in
students, some evolutionists faked/staged photographs in the first place. And it is clearly the reason for this article, to try to
rehabilitate at all costs the idea (which may be true, its just that there is so little evidence for it) that the birds are definitely
responsible for the changes in frequencies. Which makes it all the more ironic that the same article cites other evolutionists
as saying that the jury is still out, even on that aspect of it.And what about the alleged out-of-context (a politicians favourite
ruse) quotation of Jerry Coyne? In reality, as our articles show, it was never just a matter of him pointing out some cautions.
We cited him from an article in his own hand in Nature magazine as indicating that the revelations about the moth story gave
him the same feeling he had when he found out that Santa Claus was not real, and it was his father bringing the presents.7
As we said in the 2002 article mentioned earlier,
Three statements sum up the biological reality about this issue.
Before the industrial revolution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.
During the worst days of pollution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.
Today, there is genetic information for dark and light moths.
In other words, the only thing thats happened is that the relative numbers of each have gone up and down. What do I think
should be the real take-home lesson of the Peppered Moth saga? The fact that this amazingly banal set of events has been
hammered worldwide as ultimate proof for a belief that microbes originally turned into moths (and moth researchers)! This
is far more stupefying to contemplate than even all the faked photos and talk of fraudulent experiments.
Thank you once againI have truly appreciated the opportunity to draw attention to this astonishing New Scientist article. If
anything, the beatups and spin it so obviously utilizes strengthen the point about how desperate evolutionists are not to
have this particular icon exposed for what it isat best, an extremely trivial example of natural selection (not the proof of
evolution).
WHAT ABOUT COMPTER SIMULATIONS ALLEGEDLY PROVING EVOLUTION BY CUMULATIVE SELECTION
Weasel, a flexible program for investigating deterministic computer demonstrations of evolution

by Les Ey and Don Batten

Summary
In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins described a computer program and the results that he claimed
demonstrated that evolution by random changes, combined with selection, was virtually inevitable.The program described
herein mimics Dawkins program, but also provides the user with the opportunity to explore different values for the
parameters such as the mutation rate, number of offspring, the selection coefficient, and the genome size. Varying the
values for these parameters shows that Dawkins chose his values carefully to get the result he wanted. Furthermore, the
user can see that, with realistic values for the parameters, the number of generations needed to achieve convergence
increases to such an extent that it shows that evolution of organisms with long generation times and small numbers of
offspring is not possible even with a uniformitarian time-frame. And this is with a deterministic exercise, which cannot be a
simulation of real-world evolution anyway. The program also allows the user to set up a target amino acid sequence with the
mutations occurring in the DNA base pair order. Since there is redundancy in the triplet codons, the dynamics of the
convergence are different to a simple alphabetical letter sequence. The program also allows for the user to include deletions
and additions, as well as substitutions, as well as variable length in the evolving sequence.Cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle
(19152001) said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to
that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubiks cubes all arriving at the solution at the same
time.1 In others words, it is impossible. In response to this huge problem for their naturalistic scenario, many evolutionists try
to avoid the issue by breaking the evolution of proteins down into small and gradual steps. Richard Dawkins, a prominent
atheist, is one such apologist.Many introductory courses in biology at universities have The Blind Watchmaker, by
Dawkins,2 as required reading. The title, a play on William Paleys watchmaker analogy, wherein Paley (17431805) argued
that the complexity of living things demanded an intelligent creator, reveals Dawkins aimto rid his readers of any sense of
a need for a Creator. The blind watchmaker is purely naturalmutation and natural selection. Dawkins book is an
undisguised polemic for atheism.In this book, Dawkins presents a description of a computer program that generated the
sequence of letters, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL3from a starting sequence of random letters. The process involves
randomly changing letters in each generation and selecting the offspring closest to the target sequence. The mutation and
selection process is repeated until the sequence is arrived at. This supposedly showed that evolution by cumulative
selection of favourable random changes was inevitable, easy and fast.At the time (1986) it was fairly showy to have a
computer program to demonstrate something and many readers were duped into thinking that the program had proved
something, not realizing that a program will do whatever its programmer designs it to do. Because of the deceptive nature of
Dawkins demonstration, several creationist authors saw the need to counter Dawkins dupe. 46 These authors have pointed
out reasons why Dawkins program does not prove evolution. It should be fairly obvious that any program that sets a target
sequence of letters and then achieves it, by whatever means, has not demonstrated that the information in the sequence
has arisen by some natural process not involving intelligence. The programmer specified the information; it did not arise
from a simulation of evolution.Dawkins program has apparently been lost. Evolutionist David Wise wrote a program that
gave similar results to Dawkins program.7 CreationistRoyal Truman created an Excel spreadsheet program that generated
similar results to Dawkins program.8In this paper we describe a stand-alone program, Weasel, that closely mimics the one
Dawkins describes, as well as providing a range of options for the user to exploresuch as user-defined mutation rate,
offspring number and selection coefficient. The program also provides for a peptide sequence target, with mutations
occurring in the base sequence of a randomly generated DNA segment.
How Dawkins program worked
To begin with, a target string of letters was chosen. Dawkins chose, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Next, the computer
generated a sequence of random uppercase letters to represent the original organism. So, there were only 26 letters, plus
a space, to choose from to generate the starting organism. This sequence always contained exactly the same number of
letters as the target phrase28 letters and spaces. The parent sequence would be copied, probably about 100 times (how
many is not stated, but it must be a large number to get the results obtained), to represent reproduction. With each copy
there would be a chance of a random error, a mutation, in the copying. Now for what was supposedly analogous to
selection, each copy would now be tested to determine which copy was most like the target string METHINKS IT IS LIKE A
WEASEL. A copy would be chosen even if only one letter matched the target in the correct place, so long as it happened to
be the best match.The chosen copy would then be copied several times, again with introduced errors in the copying. In turn
this progeny was also tested to find the best match. This process would be repeated until a copy was found that matched
the target exactly.
Weasel
Weasel was written in Borland Delphi by LE. It is a freeware, but copyrighted, Windows program and you can click here
to download. (895 kB zip file)
Standard models available in Weasel:
Under the Models menu item within Weasel, four models are available:
Dawkins (default), error catastrophe, realistic mutation rates and DNA
model.
Dawkins model (default)
In the Dawkins model (Figure 1), the target sequence and parameters are
set as per Dawkins original exercise. Running the model will show
convergence on the target usually in 30 to 60 generations (iterations).
Since this is a probabilistic exercise involving a random starting sequence
and random mutations, the result will vary with each run. The only
addition to the original program concept here is the generation time.
Here the years for a generation can be entered and the program then
calculates the time taken for the convergence on the target (obviously if
your imaginary organism has a generation time of hours, then read the
Figure 1: A screen shot at the end of run of
output bar at the bottom left as hours, not years).
the Dawkins model, showing the user
Error Catastrophe model
interface, the output window and status
Error catastrophe occurs when genetic information is destroyed by
bars. Click on image above to see a higher
mutations at such a rate that all progeny are less fit than the parent/s so
resolution screen shot.
that selection cannot maintain the integrity of the genome and, in a
Dawkinsian-type model, a target sequence cannot be achieved.In the
Error Catastrophe model, the offspring number is simply reduced from
100 to 10; all other parameters remain as in the Dawkins model. Because the number of offspring is low, the chances of a
desirable mutation occurring in at least one offspring are reduced. Furthermore, as the model moves towards convergence,

the probability of a mutation undoing what has been achieved rises to the point where it equals the probability of adding a
desirable new mutation. So the model fails to converge.The user can also induce error catastrophe by increasing the
mutation rate after selecting the <no> option for <Guarantee Mutation?>. One mutation in six letters per generation is about
the error catastrophe point with 100 offspring. With 10 offspring the error catastrophe mutation rate drops to about 1 in 18.
Increasing the length of the target letter sequence shows that the mutation rate has to be decreased in proportion to avoid
error catastrophe.To avoid error catastrophe, the mutation rate (per letter or base per generation) has to be inversely
proportional to the size of the genome. That is, the larger the genome, the lower the mutation rate. Once this is factored into
the theory, evolution slows down to such a slow pace that it could never account for the amount of biological information in
existence (the basic point of Haldanes Dilemma, which Walter ReMine spells out in his book 9).With an amino acid
sequence (DNA model under the <Models> menu item), with a small offspring number of say 10, the substitution mutation
rate cannot be much more than one in the length of the target sequence. E.g., if the target is 33 amino acids (99 base pairs),
a mutation rate of 1 in 50 produces error catastrophe. So the Dawkins model will converge with a mutation rate of 1 in 28
with a target of 28 letters, but not on a genome just a little bit bigger and certainly not with a human-sized genome of
3x109 nucleotides.
Adjusted mutation rate model
In effect, the mutation rate cannot be much greater than one per genome per generation. This then severely limits the rate of
progress from a chimp-like species to human, if this were possible, even with perfect selection and all the other
assumptions.Real-world mutation rates are many orders of magnitude less than used in Dawkins model, or others
supposed simulations of evolution for that matter. Spetner, in his book (right), summarizes the knowledge on actual rates of
mutation as follows:In bacteria the mutation rate per nucleotide is between 0.1 and 10 per billion transcriptions [refs]. But in
all other forms of life the rate is smaller. For organisms other than bacteria, the mutation rate is between 0.01 and 1 per
billion [ref.].10We expect that the reason for this difference between bacteria and other organisms relates to genome size:
bacteria have the smaller genomes and can therefore sustain higher mutation rates without error catastrophe.Biological
replication is extremely accurate. This level of accuracy is due to the processes of proof reading and error correction. This is
vital since mutations disorder existing functional DNA sequences, and are therefore overwhelmingly harmful (and even rare
beneficial mutations are the result of information loss).The Adjusted Mutation Rate model shows what happens when a more
realistic mutation rate is applied to Dawkins model. A mutation rate of 1 in 100,000,000 (10 per billion letters) means that the
model takes a long time to run. It could take a few weeks on a typical slower PC. Of course the Adjusted Mutation Rate
model is still somewhat unrealistic, being the upper limit estimated for bacteria, but it helps to illustrate the point that real life
is nothing like the Dawkins model.To cope with realistically low mutation rates, a suitable pseudo random number generator
had to be found to replace the one provided in Delphi, which started to repeat the pattern before the end of a typical run.
The Mersenne Twister pseudo-random number algorithm 11generates a pattern that repeats every 2 19937 numbers and
distributes the numbers more evenly than Delphis internal generator. This makes it possible for mutation rates down to 1 in
1010 to be resolved.
DNA Model
Any standard biochemistry text would describe how proteins are made from the information contained in the base
sequences on DNA. We have provided a brief tutorial provided with the program (under <Help>). An important difference
between the DNA model and Dawkins Model, or any alphabet model, is that the DNA of an organism is not compared
directly with the target as it is in alphabetical model. Another important factor is redundancy, some of the amino acids can be
coded by different codons. With some codons, only the first two base pairs are needed to determine which amino acid is
produced. This gives the genetic code some resistance to change. In some cases you would require more than one
mutation to convert the code of one expressed amino acid into the code for another.In running the DNA model, even though
there are only four possible letters compared to 27 in the Dawkins model, a target requiring 30 base pairs takes close to
twice the number of generations to be reached compared to Dawkins target of 28 letters.The user can enter their own
amino acid sequencethe program has an editor to assist in thisand adjust the various parameters to see what happens.
One of the big differences in DNA mutations is that stop codons can be generated. These effectively truncate the sequence
if occurring within the sequence rather than at the end.
Irreducible Complexity
Behe, in his book (right), uses a mousetrap to illustrate the concept of irreducible complexity.12 He points out that the
individual parts of a mousetrap cannot function independently of each other. If you remove a single part or change its
dimensions to a significant degree, the mousetrap will fail to function at all. This (among other issues) makes a mousetrap
resistant to any step-wise explanation of its origin; that, of course, is without the aid of an intelligent designer. Dawkins
weasel analogy, and all other evolutionary story telling, fails to address this issue. It does not demonstrate how a suite of
interdependent proteins can evolve in parallel to a point where functionality appears.In Part II of his book, Behe discusses
several irreducibly complex systems, such as blood clotting, where there is no conceivable gradual build up of functionality.
For example, the proteins involved in blood clotting are required to act in unison. Its not just a case of a slight lack of
functionality if an essential protein is missing because the whole system is finely balanced. On the one hand, if one
component is missing an animal could bleed to death; on the other hand, all of the animals blood could become one
massive blood clot. These kinds of systems are all-or-nothing systems. Dawkins weasel model assumes functionality for
any and every step in the run of the model with the only requirement for selection being greater likeness to the pre-specified
goal.Michael Behe addresses Dawkins response to Paleys argument for the irreducible complexity of a watch and the need
for an intelligent designer:Neither Darwin nor Dawkins, neither science nor philosophy, has explained how an irreducibly
complex system such as a watch might be produced without a designer. 13Dawkins concept of a slow, gradual build up of
functionality is not valid for a system of proteins that have no function at all until all the proteins are present in the correct
amounts and at the same time. Indeed almost every biochemical pathway is irreducibly complex. There is hardly a trait in a
living organism that is independent of other traits for its function.The <Complexity> option in the program allows the user to
specify how many of the target letters or amino acids have to be present together for an increase in fitness. This enables
some recognition of the fact that not every point mutation can be adaptive in the change from one sequence to another. It
does not address irreducible complexity at the system level. With <Complexity> set at three, for example, a mutant with one
of the target letters added could not be selected against one without the letter. Nor would another mutant with two letters.
Only if three new target letters were present together would the mutant be selected. With a setting of three, the number of
generations for convergence for Dawkins model blows out to about 30,000, or about 600,000 years for human generation
timesand this is with perfect selection, high mutation rate and 100 offspring!The <Allow inserts and deletes> option
allows the user to specify that insertions and deletions are allowed, and the rates of occurrence per mutation event. For
example, a deletion rate of 1 in 3 means that one in three mutations will be deletions. If four is then entered for insertions,
then the rate for substitutions has to be 1:2.4, because a mutation can only be a substitution, deletion or an insertion. This
option only applies to the adjusted mutation rate and DNA models (where <Guarantee mutation?> is set to No), not the

basic Dawkins model. The user has to be a little judicious in selection of values for each these rates. For example, if a high
insertion rate is used with a low deletion rate, at a high mutation rate, the sequence can diverge further and further away
from the target as the lengths of the genomes of the offspring get longer and longer. This is another cause of error
catastrophe.Other buttons on the user interface merely underline other limitations of this computer modelling of evolution:
Fitness plateaus? For forelimbs to change into wings, for example, there would have to be a decrease in the functionality
as legs prior to there being any increase in functionality as wings. Consequently, evolution from a tetrapod to a bird would
require that the transitional animal would have to move from a fitness peak as a functional tetrapod into a fitness valley (less
fit to survive) at some stage during the transition. This is a huge problem for evolutionary scenarios (ReMine discusses
this14).Single parent? The Dawkins model, and ours, assumes asexual reproduction. This makes the offspring number in
Dawkins model even more unrealistic, because the offspring number per generation for one bacterium is one. Sexual
reproduction introduces other problems for evolutionary scenarios. These include genetic drift, wherein because only half
the genetic information in a parent is passed onto each offspring, there is a significant likelihood of a given informationadding mutation being lost from a population. The other problem relates to recessive traits, where two copies of a gene need
to be present for it to be expressed. Even if a male and female having one copy of the recessive gene happen to find each
other to mate, the chances of an offspring receiving two copies is only one in four. This greatly slows down the rate of
substitution of a new trait into a populationthis is part of Haldanes Dilemma mentioned earlier.
Fixed/average count? Is the offspring count exactly that specified for every generation, or does it vary with a mean of the
set value?Guarantee mutation? In Dawkins model, there was apparently one mutation per offspring, and only one, in
every offspring. The only random factor was the choice of which letter position would be changed and what it would be
changed to. This is not the real world. A given offspring might actually receive two mutations, or none at all. When the
mutation rate is not fixed, the number of generations needed for convergence increases. For example, with guaranteed
mutation, 15 runs of the Dawkins model took an average of 46 generations to converge, whereas without guaranteed
mutation, it took an average of 82 runs.Eliminate all but the best? This states that the selection coefficient is 1.0 in each
and every generation. In other words, perfect selection operates. The sequence closest to the target is 100% fit to survive
and all the others have 0% fitnessnone of them survive. This is not the real world. A more typical real-world generous
selection coefficient would be 0.01. If this could be factored in, the number of generations would multiply
enormously.Accidental death? No allowance is made for the accidental death of the surviving organism in each generation.
There is of course also no allowance made for lethal mutations. The exercise assumes that in every generation, one
offspring will have 100% fitness.There are other limitations to this approach; limitations because it is a computer
programming exercise. One area not covered is that mutations and selection occur in populations, not just in one individuals
offspring in each generation. This aspect introduces the whole area of population genetics. With a large population,
desirable mutations are more likelythis can be seen by increasing the number of <Offspring count> in the different
models. However, the larger the population, the longer it takes for the new gene variant to take over the population, where
all the individuals without the mutation have to die off (this is with realistic selection coefficients), and the more likely that it
will be lost through genetic drift, etc.Other problems for simplistic models of gene evolution are also ignored: issues such as
pleiotropy (one gene affecting several different traits) and polygeny (two or more genes working together to affect a trait).
Another problem is multiple-coding genes, where the same sequence of DNA can be read using different frames, or the
complementary strand read, or read backwards, or the messenger RNA edited (alternative splicing), to produce different
proteins.15 Evolving a gene for one protein with one function is difficult enough; evolving one that can produce several
different functional proteins would have to be completely out of the question. Following are some other problems that are
ignored: the complexities of gene control (producing a new protein without control over the amount would not be very
helpful), mutation hotspots (many base sequences are quite resistant to mutations; others are quite prone), the intron / exon
structure of many eukaryotic genes (where introns are removed from the messenger RNA before protein synthesissignals
have to be coded into the DNA to control this editing) and the necessity of new control systems to destroy the new proteins
when their job is finished.6
Conclusion
Dawkins weasel program does not generate any new informationthe information was completely specified in the target
phrase. The target phrase is effectively a mould that is used to shape the virtual species. Perfect selection that is goal-based
hammers this species until it is forged into the likeness of the predetermined target. There is no mould that natural selection
can use. The program uses many such unrealistic assumptions that all contribute to making evolution look easy, even
inevitable. When the parameters of Dawkins weasel analogy are modified, it can be seen how carefully Dawkins chose the
values for the parameters. Far from demonstrating how inevitable evolution is, the program presented here can be used to
show that in realistically sized genomes error catastrophe is a major hindrance to the speed at which evolution could occur,
even when ignoring all the other unrealistic assumptions. With realistic mutation rates, the program shows how slow
evolution would be, even given the remaining unrealistic constraints, such as perfect selection.Added to that, the issue of
irreducible complexity makes it clear that the vast amount of biological information that we see in organisms today could not
have arisen from random processes, even with natural selection to supposedly aid the process.Spetner points out16 that no
one has found a single point mutation that adds biological information (specified complexity). This is not to say that such a
mutation cannot or does not happen, just that such mutations cannot be the mechanism for generating the vast amount of
biological information that we see.

HOMOLOGY AND EMBRYOLOGY

Homology made simple
by Dominic Statham
Have you ever noticed the many similarities that exist
between different animals? Many animals have two
eyes, two ears, four limbs, a heart, a brain, five digits
(fingers and toes), etc. The natural world is full of
these kinds of patterns and evolutionists have a
special term for them. They call them homologies or
homologous organs or homologous structures.
Homologies simply refer to similarities which,
according to evolutionists, are due to their being
inherited from a common ancestor.So, according to
evolutionists, the eyes of the different animals on the
bottom row of fig. 1 are homologous organs because

they inherited them from a common ancestor that had eyes. Similarly, the legs of these animals are homologous structures
because they allegedly inherited them from a common ancestor that had legs. So, referring again to the diagram in fig. 1,
frogs, seals, birds and people are said to possess eyes and legs because they inherited them from a common ancestor that
looked something like the one at the top.
If you open a typical biology textbook that teaches evolution you will
probably find diagrams like the ones in figs. 23. They show the similarities
between the forelimbs (front legs or arms) of various animals. Each has a
humerus shown in green, a radius shown in blue, an ulna shown in brown
and digits shown in yellow. Evolutionists, of course, argue that there is a
very straightforward explanation for these similaritiesthey were inherited,
they say, from a common evolutionary ancestor. The forelimbs, they claim,
are an excellent example of homology. Perhaps more than anything else,
this kind of diagram has convinced many people that evolution is true.
However, as with all arguments for evolution, when we scratch beneath the
surface, we find that the argument collapses. Lets see how this one
collapses when its subject to scrutiny.
The secrets of embryos
Humans and frogs both have digitsthat is, fingers, thumbs and toes. Now
if humans and frogs have digits because they inherited them from a
common ancestor, we would expect their digits to grow in a similar way. We
would expect the embryonic development of the digits in humans and frogs
to be basically the same, the same as in the common ancestor from which
they are allegedly descended. But digit development in humans and frogs
is different.
With reference to fig. 4, in humans we start off with a spade-like structure
and the digitsthe fingers and toesdevelop through the material
between them dissolving away. The material between the digits
is removed. (Thats how your fingers developed when you were in your
mothers womb.) In frogs its different. The digits grow outwardly and
independently from buds. The material is added.1 If evolution were
the correct explanation for why humans and frogs both have digits,
we would expect their embryonic development to be similarwe
would expect humans and frogs not only to have inherited the digits
but because the similarity is supposed to be due to shared genes,
also the same process of digit development. Interestingly, limb
development varies even between one amphibian and another, for
example between frogs and salamanders.2 What is so significant
about all this is that these are not isolated examples. The embryonic
development of so-called homologous structures isoften different
and not just with respect to limbs.
As far back as 1894, the American embryologist Edmund Wilson
wrote, It is a familiar fact that parts which are undoubtedly
homologous, often differ widely in [their] mode of formation.3

Moreover, according to the late Spanish embryologist

Dr. Pere Alberch, it is the rule rather than the exception
that homologous structures develop differently.4

Homologya big problem for evolutionists

Sir Gavin de Beer was one of the foremost embryologists of the 20 th century. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society, and
went on to become the Director of the Natural History Museum in London. In 1971 he wrote a paper which he
titled, Homology: an Unsolved Problem.5 Now Gavin de Beer was an evolutionist, he believed in Darwins theory of
evolution; but he couldnt reconcile this with the facts of embryology. In his paper he gave examples of homologous
structures that developed in very different ways, from different parts of the egg or embryo and under the control of different
genes. It was a mystery to him because it flew in the face what he expected to find as an evolutionist; hence the title of his
paper calling homology an unsolved problem. He never solved this problemand nor has anyone else.Gunter Wagner is
Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Yale University. Speaking of this same problem, the problem of reconciling
the facts of embryology with the theory of evolution, he wrote, The disturbingly many and deep problems associated with
any attempt to identify the biological basis of homology have been presented repeatedly. 6(Emphasis added.)Now they tell
the youngsters in the schools and the students in the universities that evolution is the great unifying principle in biology.
They tell us that Darwin explained the diversity of life. The celebrated evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky assured us that
nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. But this is simply not true. The reality is that attempts to
reconcile the facts of biology with Darwins theory give rise to many and deep problems.
A creationist interpretation of homology

So what are we to make of all the similarities? Why do so many animals have two eyes, two ears, a heart, lungs etc? Why
are the forelimbs so similar in different animals? Why is the natural world so full of these kinds of patterns? Well, normally,
when people see a pattern they assume there must have been a designer; and in the absence of a satisfactory evolutionary
explanation, strong patterns in nature surely point to just thata designer. Common anatomy unifies the natural world and
points to there being just one designer.
Homology and homoplasy
Rather than providing support for evolution, patterns of similarity seen throughout the living
world, in addition to providing evidence for a single designer (see main text),
actually resist naturalistic
explanations,
as
the
widespread
occurrence
of homoplasyindicates. To explain; quite often, animals have similar organs or structures
which, in the thinking of evolutionists, cannot be explained by common ancestry. A good
example is the camera-eye which has a lens and retina, a design found in both humans
and octopuses (see fig. 5). Since humans and octopuses are not thought to have inherited
their eyes from a common ancestor, these are not regarded as homologous. Instead,
evolutionists would refer to them as an example of homoplasy. This is also known as
convergent evolution because it is understood that the evolutionary process has
converged upon the same design independently. There are numerous examples of alleged
homoplasy.8 Bats and dolphins both have echolocation systems that work in a similar way
to man-made sonars.9 Some fish generate electricity, which they use to stun prey or ward
off attackers, an ability that has supposedly evolved independently six times. 10 Similarly,
tuna and mako sharks both move their tail fin with strong red central muscles attached to
the fin with tendons. Yet in evolutionary terms, they could not have gained this (unusual for
fish) mechanism from a common ancestor.11 The likelihood of evolutionary processes
producing this level of similarity, based on chance mutations filtered by selection in
randomly varying environments, seems very remote. Eyes are believed by some
researchers to have evolved independently some sixtydifferent times.12Placentals (e.g.
humans) are mammals whose young develop internally, in their mothers womb, nourished
through a placenta. Marsupials (e.g. kangaroos) are mammals that carry and suckle their
young externally in a pouch. According to the theory of evolution, placentals and
marsupials evolved from a common ancestor that looked a bit like a modern shrew. These
early placentals and marsupials allegedly then evolved into many different animals. What is
so difficult for evolutionists to explain, however, is why, in so many cases, placentals
evolved almost identical forms to marsupials (see fig. 6).Many plants produce food and
grow using energy from the sun, through a complex process called photosynthesis. One
form of this is named C4 photosynthesis and is particularly complex. Because of the
differences between the plants that use the C 4process, evolutionists again have to argue that this evolved independently
more thanthirty times.13,14 It seems mind-boggling that a process of such complexity could have evolved once; but to claim
that this happened so many times stretches credibility beyond all reason. It requires a lot of blind faith to be an evolutionist!
Also, sometimes structures alleged to be homologies must be explained away as homoplasies when the evolutionary family
tree is changed. For example, based on supposedly homologous features in their skulls and teeth, whales were
dogmatically proclaimed to have evolved from mesonychids, an extinct type of large predatory ungulate (animal with
hooves). But DNA similarities convinced evolutionists that they evolved from another groupartiodactyls (even-toed
ungulates), similar to the hippopotamus. So these supposedly definitive homologies must be re-interpreted as homoplasies.

Evidence for evolution?

Evolutionists say that similarities undeniably point to common ancestry. But this is clearly not true, as has been shown,
because close similarity is frequently found in creatures where evolutionists concede that common ancestry cannot be the
explanation. Despite this, evolutionists even define homology as similarity due to common ancestry [i.e. evolution]. At the
same time, homoplasy is defined as similarity due to [convergent] evolution. Hence, in the thinking of evolutionists,
similarity with common ancestry is evidence for evolution, and similarity without common ancestry is evidence for evolution.
Whatever similarity they find, then, is evidence for evolution!Homoplasy is no more than terminology masquerading as an
explanation. The concept of homoplasy is not derived from scientific evidence but from blind faith. This faith rests upon the
arbitrary assumption that natural processes can explain everythingincluding rampant convergence, however improbable
this might appear.

Refuting Evolution 2Chapter 6

A sequel to Refuting Evolution that refutes the latest arguments to support evolution (as presented by PBS and Scientific
American).
by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. with Michael Matthews
Argument: Common design points to common ancestry
Evolutionists say, Studies have found amazing similarities in DNA and biological systemssolid evidence that life on earth
has a common ancestor.
First published in Refuting Evolution 2
Chapter 6
Common structures = common ancestry?
In most arguments for evolution, the debater assumes that common physical features, such as five fingers on apes and
humans, point to a common ancestor in the distant past. Darwin mocked the idea (proposed by Richard Owen on the PBS
dramatization of his encounter with Darwin) that common structures (homologies) were due to a common designer rather
than a common ancestor.But the common Designer explanation makes much more sense of the findings of modern
geneticists, who have discovered just how different the genetic blueprint can be behind many apparent similarities in the
anatomical structures that Darwin saw. Genes are inherited, not structures per se.So one would expect the similarities, if
they were the result of evolutionary common ancestry, to be produced by a common genetic program (this may or may not
be the case for common design). But in many cases, this is clearly not so. Consider the example of the five digits of both
frogs and humansthe human embryo develops a ridge at the limb tip, then material between the digits dissolves; in frogs,
the digits grow outward from buds (see diagram below). This argues strongly against the common ancestry evolutionary
explanation for the similarity.
Development of human and frog digits
Stylized diagram showing the difference in developmental patterns of frog and human digits.

Left: In humans, programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the ridge into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers
and toes). [From T.W. Sadler, editor, Langmans Medical Embryology, 7th ed. (Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1995),
p. 154157.]
Right: In frogs, the digits grow outward from buds as cells divide. [From M.J. Tyler, Australian Frogs: A Natural
History (Sydney, Australia: Reed New Holland, 1999), p. 80.]
The PBS program and other evolutionary propagandists claim that the DNA code is universal, and proof of a common
ancestor. But this is falsethere are exceptions, some known since the 1970s, not only in mitochondrial but also nuclear
DNA sequencing. An example is Paramecium, where a few of the 64 codons code for different amino acids. More examples
are being found constantly.1 The Discovery Institute has pointed out this clear factual error in the PBS program. 2 Also, some
organisms code for one or two extra amino acids beyond the main 20 types. 3The reaction by the PBS spokeswoman,
Eugenie Scott, showed how the evolutionary establishment is more concerned with promoting evolution than scientific
accuracy. Instead of conceding that the PBS show was wrong, she attacked the messengers, citing statements calling their
(correct!) claim so bizarre as to be almost beyond belief. Then she even implicitly conceded the truth of the claim by citing
this explanation: Those exceptions, however, are known to have derived from organisms that had the standard code.
To paraphrase: It was wrong to point out that there really are exceptions, even though its true; and it was right for PBS to
imply something that wasnt true because we can explain why its not always true.But assuming the truth of Darwinism as
evidence for their explanation is begging the question. There is no experimental evidence, since we lack the DNA code of
these alleged ancestors. There is also the theoretical problem that if we change the code, then the wrong proteins would be
made, and the organism would dieso once a code is settled on, were stuck with it. The Discovery Institute also
demonstrated the illogic of Scotts claim.4 Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is best explained by common
design. Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours, or something almost like it, is optimal for protecting against
errors.5 But the exceptions thwart evolutionary explanations.
DNA comparisonssubject to interpretation
Scientific American repeats the common argument that DNA comparisons help scientists to reconstruct the evolutionary
development of organisms:Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence
draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. [SA 80]
DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a young age
framework. A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses
the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we
shouldnt be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures.
Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were manydesigners instead of one.Since
DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar

DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so both have similar DNA. We should expect humans to
have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are
very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human DNA to differ more from
yeast DNA than from ape DNA.So the general pattern of similarities need not be explained by common-ancestry (evolution).
Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanationsimilarities between organisms that
evolutionists dont believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood
and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks,
and even in some bacteria. An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse
sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels. 6 And there are many other examples of
similarities that cannot be due to evolution.
Debunking the molecular clock
Scientific American repeats the common canard that DNA gives us a molecular clock that tells us the history of DNAs
evolution from the simplest life form to mankind:Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from
molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and
their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the molecular
clock that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within
evolution. [SA 83]Actually, the molecular clock has many problems for the evolutionist. Not only are there the anomalies and
common Designer arguments I mentioned above, but they actually support a creation of distinct types within ordered
groups, not continuous evolution, as non-creationist microbiologist Dr Michael Denton pointed out in Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis. For example, when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such
widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon, and horse, all of these have practically the same percentage
difference with the bacterium (6469%). There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no
hint that the higher organism such as a horse has diverged more than the lower organism such as the yeast.The same
sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of the invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp,
turtle, pigeon, and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (2730%). Yet again, comparing globins
of a lamprey (a primitive cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human, they are all about
equidistant (7381%). Cytochrome Cs compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse yield a
constant difference of 1314%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome fish amphibian reptile
mammal or bird.Another problem for evolutionists is how the molecular clock could have ticked so evenly in any given
protein in so many different organisms (despite some anomalies discussed earlier which present even more problems). For
this to work, there must be a constant mutation rate per unit time over most types of organism. But observations show that
there is a constant mutation rate per generation, so it should be much faster for organisms with a fast generation time, such
as bacteria, and much slower for elephants. In insects, generation times range from weeks in flies to many years in cicadas,
and yet there is no evidence that flies are more diverged than cicadas. So evidence is against the theory that the observed
patterns are due to mutations accumulating over time as life evolved.
Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism?
by Jerry Bergman
Summary
Homology involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be proven by the similarity in the anatomy and
physiology of different animals. Since Darwin, homology has been cited in textbooks as a major proof for evolution. A review
of the literature on homology indicates that the theory does not provide evidence for evolutionary naturalism, and that the
common examples of homology can be better explained by Creation. Furthermore, increased knowledge about the genetic
and molecular basis of life has revealed many major exceptions and contradictions to the theory which, as a result, have
largely negated homology as a proof of evolution.
Extensive comparisons of skeletons, muscles, nerves, body organs, cell ultrastructure and biochemistry of different animal
kinds have confirmed that a great deal of similarity exists in both their structure and function. By arranging or classifying
large sets of anatomical structures according to the similarity of selected traits, evolutionary naturalists have attempted to
demonstrate evidence for a long, gradual line of progressive animal changes terminating in the highest organism yet,
humans. Evolutionists then argue that these comparisons prove the concept that all life evolved from a hypothetical
common ancestor protocell that they believe lived about 3.5 billion years ago.Called homology or the homology theory,
since Darwin this view has been presented as a major evidence of macroevolution theory. An example of this reasoning is
as follows:'If you look at a 1953 Corvette and compare it to the latest model, only the most general resemblances are
evident, but if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the
descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so
solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people [emphasis in original].'1Homology is not merely a
minor proof of evolution, but instead has been widely cited by evolutionists as one of themost compelling lines of evidence
for their theory.2,3 Darwin concluded that homology was critically important evidence for common descent:'According to
Darwin's theory of common descent, the structures that we call homologies represent characteristics inherited with some
modification from a corresponding feature in a common ancestor. Darwin devoted an entire book, The Descent of Man and
Selection in Relation to Sex, largely to the idea that humans share common descent with apes and other animals .
Darwin built his case mostly on anatomical comparisons revealing homology between humans and apes. To Darwin, the
close resemblances between apes and humans could be explained only by common descent.' 4Darwin reasoned that the
members of the same class of animals resemble each other in the general plan of their design and, in his words, this
resemblance is critical because of the fact that 'the hand of a man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of
the horse, the paddle of the porpoise and the wing of the bat' are all 'constructed on the same pattern' and 'include similar
bones in the same relative positions' is specifically what the theory of common descent would expect. 5 An early example of
how homology was used to argue for macroevolution is a 1928 biology text which, in answer to the question 'Why do the
individuals in a species have all of their parts homologous?', said:'The obvious answer is, that they
all descended from the same ancestors . Biologists carry this answer a step further and say that since homology within
the species is the result of common ancestry therefore all homology is due to common ancestry and the closeness of
relationship
determines
the
number
of
homologous
parts
[emphasis
in
original].'6The argument from homology has been used in high school and college biology textbooks for generations. A
survey by the author of 45 widely used recent college textbooks and 28 high school texts revealed that all of those that
discussed evolution (except one) employed homology as a major proof for Darwinism. Most discussions were brief and
almost identical in content and thrust. The following example was typical:'The seven bones in the human neck correspond

with the same seven, much larger, neckbones in the giraffe: they are homologues. The number of cervical vertebrae is a trait
shared by creatures descended from a common ancestor. Related species share corresponding structures, though they
may be modified in various ways.' 7Conklin even claims that the only natural explanation for homology is evolution, implying
that no intelligent design explanation exists. In his words the fundamental resemblances between embryos, larvae and
adults'are just as genuine homologies as those between adult structures, and the only natural explanation that has ever
been found for such homologies is inheritance from common ancestors . These fundamental resemblances,
or homologies, as they are technically called, call for some explanation, and the only natural explanation that has ever been
proposed is evolution.'8A much more recent quote illustrates how this line of reasoning is still being used today to argue that
the evidence of homology for the common ancestry of all life is 'very strong'.'Why is it that bats and whales have so much in
common anatomically with mice and men? Why do virtually all vertebrate forelimbs have the same basic "pentadactyl" (five
fingered) design? (This is one of numerous examples of "homologous" structures exhibited by related species.)' 9The author
concludes the answer is evolution. Barr lists homology as the first argument on his list of evidence for evolution. As the
above quotes show, the same line of reasoning has been used to 'prove' evolution for more than a century. However,
Dobzhansky admitted that 'homology does not prove evolution, in the sense that nobody has actually witnessed the gradual
changes in the millions of consecutive generations which led from a common ancestor to a bird on the one hand and to man
on the other'. But, he adds, homology strongly suggests evolution; 'the facts of homology make sense if they are supposed
to be due to evolution of now-different organisms from a common stock. They do not make sense otherwise.'10
Origin of the homology theory
The comparative anatomy argument called homology was probably first popularized by Huxley in 1863 to argue for human
evolution. In hisMan's Place in Nature he gathered what Milner concludes is 'overwhelming evidence' for many close
homologies 'muscle for muscle and bone for bone', proving the case for homology. 11The concept of homology originally
meant only that a set of structures was fundamentally similar. It was first elaborated in 1843 by one of Darwin's most
informed critics, Sir Richard Owen. 12,13 Before Darwin, homology observations were explained by a concept
called idealarchetypes, meaning the designer used the superior design prototype throughout his creation. A branch of this
worldview now is calledintelligent design theory.14 It was not until after Darwin that homology implied common ancestry. After
Darwin's ideas spread, the structural similarity in many animals that had been obvious to anatomists for generations was
reinterpreted as evidence for common descent.15
An evaluation of homology as evidence for evolution
That some similarity exists when certain aspects of life forms are compared is obvious. The question is: 'Does the similarity
that exists prove that one structure evolved into another and, ultimately, that the complex evolved from the simple?' The
simplest and most obvious explanation for the fact that morphological similarities between bones, sensory organs, lungs, or
gills exist among most higher animals is that the requirements of life are similar for similar living things, and some designs
are preferred in constructing animals because these designs are superior to competing designs.All automobile, bicycle and
pushcart tyres are round because this design is superior for the function of most tyres. A tyre homology does not prove
common descent, but common design by engineers throughout history because of the superiority of the round structure for
rolling. Likewise, most vertebrate kidneys are similar structurally because they have a similar physiological role in the body
and consequently must be similar in both structure and function.Homology also does not prove that a set of animals is
related by descent because both similarities and differences exist for any two animal types, and traits often are chosen by
evolutionists only because they seem to provide evidence that two animals are related. The only criterion that was used by
Darwinists to select examples of homology was: 'Does the example support what is assumed to be an evolutionary
relationship?' Other examples are ignored or explained away. This fact is so well recognized, and so many examples exist
that contradict the explanation of common descent, that evolutionists have attempted to separate most putative examples of
homology into two types: analogyand homology. The division is based on a distinction between similarity due to common
ancestry, or homology, and resemblance which is due solely to similarity of function, called analogy. An example is the
forelimbs of humans, horses, whales and birds which are judged homologous because'they are all constructed on the same
pattern, and include similar bones in the same relative positions because these are all derived from the same ancestral
bones. The wings of birds and insects, on the other hand, are analogous: they serve the same purpose, but do not
constitute modified versions of a structure present in a common ancestor. The wings of birds and bats are homologous in
skeletal structure because of descent from the forelimb of a common reptilian ancestor; but they are analogous in terms of
their modification for flightfeathers in birds, skin membranes in bats.' 16In other words, if a design similarity supports
evolutionary assumptions, it is listed as an homology and is accepted as evidence for evolution. Conversely, if a design
similarity does not support evolution, it is called analogy, and the conclusion is drawn that the similarity exists because a
certain design is highly functional for a specific body part, and not because of a common ancestor. Many analogous
structures are assumed to exist due to convergent evolution, which is defined as the separate evolution of similar
structures because of similar environmental demands. 17 Convergent evolution also is used to explain similar structures that
have formed from different embryo structures or precursors.Many examples of homology are actually better explained by
analogy, and the resemblance that exists is often due to similarity of function and/or design constraints. The forelimbs of
humans, whales and birds are similar because they serve similar functions and have similar design constraints. The
conclusion that two homologous bones are similar because they are putatively 'derived from the same ancestral bones' (as
Barr claims) is not based on direct evidence but instead on a priori conclusions demanded by macroevolution. Jones
concluded that' the evolutionist argument from homology lacks scientific content. This particular lack has very serious
implications; it strikes at the root of all attempts by evolutionists to give homology an objective basis and
distinguish homology (similarities due to descent) fromanalogy (similarities not due to descent). The only way they can
recognize analogous variation, especially when due to convergent evolution is by criteria (e.g. genetic or embryological)
which we now know do not hold for organs of "unquestionable" homology. The evolutionist concept of homology is now
shown to be entirely subjective.'18Stephen J. Gould suggested that 'the central task of evolutionary biology is the
separation of homologous from analogous likeness', and then emphasized that 'homology is similarity due to descent from a
common ancestor, period'.19 The problem with this definition is that without direct knowledge we cannot know ancestry. In
answer to the question 'Can we identify fossil ancestors of species alive today?', University of Michigan Professor Mark
Siddall contends that this is impossible and that the use of stratigraphic data when assembling phylogenies must be based
on speculation.20'By the late 1970s this "Idol of the Academy", what Pearson has called "ancestor hunting" but which
Eldredge aptly named "ancestor worship" had been thoroughly debunked.' 20Huxley understood as far back as 1870 that
when dealing with fossils, which are the only evidence we have of past life, one cannot distinguish uncles and nephews from
fathers and sons.21 Among the many reasons ancestors cannot be distinguished from sister taxa, as noted by Siddall and
others, is that there can be no positive evidence of ancestry, only inferences. Lack of evidence can only allow it as a
possibility or an ad hoc postulate.22Although many similarities exist in almost all animal structures, structural variations are
the norm. Often the variations found in the animal world seem to exist solely to produce variety, and not for the purpose of

conferring a survival advantage.Some examples in humans are as follows:Attached earlobes: The allele for free earlobes is
dominant to the recessive a allele for attached earlobes.Tongue rolling: The R allele enables one to roll their tongue into a U
shape and is dominant to the r allele (these persons lack this ability).Hitchhiker's thumb: People who can bend the last joint
of their thumb back to an angle of 60 degrees or more have the recessive alleleh and those who cannot have the dominant
allele, H.Bent little finger: A person with the dominant allele B can lay their hands flat on a table and while relaxed are able to
bend the last joint of the little finger toward the fourth finger. Those with the recessive allele b cannot do this.Interlacing
fingers: People with the C allele can cross their left thumb over their right thumb when they interlace their fingers.
The Callele is dominant over the c allele, which results in the person normally crossing their right thumb over their left.PTC
tasting: Those with this the dominant allele T trait can detect a bitter taste in paper impregnated with phenylthiocarbamide
(PTC) when they chew on it for a few seconds. Those persons with the recessive allele cannot taste this chemical.Widow's
peak: The W allele (for widow's peak, a pointed hairline) is dominant to the allele which produces a straight hairline. 23To
argue for macroevolution via comparisons according to 'complexity' judgments also is problematic because an enormous
number of exceptions exist.The comparative anatomy argument fails completely when an attempt is made to trace all living
forms of life (and even fossils) back to their postulated universal common ancestor(s). Few skeleton, muscle and brain
counterparts exist in single-celled animals (or in many developmental stages afterward).No biological or logical requirement
exists to vary the design of bones, muscles and nerves needlessly in every living form beyond what is necessary to adapt
the animal to its environment. Although variety is universal in the natural world, variety that interferes with the life process or
an animal's survival usually is avoided in animal design. Design constraints severely limit the possible variations in an
animal's anatomy, and excess deviation from the ideal can interfere with the animal's ability to survive.The many similarities
that exist among members of the animal kingdom is the result of the fact that a single designer created the basic kinds of
living 'systems', then specially modified each type of life to enable it to survive in its unique environmental niche. Examples
of major environments for which organisms must be designed include the air, ground and water. Structures that
serve similar purposes under similar conditions and that are nourished by similar foods ought to possess similarity in both
design and function. This is illustrated in a critique of Berra's Corvette analogy cited previously:' Berra's primary purpose
is to show that living organisms are the result of naturalistic evolution rather than intelligent design. Structural similarities
among automobiles, however, even similarities between older and newer models (which Berra calls "descent with
modification") are due to construction according to pre-existing patterns, i.e., to design. Ironically, therefore, Berra's analogy
shows that even striking similarities are not sufficient to exclude design-based explanations. In order to demonstrate
naturalistic evolution, it is necessary to show that the mechanism by which organisms are constructed (unlike the
mechanism by which automobiles are constructed) does not involve design.'24
Convergent evolution
A major problem with homology theory is that many structures appear similar superficially yet differ significantly in such
areas as anatomy, physiology, etc. Since such examples are not explained easily by homology, evolutionists have
hypothesized an explanation for this problem called convergent evolution, which attempts to explain the analogy found.One
of the most common examples of convergent evolution is wing evolution. Wings are believed to have evolved a minimum of
four times; in birds, bats (in the order chiroptera), insects and reptiles (such as the pterodactyl). Scientists have also
concluded that bird wings did not evolve from fly wings for several reasons. The main one is that no evidence of insects
evolving into birds (or any other animal) exists in the many insect impressions in stone, or the many examples of insects in
amber, that have been discovered.Consequently, although the evolutionary progenitors of birds are highly debated among
evolutionists, insects are not considered likely candidates. The most common theory of bird evolution suggests that they
evolved from dinosaurs or other reptiles. Thus, the wings of birds and insects are labeled not as homologous, but
analogous, because powerful evidence refutes the idea that birds evolved directly from insects. This is one of many
examples that evolutionists claim does not falsify homology theory because it was caused by convergent evolution.
However, no evidence exists to support the convergent evolution theory though.A classic example of convergent evolution is
the Tasmanian Tiger (a marsupial native to Australia) and members of the dog family (which are all mammals). The two
animals appear remarkably alike physically, but geographical separation and evidence from the fossil record militates
against the idea that one evolved from the other or both evolved from a recent common ancestor. For this reason, it has
been proposed that they evolved independently into two animals that are so close in physical appearance that a close look
at the two animals is required to tell them apart! The suggestion that two animals which look remarkably alike (such as the
dog and Tasmanian Tiger) evolved independently is not tenable and is a major problem for evolution.Convergent evolution
has been hypothesized to explain the numerous examples of homology in which the available evidence suggested that the
animals under consideration were not closely linked by descent. An example of such gratuitous hypothesizing is the
following:'Some similarities between distant species may be caused by adaptation to similar environments, which is known
as convergent evolution. Development of streamlined fins in fish (teleosts) and flippers in dolphins (mammals) are
analogous: they function alike, but are very different in underlying structure. Linnaeus's original classification of animals
does not distinguish between analogous and homologous structures. Creatures were often put in the same groups by
resemblances to an imagined "divine plan" or "design". Since Darwin species are classified to reflect the relative
closeness or distance of their common ancestry.' 25One problem with the convergent evolution hypothesis is that it requires
'reinvention of the wheel' scores or even hundreds of times. The eye is hypothesized to have evolved independently as
many as 60 different times.26 Given the small probability of the evolution of a single eye or organism, the likelihood of it
occurring numerous times is indefensible. Gould noted that even if evolution were repeated a thousand times, it probably
would not produce the human mind again.27
Vestigial organs and homology
Another branch of comparative anatomy studies structures in humans (and other so called 'higher' forms of life) that were
believed by evolutionists to be the remains of structures that were required or useful in 'lower', less evolved and less
complex ancestral forms, but that now no longer are necessary. In this case, the homologous organ in the more advanced
animal is less developed, or even deemed useless. Such homologous structures or organs are referred to as vestigial, with
most examples being assumed remnants that resulted from the loss of an earlier, better developed structure. Evolutionists
used to proudly point to over a hundred such structures in humans, but the number has decreased consistently as
anatomical knowledge has increased.Today, only a couple of examples at most are usually mentioned (and there is no
doubt that even the few examples usually mentioned are useful and not vestigial). As Howitt 28 noted, the celebrated German
anatomist, Wiedersheim, listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body, but with the increase of knowledge it has been
found that every one of them has an important function, although the functions of some organs is presently viewed as minor,
or as serving a back-up capacity.29,30Moreover, if some vestigial organs can be proven to exist, they provide support not for
evolution, but for de-evolution|--|i.e. evolution-in-reverse. What the evolutionists must demonstrate is that the development
of new and useful organs is occurring today. They also must prove that a process exists that can form new structures
called nascent organs, instead of trying to document that once-useful organs now are useless. Evidence for the

development of new organs, or those in the process of evolving, would be evidence of evolution. As of now, no evidence
of any nascent organ exists.
Embryology and homology
One major problem is that in many cases organs and structures which appear identical (or very similar) in different animals
do not develop from the same structure or group of embryo cells. It is not uncommon to find fundamental structures (e.g. the
alimentary canal) that form from different embryological tissues in different animals. For example, in sharks the alimentary
canal is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity; in frogs it is formed from the gut roof and floor; and in birds and
reptiles it is formed from the lower layer of the embryonic disc or blastoderm. 31Even the classic example of vertebrate
forelimbs referred to by Darwin (and cited in hundreds of textbooks as proof for evolution) has now turned out to be
flawed as an example of homology. The reason is that the forelimbs often develop from different body segments in
different species in a pattern that cannot be explained by evolution. The forelimbs in the newt develop from trunk segments
2 through 5; in the lizard they develop from trunk segments 6 to 9; in humans they develop from trunk segments 13 through
18.32 Denton concluded that this evidence shows the forelimbs usually are not developmentally homologous at all. As an
example, he cited the development of the vertebrate kidney which provides a challenge to the assumption that homologous
organs are produced from homologous embryonic tissues.'In fish and amphibia the kidney is derived directly from an
embryonic organ known as the mesonephros, while in reptiles and mammals the mesonephros degenerates towards the
end of embryonic life and plays no role in the formation of the adult kidney, which is formed instead from a discrete spherical
mass of mesodermal tissue, the metanephros, which develops quite independently from the mesonephros.' 33The arguments
used by evolutionists have taken on new meaning in view of the past half-century of research. For example Dobzhansky
argued that'To be sure, some diehard anti-evolutionists still insist that homology means only that the designer gratuitously
chose to make homologous organs in quite unrelated organisms. This opinion may be said to be implicitly blasphemous: it
actually accuses the designer of arranging things so that they suggest evolution merely to mislead honest students of His
works.'34This research supports ReMine's biotic message theory, the conclusion that the natural world was specifically
designed to look like it did notevolve, but was created.35 ReMine uses a wide variety of examples to support his thesis which
has been very favorably reviewed by the creationist community. ReMine notes that homology has been used as evidence
against a designer for decades, but as this review shows, it strongly supports the biotic message theory.
Biochemical homology
The homology argument from biochemistry parallels the argument in anatomy. Evolutionists suggest that just as the study of
comparative anatomy has found evidence of anatomical homologies, likewise research on' the biochemistry of different
organisms has revealed biochemical homologies. In fact, the biochemical similarity of living organisms is one of the most
remarkable features of life . Cytochrome enzymes are found in almost every living organism: plant, animal and protist.
The enzymes of the citric acid cycle are also almost universally distributed. Chlorophyll a is found in all green plants and
almost all photosynthetic protists. DNA and RNA are found in every living organism and, so far as we can determine, contain
the same hereditary coding mechanism. The fact that underneath the incredible diversity of living things lies a great
uniformity of biochemical function is difficult to interpret in any other way but an evolutionary one. Presumably these
molecules were put to their current use very early in the history of life and almost all modern forms have inherited the ability
to manufacture and use them.'36The fact that animals are 'so similar in their chemical make-up' has long been used to
support Darwinism.37 But extensive biochemical research has revealed that the simplest reason for biochemical homology is
that all life requires similar inorganic elements, compounds and biomolecules; consequently, all life is required to use similar
metabolic pathways to process these compounds. Most organisms that use oxygen and rely on the metabolism of
carbohydrates, fats and proteins must use a citric acid cycle which is remarkably similar in all organisms. Furthermore, the
metabolism of most proteins into energy produces ammonia, which is processed for removal in similar ways in
a wide variety of organisms. What evolutionists must explain is why billions of years of evolution have not produced major
differences in the biochemistry of life.Many biochemical structures/systems in yeasts and other so-called 'primitive life' forms
are almost identical to the biochemical families used in humans. With some minor variations, all life uses the same sugar
and lipid family, the same 20 amino acids, about 14 vitamins and the same basic genetic code. 38Even the complex proteins
used in all life are often identical or very similar. Correspondence even exists between very different forms of life such as
prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Ribosomes from bacteria, even though translation signals and other differences exist, have
enough similarity that they can be made to 'translate human messenger RNAs into human proteinsand vice versa'.39 The
problem for evolutionists is that the biochemistry of all life, even that allegedly separated by hundreds of millions of years of
geologic time and evolution, is too similar. Despite the many significant differences between the two basic cell forms
(eukaryotes and prokaryotes), they are both' remarkably similar on the biochemical level . Procaryotes and eucaryotes
are composed of similar chemical constituents. With a few exceptions, the genetic code is the same in both, as is the way in
which the genetic information in DNA is expressed. The principles underlying metabolic processes and most of the more
important metabolic pathways are identical. Thus, beneath the profound structural and functional differences between
procaryotes and eucaryotes, there is an even more fundamental unity: a molecular unity that is basic to life processes.'40
Although many biochemical similarities exist in life, millions of biochemical differences exist that are inexplicable via
evolution. Many of these differences do not provide a selective advantage as implied by the claim that Darwinistic
mechanisms have fine tuned life for the past 3.6 billion years. Creationists suggest that such differences exist due to the
need for ecological balance and because the designer chose to employ variety. Also, were one compound in an organism to
be altered, scores of other compounds with which it interacts would often also need to be changed so that the entire
biological system could function as a harmonious unit.
Genetics and homology
According to the evolutionary theory, homologous features are programmed by similar genes. Gene sequence similarity
would indicate common ancestry since such similarities are unlikely to originate independently through random mutations. If
the bones of the human arm evolved from the same precursors as the wing of a bat and the hoof of a horse as evolution
teaches, then we should be able to trace these alleged homologies to the DNA that codes for them. Some geneticists
thought this knowledge would allow them to find the chemical formula needed to produce an arm, leg, or other structure. But
once biologists acquired a greater understanding of genetics, they found that what are labeled as homologous structures in
different species often are produced by quite different genes.Homology predicted that features produced by similar genetic
sequences are phylogenetically homologous. There are now so many exceptions to this prediction that the concept of
genetic homology cannot now be said to be a rule, but the exception. The classic example is mutations in certain homeotic
genes41 which can cause wholesale changes in morphology such as producing two pairs of wings instead of the normal
single pair, or replacing a fly's antenna with a leg (or can even cause eyes to develop on the fly's leg). Genes that produce
results similar to the homeotic genes for flies' wings have been found in most other animal kinds, including mammals and
humans.42

In another example, the gene that controls mouse eye colour also happens to control the mouse's physical size; but the
gene that controls the fruit fly's eye colour controls not the fruit fly's size, but female sex organ morphology. 43 Although mice
and flies share a similar gene (called eyeless) which functions to control their eye development, the fly's multifaceted eye is
profoundly different from a mouse's mammal eye. In both the fly Antennapedia and mouse eyeless, similar homeotic genes
control development of structures which are not homologous by either the post-Darwinian phylogenetic or the classical
morphological definition. 44The finding that similar genes regulate such radically different structures strongly argues against
the concept of homology. So many genes used in higher organisms have multiple effects that Ernst Mayr once suggested
that genes which control only a single characteristic are rare or nonexistent. The finding that a consistent one-gene/onecharacteristic correspondence does not exist has been a major set back to the Darwinian interpretation of homology.
Because evolutionary biologists have failed to provide a biological basis for their homology research findings, Roth
concluded 'that the title of de Beer's 1971 essay|--|Homology, an unsolved problem|--|remains an accurate description .
The relationships between processes at genetic, developmental, gross phenotypic and evolutionary levels remain a black
box'.45 Research at the molecular level has failed to demonstrate the expected correspondence between gene product
changes and the organismal changes predicted by evolution.24Evolution by DNA mutations 'is largely uncoupled from
morphological evolution'.46 An example of this is the large morphological dissimilarity that exists between humans and
chimpanzees despite a high similarity in their DNA.46 In short we now know:' in general the homology of structures such
as organs or modules cannot be ascribed to inheritance of homologous genes or sets of genes. Consequently, organ
homology cannot be reduced to gene homology. Van Valen recognizes this too and therefore suggests, as an alternative, to
reduce homology to a continuity of [developmental] information. Information is not the same as genotypic nucleic acid. But
what it is exactly, and how it is continuous, is still an unsolved problem.'47
Conclusion
As scientists learnt more about anatomy, physiology and especially genetics, the concept of homology increasingly came
under attack. One problem however, was that examples which seemed to fit evolutionary assumptions were often cited,
while the many examples that do not fit were ignored. And, in time, more and more examples were discovered that had to
be ignored. Eventually, as one observer noted, homology led Darwinists to assemble very select examples that seemed to
prove ancestor-descendant relationships that often were quite convincing. In addition, as Milton has observed,'It is
homology that Darwinists rely on to bridge the gaps in the fossil record. It is homology that underlies the diagrams drawn
up by Darwinists from Haeckel to the present day showing how every living thing is related. Ultimately, however, it is
homology that has provided the greatest stumbling block to Darwinian theory, for at the final and most crucial hurdle,
homology has fallen.'48The recent information explosion in embryology, microbiology, genetics and especially molecular
biology has revealed in minute detail how plants and animals are constructed at the molecular level. If the Darwinian
interpretation of homology were correct, then we would expect that the same homologies found at the macroscopic level
also exist at the microscopic, biochemical and genetic levels. What researchers in each of these fields often find, has greatly
undermined the homology concept. So many exceptions now exist that molecular biologist Michael Denton concluded that
the homology theory should be rejected. His main argument is that genetic research has not shown that homologous
structures are produced by homologous genes and follow homologous patterns of embryological development. Instead,
genetics has found that homologous structures are 'often specified by non-homologous genetic systems' and furthermore,
the homology 'can seldom be extended back into embryology'. 49Why do most scientists accept macroevolution theory? A
major reason is that it is now the accepted world view of scientistsan idea to which they are exposed from the earliest
days of training, and by which they are surrounded daily. Most scientists are influenced by social pressure, and many
believers fear recriminations from their fellow scientists if they do not conform to what currently is viewed as correct. To
prove their orthodoxy, many scientists have become unscientific and have embraced the religion of 20th centurynaturalism.50 Belief in evolutionism requires a credulity induced partly by pressure to conform to a world of science that is
saturated with naturalism.
Fraud rediscovered
by Russell Grigg
Most people have heard of or been taught the idea that the human embryo goes through (or recapitulates) various
evolutionary stages, such as having gills like a fish, a tail like a monkey, etc., during the first few months that it develops in
the womb.The idea has not only been presented to generations of biology/medical students as fact, but has also been used
for many years to persuasively justify abortion. Abortionists claimed that the unborn child being killed was still in the fish
stage or the monkey stage, and had not yet become a human being.This idea (called embryonic recapitulation) was
vigorously expounded by Ernst Haeckel from the late 1860s to promote Darwins theory of evolution in Germany, even
though Haeckel did not have evidence to support his views.1
Data manufactured
Lacking the evidence, Haeckel set out to manufacture the data. He fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists
of human and dog embryos, to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the dissimilarities. We reported on this
particular fraud in a recent issue of Creation magazine.2Haeckels German peers (notably, in 1874, Wilhelm His Sr,
professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig) were aware of this fraud and extracted a modest confession from him, in
which he blamed the draughtsman for blunderingwithout acknowledging that he himself was the draughtsman! 2Most
informed evolutionists in the past 70 years have realised that the recapitulation theory is false. 3Nevertheless, the
recapitulation idea is still advanced as evidence for the theory of evolution in many books and particularly encyclopedias
and by evolutionary popularizers like the late Carl Sagan.4
But waittheres more
Haeckels famous (infamous) set of 24 drawings purporting to show eight
different embryos in three stages of development, as published by him
inAnthropogenie, in Germany, 1874.When evolutionists say that the
recapitulation theory is false, they usually do not mean to admit that comparing
embryos gives no evidence of common ancestry. In fact, they still frequently
highlight the assumed similarities between embryos in their early stages (called
embryonic homology) as evidence for evolution. This assumption is based on
the idea that such similarities are common knowledge. 5This alleged similarity
of embryos has for years been resting, consciously or unconsciously, on a set
of 24 of Haeckels drawings which he first published in 1866 in his Generalle
Morphologie der Organismen, and then repeated in 1874 in his more
popular Anthropogenie (see below). These purport to show embryos of fish,
salamander, turtle, chicken, pig, cow, rabbit, and human in three stages of
development.The various stages, particularly the earlier ones, show substantial similarity. Ever since these drawings

appeared, it has been assumed that they have given us something close to the truth about embryos of vertebrate species.
So much so that they still appear in textbooks and popular works on evolution. 6,7In fact, no one has bothered to checkuntil
now. It turns out that Haeckels fraud was much worse than anyone realised. It did not just affect the idea of recapitulation, it
turns out that the similarities are much, much less than anyone thought.
Fraud examined and exposed
Top row: Haeckels drawings of several different embryos,
showing incredible similarity in their early tailbud stage.
Bottom Row: Richardsons photographs of how the
embryos really look at the same stage. (From left: Salmo
salar, Cryptobranchus allegheniensis, Emys orbicularis, Gallus
gallus,Oryctolagus cuniculus, Homo sapiens.) Many modern
evolutionists no longer claim that the human embryo repeats
the adult stages of its alleged evolutionary ancestors, but point to
Haeckels drawings (top row) to claim that it repeats the
embryonic stages. However, even this alleged support for
evolution is now revealed as being based on faked
drawings.Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St
Georges Hospital Medical School, London, has exposed this
further fraud, in an article in the journal Anatomy and Embryology,8 recently reviewed in Science9 and New
Scientist.10Richardson says he always felt there was something wrong with Haeckels drawings, because they didnt square
with his [Richardsons] understanding of the rates at which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals develop their distinctive
features.8 He could find no record of anyone having actually compared embryos of one species with those of another, so
that no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea. 8He therefore assembled an international team to do just
thatexamine and photograph the external form of embryos from a wide range of vertebrate species, at a stage
comparable to that depicted by Haeckel. 8The team collected embryos of 39 different creatures, including marsupials from
Australia, tree-frogs from Puerto Rico, snakes from France, and an alligator embryo from England. They found that the
embryos of different species are very different. In fact, they are so different that the drawings made by Haeckel (of similarlooking human, rabbit, salamander, fish, chicken, etc. embryos) could not possibly have been done from real
specimens.Nigel Hawkes interviewed Richardson for The Times (London).11 In an article describing Haeckel as An
embryonic liar, he quotes Richardson:This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. Its shocking to find that somebody
one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry What he [Haeckel] did was to take a
human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same
stage of development. They dont These are fakes. 11
More
of
Richardsons
photographs of embryos at the
same
tailbud
stage
of
development and to the same
scale, showing the huge
differences between various
species.
(From
left: Petromyzon
marinus,
Acipenser ruthenus, Bufo bufo,
Erinaceus europaeus, Felis
catus, Manis javanica, Canis familiaris.)Haeckel not only changed the drawings by adding, omitting, and changing features
but, according to Richardson and his team,he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when
there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases,
as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals.9Ernst Haeckels drawings were declared fraudulent by
Professor His in 1874 and were included in Haeckels quasi confession, but according to Richardson,Haeckels confession
got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book calledDarwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in
English language biology texts.9,12Will there now be a rush by libraries, publishers and sellers of evolutionist books to
withdraw from circulation, rewrite and otherwise acknowledge the fact that the idea of embryonic similarities suggesting
evolution is largely based on academic fraud?
The embryo photos used in this article were kindly supplied by Dr Michael K. Richardson. They originally appeared in M.K.
Richardson et al., There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of
evolution and development,Anatomy and Embryology, 196(2):91106, 1997, Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co.,
Tiergartenstrasse, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany. Reproduced here with permission.

ARE THERE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN LIVING THINGS EVIDENCE FOR COMMON ANSESTRY OR COMMON DESIGN
Saddle up the horse, its off to the bat cave
by Daniel Anderson
Published: 17 October 2006 (GMT+10)
This is the pre-publication version which was subsequently revised to
appear in Creation 30(2):4041.
Surprise, surprise! Evolutionists are now saying that bats and horses
are more closely related than cows and horses. 1 In the
prestigious Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences,
scientists studied genetic re-arrangements associated with retroposons,
strands of DNA that copy themselves into RNA and then copy
themselves back into DNA at different sites on a chromosome. In the
evolutionary paradigm, closely related species share more of these rearrangements than more distant relatives.

Until this study, scientists considered bats and horses to be very distant cousins. They were shocked to discover that bats
and horses shared a high degree of DNA similarity. "I think this will be a surprise for many scientists," says Norihiro Okada
at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan. "No one expected this." 2
Why such a surprise?
Evolutionary scientists establish relationships between living
organisms based on morphological and DNA similarity. Creatures
that are anatomically similar are believed to be so because they
possess a close evolutionary relationshipthey are supposed to
have inherited these characteristics from a fairly close common
ancestor. The same is true of creatures that are genetically very
similar. So if two creatures are supposed to be evolutionarily
close by one of these criteria, they should be by the other also
provided, that is, that the whole idea of common descent is valid.
Applying this logic, researchers predicted that cows and horses
would be much more closely related than bats and horses. Cows
are anatomically, physiologically, functionally, and behaviorally
rather similar to horses. On the other hand, even a child could
identify the huge differences between bats and horses. Compared
to horses and cows, a bat is rather different in its skeletal
anatomy, mode of locomotion (flying), navigation (echolocation),
soft tissue arrangements, diet, and lifestyle.Bats and horses
should thus have been very different in their DNA, because of their obvious structural and functional differences. This
shocking result revealed an egregious discrepancy between morphological and genetic data.
More Problems
The genetic data seems to also contradict the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record. Horses supposedly evolved
from a small quadruped beginning 35-55 million years ago, taking their modern form only in the last 1.5 million years. Cows
supposedly began their evolutionary process about 23 million years ago. On the other hand, fully formed, modern looking
bat fossils appear around 60 million years ago on the evolutionary timeline.Separated by such an immense supposed time
gap, horse and bat DNA should have been much more different by now. Cows and horses, supposedly having evolved in
overlapping time frames, should share much more similarity in their respective genomes.
Implications
When it comes to bats and horses, the facts just dont add up for evolution. Common descent is based on a whole set of
assumptions, extrapolations, and inferences. However, in this case, the hard scientific data reveal that common descent is
completely invalid.2
As Okada said, in regards to the surprising discovery, We need to look at fossils from a new point of view Hes exactly
right. Perhaps it is time to throw away the tired, old evolutionary glasses and replace them with a fresh pair of lenses.
Are look-alikes related?
by Don Batten
My childhood best friend looked so
much like me that our teachers, and
even our friends, had a lot of trouble
telling us apart. Are you twins?, we
were often asked. However, there
was no family connection as far back
as anyone could trace. The similarity
in our appearance was not due to
being closely relatedor, putting it
another waydue to us having a
recent common ancestor, like a
common father, grandmother, or
even great grandparent. It was just a
fluke.The main (only?) argument for
evolution is that similarities between
living things are due to relatedness, or common ancestry. If two kinds of animals share a lot of common features, then they
are obviously closely related and so must have had a recent common ancestoror so the evolutionary reasoning
goes.1,2 Birds, for example, all lay eggs, have feathers and a specialized lung comprised of interconnected air sacs, so the
evolutionist would say all birds had a common ancestor which had these features. Creationists would say that birds have
these similarities because they were created with a common basic plan.
People would assume that because my friend and I were so similar we
must have shared a very recent common ancestorlike the same parents.
They were wrong. In like manner, the evolutionists are oftennot always
wrong in assuming similarity is due to common ancestry.Of course my
friend and I are members of the same human kind and so we know that we
had a common ancestorwho was a descendant of Japheth, in this case.
However, the analogy is accuratethat the degree of similarity in
appearance does not necessarily indicate the degree of genetic
relatedness. As we shall see, evolutionists are forced to recognise this at
times, but they (illogically) do not admit that such recognition undermines
the main argument for evolution (if similarities occur that clearly are not due
to common ancestry, how does the evolutionist know that any similarities
are due to evolution?).If living things had a common designer, we would
expect there to be many similaritiesjust like the early Porsche and VW
beetle have many similarities because they shared the same designer. If
there were not these similarities in living things we might be inclined to

believe in many intelligent designers, not just one. I believe that things are created in such a way that the patterns we see
defy a natural explanationsuch as evolutionbut support a supernatural explanation. In other words, the patterns of
similarity cannot be consistently explained by any naturalistic (everythingmadeitself) theory.
Many creatures show similar features for similar structures and purposes.

Australian
marsupial
wombat (top) and a marmot.

Sugar gliders (top) look similar toThe extinct marsupial thylacine (top)
flying squirrels.
and the wolf.
The more similar creatures are,
according
to
the
evolutionary
argument, the more closely they
should be relatedthat is, the more
recent it is since they had the same
ancestor. Take, as an example, the
usual textbook illustration of the
similarities between the limbs of
animals
with
backbones
(vertebrates) and people. Human
beings
have
a
fivefinger/toe
hand/foot pattern, and limbs with two
bones attached to the hand/foot
joined to a single other major limb
bone. We share this pattern with bats
and frogs and therefore, the
evolutionist argues, we must share
common ancestors with these

animals. That explains the similarities, we are told.

However, if we look at the horse limb (right), we see that it is quite different to the human form. Frogs and people have
remarkably similar limb structures, but horses, which are supposedly very much more closely related to humans, have a
limb with little resemblance to the human limb. Just on the basis of limb structures, it might be reasonable to suppose that
frogs and people are more closely related than people and horses.
However, horses, as mammals, share many similarities to humans which frogs, as amphibians, dont sharehorses, like us,
are warmblooded, give birth to live young, suckle their young, have hair, etc. The evolutionist claims that horses and
humans must be more closely related than frogs and humans.
But what about the remarkable differences in the limbs of horses and humans? The evolutionist explains the profound
differences in the horse and human limbs as due to adaptation in the horse. So, when the evolutionist confronts anomalies
like the horse limb, a story is invented to explain it. In this case the story is adaptation. The limb was supposedly modified
by natural selection to do a different job. However, this is a justso story to explain away evidence which does not fit the
common ancestry idea.
Quolls and cats
Marsupials are mammals which give birth to very immature babies which are suckled in a protective pouch. These include
the kangaroos, koalas, wombats and possums of Australasia and the opossums of the Americas. Placental mammals
nurture their young in the womb, which develops an elaborate nourishing structure called a placenta. The babies are born in
quite a developed state compared to marsupials.
Nearly all the mammals in Australia are marsupials. Why is this so? The evolutionist claims to have an answer: the
marsupials evolved in Australia from a common ancestor which just happened to be here. 3Placental mammalssuch as
dogs, cats, horses, squirrels, mice, etc., evolved on other continents. Thats the story.However, there are many incredible
similarities between marsupial and placental animals which defy this naturalistic story. Take the marsupial mouse, or
dunnart, and placental mouse, for example. Some types are so similar it is difficult to tell them apart without close inspection
to look for the pouch.The marsupial mole from the Northern Territory of Australia is incredibly similar to the golden mole of
Africa. When the cuscus was first discovered in Papua New Guinea it was mistaken for a type of monkey. It has a flat
monkey-like face, opposable digits on front and hind limbs, and a prehensile (grasping) tail.

Marsupial

Placental

Tasmanian Tiger or Thylacine

Wolf

Feathertail Glider

Flying squirrel

Dunnart or Marsupial mouse

Mouse, Shrew

Cuscus

Monkey

Marsupial mole

Golden mole of Africa

Quoll

Cat

Bilby

Hare

Rat kangaroo

Rat

Wombat
Marmot
The number of similar marsupial and placental animals is
astounding, if they just arose by the evolutionary
Numbat
Anteater
processes of chance mutations and natural selection.The
list could be extended by including extinct types such as
the marsupial diprotodon, a hippopotamus-like creature.
Table 1. Some marsupial and placental animals showing
So there are many similarities which are not due to
remarkable similarities.
common ancestry, or evolution. How does the evolutionist
account for these similarities? Here another story comes
into play: many of the marsupials and placentals ended up looking like one another because they happened to be in similar
ecological niches and so evolved similarly to fill those similar niches. This is another justso story. Such similarities are said
to be due to convergence or parallel evolution. Convergence is really just a grab bag to put similarities which cannot be
explained through common ancestry (evolution). This is supposed to account for similarities which do not fit the evolutionary
scheme of descent based on other similarities.It stretches the bounds of credulity to believe that so many marsupials just
happened, without any plan and purpose, to look so similar to their placental counterparts. Its like trying to believe that two
artists painted a series of almost identical paintings without reference to one another, or that the similarities between a VW
and Porsche were not due to their having a common designer.Also, if being in a similar ecological niche automatically
generates similarities, why is the kangaroo not more like cattle, horses or deerthe kangaroos ecological counterparts on
other continents? The kangaroo throws a spanner into the logic of the convergence story used to explain similarities which
do not fit the evolutionary story.4Things were created in such a way as to confound naturalistic (everything made itself)
explanations for the origin of organisms. Various ad hoc, or justso, stories have been invented in an attempt to explain the
many things which do not fit the evolutionary scheme, but they are just thatstories.
A serious problem for homology
by Robert E. Kofahl, Ph.D.
Supposedly, inherited genes control inherited characters. Thus it would be reasonable to assume that homologous
characters are controlled by homologous genes. These would be genes that control similar characters, but which have
slowly evolved, changing with time, so that the inherited characters are also changed.Thus the front appendages of reptiles,
mammals, birds, and humans are said to be homologous. Therefore, they must be controlled by homologous genes. The
fact is, however, that it has been proved in many cases that homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes!
In the vertebrates the embryo is constructed of a large number of segments which can be numbered, starting at the head
end. Surely particular segments develop under the control of particular genes. We would reasonably assume the same for
any particular structure, such as the front leg. Yet we see in the diagram that in six different vertebrates which allegedly
inherited their front legs from a common ancestor, the front legs as well as the rear legs develop from entirely different
groups of segments from species to species.Thus if the front legs (or rear legs) of these different creatures have been
inherited from a common ancestor through evolution, we have the incredible idea that the job of producing the legs is, by
evolution, passed slowly back and forth from group to group of different genes, which are themselves gradually changing to
accomplish this fantastic juggling act.In his 1971 monograph, Homology, An Unsolved Problem (reference Oxford Biology
Reader), Sir Gavin de Beer, one of the truly great embryologists of this century, posed the question for evolutionary theory
which still is unanswered:But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins
which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal
manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same "patterns", in spite of their
not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.
An illusion of common descent
Peer Terborg One of the activities of evolutionary biologists is modeling trees of life. Before the advent of molecular biology
such trees were predominantly based on morphological characteristics and ontogenetic traits. Nowadays, most modeling is
based on molecular biology data. One of the surprises is that the well-known Darwinian trees of descent are often not
recapitulated by the genetic data. A Google search using the terms comparative genomics and unexpected resulted in
over 60,000 hits, indicating that we can learn something unforeseen about the nature of mutations from comparative
genomics. Since many mutations have been found in DNA hot spots, evolutionary trees are actually a byproduct, or artifact;
a result of common design and the non-random nature of mutations. This novel view is supported by recent observations
and provides an explanation for two phenomena associated with molecular phylogeny: homoplasy and nested hierarchy.
Mutations that spontaneously and randomly appear in the germ line can be passed on from one generation to the next and
can be followed in time. The current consensus is that mutations in a DNA sequence are introduced at random and occur
only onceexcept in some hot spots. This view is summarized by Futuyma in an evolutionary textbook as follows:

Mutation is random in two senses. First we cannot predict which of a large number of gene copies will undergo the
mutation Second, and more importantly, mutation is random in the sense that the chance that a particular mutation will
occur is not influenced by whether or not the organism is in an environment in which that mutation would be advantageous
[That] Mutations occur at random does not mean that all conceivable mutations are equally likely to occur, because,
as we have noted, the developmental foundation for some imaginable transformations do not exist. It does not mean that all
loci, or regions within a locus, are equally mutable, for geneticists have described differences in mutation rates, at both the
phenotypic and molecular levels, among and within loci It does not mean that environmental factors cannot influence
mutation rates: ultraviolet and other radiation, as well as various chemical mutagens and poor nutrition, do indeed increase
rates of mutations.1 If this view is correct, alignment of nucleotides, or point mutations, in the DNA of different species
would be the best evidence for common descent. Random mutations in ancestral DNA sequences would also be present in
all descendants according to the laws of inheritance. Hence, any alignment of mutations can be considered molecular
evidence for common descent. On the other hand, mutations that do not line up in phylogenetic analyses are de novo
mutations introduced after the organism supposedly split into separate species. As such, they are evidence for the random
character of mutations. Lets critically analyze whether Futuymas view can stand in the light of current biology. To a certain
extent Futuyma may be right. For instance, we may not be able to predict which gene will mutate. Or, whether advantageous
mutations are deliberately induced as an adaptive response to the environment of the organism.2 There may be another
aspect, however, that determines where a mutations is introducedits DNA environment. As mentioned by Futuyma, some
DNA sequences may be more likely to mutate than others because the site of mutation often depends on the molecular
context. This fact is wellknown in genetics and has been covered extensively.36 Non-random mutations in Drosophila That
mutation may not be an entirely random phenomenon first occurred to me when I read a paper by Schmid and Tautz that
discussed the 1G5 gene of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. 7 The gene, found in both species is a unique, single
copy gene of unknown function, but is not a pseudogene. The 1G5 gene caught the authors interest because it was the
fastest changing gene in the study. The sequence of the 1G5 gene is 1,081 base pairs (bp) long and contains only one small
intron of 61 bp. Figure 1 shows all 75 polymorphic sites in an 864 bp segment (including the intron) of 13 populations of D.
melanogaster and 4 populations of D. simulans. The authors concluded that almost none of the amino acid positions are
under strong selective constraint because the fraction of polymorphic sites in the intron is comparable to the fraction of
polymorphic sites in the coding region. In other words, the IG5 gene is evolving /changing in a neutral way in which selection
is not involved. Drosophila melanogaster originally stems from the African continent but has been present in Europe and
Asia since early history. Until 1875, Drosophila did not exist in Canada or in the rest of the North American continent. In
1900 it was also not present in Mexico or Australia. Japan was colonized only in the 1960s. The current Drosophila
populations in Latin-America, Australia and Japan are all due to recent migrations, mainly from European and
Asianpopulations. Based on the data, we can therefore make two interesting observations: 1. An Italian population invaded
the Americas, first the USA (D. mel III) and then it migrated to Peru. In Peru it acquired the exact same mutation as the
population in Japan (the A at position 835); 2. Drosophila populations from either Cyprus, Iraq or USSR invaded Canada and
USA (USA II). The populations in Australia were not derived from the Italian (D. mel 7). Still the Australian population ended
up with the exact same mutations the Italian population acquired in the USA (USA III). The Australian population (D. mel III)
could have migrated from the USA (D. mel 11), and have acquired an A at position 637. A fraction of the mutations in the IG5
gene is found on exactly the same location but is not the result of common descent! Because none of the positions may be
under selective constraint, the observed shared mutations in the gene may be the result of a non-random mechanisma
mechanism that produces an illusion of common descent. An important question that needs to be addressed is whether
such non-random mutations are the rule rather than the exception. If the fraction of such non-random mutations is much
greater than assumed, an alignment of the mutations would suddenly not be compelling molecular evidence of Darwins
common descent. Rather, the alignment may simply reflect the common biophysical properties of those organisms. Nonrandom mitochondrial mutations Mitochondria are the power plants of the cell. They convert sugars into biologically useful
energy (ATP) and also generate heat. The more ATP generated, the less energy is left to produce heat. The efficiency of
generating ATP and heat as a byproduct appears to be a genetic trait. Genetic changes (mutations) that result in an
increase in the generation of heat automatically reduce the amount of ATP produced. People in the tropics will therefore
tend to benefit from mitochondria that produce little heat and loads of ATP. In contrast, people in Arctic Regions benefit from
mitochondria with a heat bias. A few years ago, an Australian team found that heat-generating mitochondria are indeed
common in Arctic Regions.8 They explained it as the result of natural selection, but there is also good evidence these
adaptive mutations may have occurred several times as non-random mutations. An Italian study published in 2001, for
example, showed that healthy centenarians in Italy have a high incidence of a certain mutation in the cytochrome B gene,
which is part of the energyproduction machinery. Remarkably, Wallaces study has found that this lineage, and another
found in Europe which also associated with longevity have the same mutations. Yet the two mutations occurred
independently of each other. Wallaces study goes against the traditional view that the spread of most mitochondrial
mutations occur by chance, says Alan Cooper, head of the Ancient Biomolecules Centre at the University of Oxford.9

The non-random nature of mutations in mitochondrial DNA can be illustrated by a small deletion of nine nucleotides.10 The
deletion is located between two genes in the mitochondrial control region, and is present at varying frequencies in Asia,
Southeast Asia, Polynesia, and the New World, but also in sub-Saharan Africa. Comparing mitochondrial DNA sequences of
sub-Saharan Africans with those of Asians revealed that both populations had independently acquired the deletion. The
deletion also independently occurred in South-East Asia, Polynesia and the New World. Hence, the exact same mutations
can be found in genomes independent of common descent. Natural selection and common descent are not required to
explain the distribution of shared mutations. Rather, a common genetic mechanism explains such findings. Non-random
mutations experimentally visualized Although non-random mutations are acknowledged as occurring in hot spots, it has
been tacitly assumed that such mutations are most likely exceptions. This assumption, however, may be wrong.
Experiments on mutation sites in the DNA of the common gut bacterium Escherichia coli have provided some remarkable
results. Of 293 independent mutations identified within the lacId sequence on the F plasmid, 63% are located at 19
medium-level hotspot sites. Of 120 base substitutions identified within the rpsL sequence on a multicopy plasmid, 63% are
located at 9 hotspot sites. Recently, the rpsL mutation assay was adapted to analyze mutations in the same target sequence
that had become integrated into the chromosome of E. coli (K. Yoshiyama, M. Kawano, A. Isogawa and H. Maki,
unpublished results). In this case, 70% of 1555 base substitutions examined are confined to only two strong hotspot sites.
The remaining 475 mutations are almost evenly distributed at 91 sites within the target sequence.11 In bacteria, the nonrandom character of mutations can only be resolved after the analysis of hundreds of DNA sequences. If sufficient numbers
of sequences are included, the majority of mutations are in hot spots. Base substitutions and single-base frame shifts, two
major classes of spontaneous mutations, occur non-randomly throughout the genome. Within target DNA sequences there
are hot spots for particular types of spontaneous mutations. Outside of these hot spots, spontaneous mutations occur more
randomly and much less frequently. Hot-spot mutations can therefore be attributed to endogenous DNA lesions rather than
to replication errors.11 Radiation-induced non-random mutations Direct evidence for environment-driven non-random
mutations comes from studies carried out in areas with a high natural background of radioactivity. When unstable atoms
drop or convert to a more stable energy state, they send out energy waves (beta and gamma radiation) and/ or emit a
hydrogen particle (alpha radiation). The emitted radiation is better known as radioactivity. Radioactivity is highly mutagenic:
it destroys the information in the DNA molecule. It has always been assumed that radiation is a random mutagen, i.e. the
position at which mutations are introduced cannot be predicted. This is also the case for ultraviolet radiation and oxidative

stress. Surprisingly, however, radioactivity has now been shown not to be a random mutagen. Kerala, at the southern tip of
India, is a densely populated peninsula with the worlds highest level of natural occurring radioactivity: the beaches contain
radioactive elements such as thorium and monazite. Generations of fishermen have made a living here, as well as on
nearby low-radiation islands. In 2002, mutations in the mitochondrial DNA were analyzed and compared to a control group.
Twenty-two mutationswere identified in the DNA sequence of families living in the Kerala area, whereas the control
population had only one mutation in the same sequence. The increased mutation rate in the Kerala area wasnt unexpected,
but the surprise was to find that the mutations were located at positions referred to by geneticists as evolutionary hot spots.
The investigators reported that Strikingly, the radioactive conditions accelerate mutations at nucleotide positions that have
been evolutionary hot spots for at least 60,000 years.12 Apparently, high energy radiation does not induce random
mutation. In an environment with high levels of radiation, some positions are more likely to mutate than others. Over and
over, radiation-induced mutations fall on the exact same hot spots. Therefore, positions where mutations occur in a DNA
sequence may largely be (pre)determined. Homoplasy A comparison of human, chimpanzee and rhesus macaque genes
revealed that many mutations are shared between the Rhesus macaque and humans but do not appear in chimpanzees.13
In other studies which compared human, chimpanzee and gorilla sequences this peculiar phenomenon was also observed,
i.e. human genes often resemble those of gorillas, not chimpanzees.14 So whether humans are more closely related to
chimpanzees than to gorillas then appears to depend on which genes are compared. Only 55% of the human genes
resulted in the expected Darwinian tree. The sharing of unexpected sequence arrangement is a common observation and is
known as homoplasy. Scientists speak of homoplasy when DNA sequences are identical in organisms that are not closely
related in an evolutionary tree. (Mutations in) DNA sequences often conflict with known evolutionary trees. Homoplasy has
long been appreciated in theoretical phylogenetics, with much effort invested into understanding its causes and providing
corrections for them. However, the observed patterns give cause for concern that the extent of homoplasy is much
greater than expected under widely accepted models of sequence evolution and that the attendant consequences for the
limits to phylogenetic resolution are not sufficiently appreciated.14 Apparently, homoplasy is fairly common (1015%
according to reference 14) and, in my opinion, simply reflects the non-random nature of mutations. Homoplasy is, in fact,
nothing but part of the illusion of common descent caused by inter-species hot spots recognized and acknowledged by
evolutionists. How do evolutionists discriminate between random and non-random mutations when they are modelling the
tree of life? In other words, how do they differentiate between homoplasy and real common descent mutations? The answer
is they dont. It appears their trees are nothing but common design plus a handful of non-random mutations.Nested
hierarchy Phylogenetic analyses often display nested hierarchy. This means that the genes of distinct organisms appear to
us as groups within groups. For instance, the genes of humans usually group with primates. Primates group with mammals,
which then group with vertebrates. The nested hierarchy is a reflection of DNA sequences that are more dissimilar in
organisms that are more distantly related. This is what one might expect from common descent with modification; the longer
the time since two organisms supposedly split from a common ancestor, the more differences should be observed. Nested
hierarchy is therefore believed to present compelling evidence for evolution and meant to imply common descent. However,
according to Francis S. Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project: If these genomes were created by individual
acts of special creation, why would this particular feature [nested hierarchy] appear?15 Collins considers nested hierarchy a
problem for special creation and it his main reason for accepting Darwins common descent. But the nested hierarchy
observed among species that cannot reproduce may just be a result of the functional restrictions (between separate
designs) and non-random mutations. Functional domains of proteins include sites for phosphorylation, glycosylation,
ubiquitinilation, sumoylation and glutathionylation, as well as sites that interact with other proteins. The function of such
domains is determined by specific sequences of amino acids that must be coded in the DNA. All functional domains and
sites will contribute to the sequence identity of homologous genes in separate species. Phylogenetic analyses are therefore
in effect a genetic miragethe result of artificial constraints imposed by analysing functional domains together with nonrandom mutationslargely determined by the physico-chemical properties of the DNA sequence and its environment. The
pseudogene argument revisited A pseudogene is a gene that has lost its function, usually due to the accumulation of
debilitating mutations. A wellknown example is the GULO gene, which is inactive in humans. Hence, man cannot make
vitamin C. In fact, all the families tested from one primate suborder, the Catarrhini, also lack the ability to make their own
vitamin C, whereas those from the suborder Platyrrhini make this vitamin in the liver. Degenerative loss of vitamin C
biosynthesis has evidently occurred quite frequently. A deletion mutation in humans is also present in chimpanzees,
orangutans and macaques.16 This deletion is usually hailed as the ultimate evidence for the existence of a common
ancestor for both humans and apes. Based on the occurrence of non-random mutations, could this shared deletion in
primate genes simply be the result of an inter-species hot spot?Figure 3 shows the relevant part of exon X of the GULO
gene in 11 organisms, including humans and primates. The deletion in nucleotide 97 is indicated by an asterisk. It is
immediately obvious from the other sequences that position 97 is in fact a mutational hot spot. Reading position 97 from
bottom to top, i.e. from rat to guinea pig, gives us the sequence A-C-G-A-C-A-G. Compare, for instance, the neighbouring
nucleotides on positions 96 and 98. Both 96 and 98 read G-G-G-G-G-G-G and are therefore very secure, very stable
positions. In contrast, the nucleotide on position 97 is highly unstable. Position 97 appears to be an inter-species hot spot, a
highly unstable region that easily mutates. In man, chimpanzee, orangutan and macaque the deletion in this unstable
position gives us an illusion of common descent.17 Discussion and outlook Two elementary and distinct classes of
mutations occur in DNA sequences: 1) random mutations, and 2) non-random mutations. Here, random has been defined as
genetic changes that are entirely the result of chance; where and when random mutations are introduced in a DNA
sequence can neither be predicted nor foreseen. Random mutations are purely the physical outcome of the allpervading
frictional damage that accompanies all molecular machinery.18 On the other hand, non-random mutations are the result of
physico-chemical mechanisms; their position in a DNA strand reflects their non-random nature. There are two distinct types
of non-random mutations: 1. Veri (true) non-random mutations, that occur in exactly the same location in all DNA
sequence. These are non-random with respect to the position in the DNA sequence and it is very hard to distinguish them
from shared mutations resulting from common descent; 2. Quasi (almost) non-random positional mutations. A quasi
mutation is non-random in the sense that it occurs in a determined DNA sequence, although the nucleotide affected is
random (either A, T, C or G). In genetic analyses, quasi non-random mutations help to discriminate between non-random
mutations and common descent. We may not be able to predict when non-random mutations occur (except for radiation
induced mutations),

but we can predict the position where they will appear. The incidence of veri and quasi non-random mutations is much
higher than assumedhomoplasy is omnipresentand there appears to be mutational cold spots, warm spots, hot spots
and super hot spots. Because non-random mutations have only been observed/discovered in studies analysing a sufficiently
large number of individuals, they were not know until recently. From large-scale genetic comparisons, that include hundreds
of sequences of the same species, the position of non-random mutations can be estimated with a high level of accuracy. In
addition, sequence analyses from many different species may help to localize interspecies hot spots. Upon close-up
scrutiny, molecular biology has revealed that mutations are not just a random, chance-driven phenomenon. Although we do
not yet know the whys and hows of non-random mutations, what we do know is they create an illusion of common descent
when they appear in organisms that cannot mate.
Could the mammalian middle ear have evolved twice?
by David Catchpoole
21 November 2006
The amazingly complex middle ear of mammals has three bonesthe incus, malleus
and stapes, popularly known as the hammer, anvil and stirrupwhile reptiles have
only one. Because of its complexity, evolutionary theorists have long said it must
have originated once only, in some ancestral creature from which all mammals today
are descended. As an article in New Scientist put it: The process was so complex
that mammal experts assumed that it must have occurred only once, before
monotremes split off from the other mammals more than 150 million years
The middle ear of the cat (a
ago.1Thats not surprising. Consider the remarkable transformation that evolutionists
mammal) has three tiny bones in
maintain took place: three jawbones of the ancestor reptile somehow gradually
it for precision transmission of
migrated over generations (while the jaw kept being useful for chewing) to eventually
sound that are supposed to have
become the three bones that transmit sound in the mammalian ear.So its hard
evolved from three bones in the
enough to conceive of such an amazing series of events taking place once, let alone
jaw of a reptile (same class as
twice. But the discovery2 of a 115-million-year-old fossil of a tiny egg-laying mammal
the chameleon).
thought to be related to the platypus provides compelling evidence of multiple origins
of acute hearing in humans and other mammals.3 This raises the problem: How can
this supposedly rare and unexpected evolutionary change have occurred so commonly in early mammals?3

In the various reports and commentary spawned by this fossil, no clear

evolutionary mechanism is proposed, except to describe it as a remarkable
example of homoplastic evolution [another term for convergent evolutionthe
supposed independent evolution of similar structures].2,4In other words, as New
Scientist reports, evolution invented the mammalian middle ear twice: The
advantages of the middle ear are so great it was inevitable it should evolve
twice in two groups with similar constraints. 1This is yet another example of the
contortions evolutionists have to go through to try to make the fossils (which
are not millions of years old but, in reality, largely a legacy of the Flood, only
4,500 years ago) fit with evolutionary theory. It requires blind faith to believe
that things so complex could have evolved once, let alone twice or more. And
why would natural selection even bother? Reptiles hear quite well. (See Dr
David Mentons DVD presentation The Hearing Ear and the Seeing Eye,
available from our online bookstore.)

Click image to enlarge.

Did eyes evolve by Darwinian mechanisms?

by Jerry Bergman
The evolution of the eye has always been a dilemma for evolutionists from Darwins time to the present. Although Darwin,
Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists have tried to explain how an eye could evolve, their solutions are clearly
unsatisfactory. Many kinds of eyes exist, but no progression of eye designs from simple to complex can be produced in the
natural or fossil world. Furthermore, the simplest eye, the eyespot, is not an eye but pigmented cells used for phototaxis;
yet even it requires an enormously complex mechanism in order to function as a vision system.

Figure 1. The compound eye of an insect. Note that the eye consists of hundreds or more separate eyes which, in some
ways is more complex than the human eye. (After Mitchell et al.).48
The concept of irreducible complexity (IC) has become an important tool in intelligent design theory. One of the best
examples of IC is the design of the animal eye. Eyes are critical because, for the vast majority of animals, vision is their
most important link to the world.1 Darwin vividly recognized the problem of eye evolution and the serious impediment that it
was for his theory. In his words,To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivance for adjusting the focus to different
distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have
been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. 2Nonetheless, Darwin felt
the seemingly insurmountable problem of the evolution of what he called an organ of extreme perfection and complication
could be solved.2 He included a three-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via
gradual steps.3 These stages included the following:
photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression and then a deeper depression
the skin over the depression gradually taking a lens shape
evolution of muscles that allow the lens to adjust.
These stages in living animals are believed to constitute major evidence for the evolution of the eye. 4 Isaak claims that all of
these steps are viable because all of them exist in animals living today:
The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection
should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the
development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.5
University of Chicago biology Professor Jerry Coyne wrote that human
eyes did not suddenly appear as full-fledged camera eyes, but evolved from simpler eyes, having fewer components, in
ancestral species. Darwin brilliantly addressed this argument by surveying existing species to see if one could find functional
but less complex eyes that not only were useful, but also could be strung together into a hypothetical sequence showing
how a camera eye might evolve. If this could be doneand it canthen the argument for irreducible complexity vanishes,

for the eyes of existing species are obviously useful, and each step in the hypothetical sequence could thus evolve by
natural selection.6The dominant theory was outlined by Dennett, who concluded that all eye evolution requires is a rare
accident giving one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this improvement helps it to
have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye
by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulatethis was Darwins insighteyes can automatically
get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer.7Others are not so confident. Melnick concluded that the
eye is a marvel and that its immense complexity and diversity in nature, as well as its beauty and perfection in so many
different creatures of the world, defies explanation even by macroevolutions most ardent supporters. 8This paper explores
these conflicting views.
Evolution of the eye
Advanced vision appears almost at the very beginning of the fossil record. The oldest eye in the fossil record, that of a
trilobite, is a very complex faceted compound eye that dates back to the Cambrian, conventionally dated about 540 million
years ago.9,10 The fossil evidence shows that from the beginning of the fossil record eyes are very complex, highly
developed structures. We also have living fossils, animals that have remained virtually unchanged since very early in
history. University of Salford biologist, Laurence R. Croft, wrote that the precise origin of the vertebrate eye is still a mystery.
The fascinating thing about the evolution of the eye is its apparent sudden appearance. 11 Specifically, the fossils show that
vision originated in the early Cambrian, which Darwinists put at some 530 million years ago. 12Furthermore, although the
Cambrian animals were not the same species as exist today nearly all the modern phyla had rapidly come into existence,
fully equipped with eyes as far as can be told from the fossils and during the Cambrian explosion something remarkable
seems to have happened a rich fauna of macroscopic animals evolved, and many of them had large eyes. 12 Sir Steward
Duke-Elder, the preeminent ophthalmologist at the time of his death in 1979, acknowledged the sudden appearance of the
perfected vertebrate eye, noting: The curious thing, however, about the evolution of the vertebrate eye is the
apparent suddenness of its appearance and the elaboration of its structures in its earliest known stages. There is no long
evolutionary story as we have seen among invertebrate eyes, whereby an intracellular organelle passes into a unicellular
and then a multicellular eye, attaining by trial and error, along different routes an ever-increasing degree of complexity.
Within the vertebrate phylum the eye shows no progress of increasing differentiation and perfection as is seen in the brain,
the ear, the heart and most other organs. In its essentials the eye of a fish is as complex and fully developed as that of a bird
or man [emphasis added].13Biochemical studies have shown that the human lens contains proteins similar to those
found in the cyclostomes (hagfishes and lampreys) that are the living descendants of the Agnatha, which originated the
vertebrates about 450 million years ago. Thus these studies have confirmed the view that the vertebrate eye, and in
particular the lens, has changed very little during the
course of evolution.14
Evidence for eye evolution from living animals
Only about a third of all animal phyla contain species
with proper eyes, another third contain species with
light-sensitive organs only, and a third have no means
of light detection, although many can detect
heat.15 Nonetheless, of those animals with eyes, both
vertebrates and most invertebrates, an enormous
variety of eye designs, placement and sizes
exists.10 The eyeball diameter ranges from less then a
tenth of a millimetre in certain water fleas to 370 mm in
the giant squid.16 Eye placement also varies, ranging
from the common binocular vision employed by most
mammals to the movable eye on each side of the head
used by many lizards.The number of eyes in one animal
can also vary from none to eight. In spiders alone the
number ranges from zero to eight, always existing in
pairs of two. Some eyes contain both a lens and a
retina-like structure in a single cell.17 A complex
telephoto lens was identified in the chameleon in 1995.
The reason why so many designs exist is because eyes
must serve very different life forms that live in very
different environments. Animals live in the ground,
inside of other animals, in the air, on land, in salt water
and in fresh water. Furthermore, animals range in size
from a water flea to a whale.
Table 1. Mean numbers of myelinated fibres in the optic
nerve of selected vertebrates. Note the enormous
difference within each category. For example birds
range from 408 to 988 thousand, mammals from 7
thousand to 1.21 million. (From Cousins50).Although
many kinds of very different eyes are known, no direct
evidence exists to support the evolution of the eye and
its accessory structures. Furthermore, much evidence
contradicts such evolutionary beliefs. For example, note
in table 1 that the number of myelinated fibres in the
optic nerve does not correlate with putative evolutionary
development. A pigeon has almost as many fibres as a
human. Many birds, such as the eagle and hawk, have
excellent vision yet have half as many fibres as a
domestic pig.Another example is visual pigments. The
presumably highest, most evolved form of life, the
higher primates, have only two cone photoreceptors,
blue and green, but birds have a total of six pigments:
four cone pigments plus pinopsin (a pineal
photoreceptive molecule) and rhodopsin for black and

white vision.12,18 Put another way, chickens, humans and mice all have the rhodopsin pigment; mice in addition have blue
and green; humans have blue, green, and red; and birds have these three pigments plus violet and pinopsin. For every
colour that humans perceive, birds can see very distinct multiple colours, including ultraviolet light. Birds use infrared light
(which we sense as heat) for night vision, allowing them to rapidly visualize their young in a dense, dark tree.The possibility
of classifying eyes in living animals from simple to complexsimple types existing in simple animals and complex types in
complex animals (which we will show cannot be done)does not provide evidence for an evolutionary relationship. A
primary problem is that this attempt is based only on eye characteristics as they presently exist. Historical eye evolution
cannot be proven by listing a series of existing eyes from simple to complex and then arguing that the complex evolved from
the simple because evolution requires that all existing eyes have an equally long evolutionary history.According to neoDarwinism, the simplest modern eye in living animals has had the same amount of time and evolutionary history as the most
complex eye because life began about 3.5 billion years ago and all life today evolved from this point in history. Although
Darwinists argue that many of these eyes are evolutionary dead ends, this would require an admission that these modern
simple eyes are only analogues or similar to putative past ancestral eyes (to more complex modern types), which reduces
their value as evidence.Darwinists need to determine the eye designs from which existing eyes have actually descended,
one from the other, over time. Duke-Elder and Darwin (1872) before him were unable to do this, yet they offered their list of
eyes of varying complexity as evidence of evolution. Cousins wrote: the crucial importance of this requirement to the
theory of evolution was fully understood by Darwin, who stated that, in searching for the gradations through which an organ
in any species has been perfected, we ought to look at its lineal progenitors. Indeed we ought; though he himself could not
do so. It is deceptive to the reader to create a seriation beginning with eye spots as seen in unicellular organisms and call
them, as does Duke-Elder (1958), the earliest stage of evolution. 19Croft concluded that the claim that we can line up eyes in
an evolutionary sequence from very simple to very complex is false because research on the developmental history of the
eye in widely differing species finds it remarkably similar. Indeed the basic features of the eye in different vertebrates are
very much the same despite great variations in their mode of life and adaptation to habitat. Furthermore, unlike other organs
such as the heart, there is no long evolutionary history with the eye. In essence the eye of a newt is as complex and fully
developed as that of a man. 11Sinclair also concluded that vertebrates and most invertebrates, including insects and
cephalopods (molluscs, including octopuses and squid), all have eyes with common visual elements, including a similar
photoreceptor design, yet have a marked dissimilarity of their appearance.10The source of the design and evolution of the
eye, Darwinists postulate, was a series of beneficial mutations that had to occur in appropriate unison in order to produce
the set of structures required for eyes to function. The new mutation set, Darwinists argue, resulted in a superior structure
compared to the old one, and this new and better eye improved the animals ability to compete against other forms of life.
Some of the many problems with this conclusion were noted by Grass in his discussion of Myrmelion (ant lion)
anatomy:Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two separate components of the body and producing
structures that fit one another precisely? have you ever beheld three, four or five simultaneous mutations with matching
structures producing coordinating effects? These are vital questions that demand an answer. There is no way of getting
around them, or evading the issue. Every biologist who wants to know the truth must answer them, or be considered a
sectarian and not a scientist. In science there is no cause to be defended, only truth to be discovered. How many chance
occurrences would it take to build this extraordinary creature [Myrmelion formicarius]?20An organ that did not aid the
animals survival would use scarce energy, nutrients and body space and, if the organ were not used, would be at high risk
for problems such as infection. An eye modification would not be selected until it was not only functional but produced a
system demonstratively better than the existing organ. Only then could natural selection operate to choose from existing
variations to perfect the organ beyond mere functional effectiveness.

Table 2. Land and Nilssons widely used classification system of eye designs. Other systems are also used today, illustrating
the problems in arranging eye designs into hierarchies. Also note that the Land and Nilsson system also does not show a
clear simple to complex design hierarchy. (From Land and Nilson12).
Advanced eye designs
Many kinds of eyes exist, and there are many schemes to classify them. The most basic classification system groups all
eyes into four classes. The first is the camera type or simple eye, such as exists in humans, which uses a focusing system
to project a single, sharp image on the retina. The second type is the fixed focus compound type (figure 1) that
uses multiple separate refractive units called ommatidia, such as used by trilobites and flies. The third type is a scanning
eye that builds an image much like a television camera, such as is used in the small marine crustacean copilia, which in
females takes up more than half of its body.21 The fourth type is the complex eye, found in cephalopods and certain
advanced vertebrata, consisting of a cornea, iris, lens, retina and numerous accessory structures. 22This division obscures
many major differences: some shrimp have a combined simple and compound eye, which is actually a third basic eye type,
not a transitional form. This division system also greatly oversimplifies the variety that exists because at least eleven distinct
optical methods of producing images are now known. 23 The classification system used in this paper was developed by Land
and Nilsson (2005) and is given in table 2 (see also figure 2).
Problems with classification

Figure 2. Illustration of Land and Nilssons classification system of eye designs. Eye designs AL are described in table 2.
(From Land and Nilson12).
Note that the most logical classification of eye types is into some type of evolutionary classification from simple to more
complex, but this list does not lend itself very well to a hierarchy as postulated by Darwin. Actually, arranging just the 10
basic eye designs used in the Land and Nilsson system from simple to complex is impossible. For example, types A, B, C,
D, E, F, H, and I appear similar in complexity, and types G and J appear more complex but are found in lower forms of life (in
some winged insects and crustaceans). In Lands classification the simplest type (A) and the most complex type (J), are
both found in crustaceans (crustaceans use designs in groups A, E, F, G and H, and molluscs those in group A and H).
Nearly identical optical designs are found in very distinctly unrelated animals such as fish and cephalopods. 24 The Land list
groups the basic eye designs and optical systems only, ignoring the design of the retina cells, the many supportive cells,
(such as the ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells and bipolar cells), the other nervous system components,
including the optic nerve, and the optical system-processing centre, such as the occipital lobe of the brain.Using these
criteria would create even more problems in attempting to produce a hierarchy because the processing system is always
much more complex than the light collection system, placing all known eye systems at the upper level of Darwins scheme.
Of course, Darwin was not aware of the vision systems enormous complexity or variety, nor was he aware of the complexity
of the many accessory systems and processing structures such as the brain.The problems of producing a simple to complex
hierarchy are illustrated by the fact that the ten types are also commonly arranged into four basic eye designs:
the holochroal eye, the superposition eye, the schizochroal eye, and the human apposition compound eye. All of these basic
eye designs require a system of focusing resolution, and a complex neurological processing system to enable the viewer to
make sense of the large mass of constantly changing signals sent by the retina or other light sensitive cells via the optical
nerve to the brain efficiently and rapidly.Despite decades of research, we still have only limited understanding of how vision
actually works, making it difficult to produce both consistent classification schemes and hierarchies in an attempt to
postulate a reasonable evolutionary phylogeny.23 We do have a fairly good understanding of the eye structure itself, which
allowed construction of the classification above. Contrary to evolutionary expectations, the eyes of phylogenetically distant
life forms can be very similar in a large number of details. 16Ironically, the greatest variety of eye design, not only in
structure, but also in number and location, exists not among the vertebrates as Darwinism would expect, but among the socalled primitive invertebrates.16 Invertebrates also have eyes that are, in some respects, superior to those of vertebrates.
One example is the hemispherical eyes of most flies and other insects, which produce, unlike human and most vertebrate
eyes, an image largely free of spherical distortion. 25 Human eyes have significant peripheral image distortion, but spherical
eyes form a sharp image in all directions. However, humans do not have sharp peripheral vision because this is the function
of the central retina called the macula. Our peripheral vision is for the detection of light and movement which trigger the
fixation reflex to turn the eyes toward the stimulus.Another problem in the theory that eye designs represent an evolutionary
sequence is that eyes from the three major phyla (vertebrates, arthropods and mollusca) arise from different tissues and are
radically different.26 For this reason, evolutionists concluded that they have separate evolutionary histories, and the many

similarities that exist are due to presumed evolutionary convergence. 26 In essence, we dont know how it could possibly
have evolved, so it must have evolved over and over. The eye differences would be due to the different needs and
circumstances of each organism and its habitat, irrespective of any evolutionary connection. Yet another problem is the
evidence for eye evolution forces the conclusion that most of these eye designs must have evolved in a brief period during
the Cambrian.17
The simplest eye
Darwinists often claim the primate eye is the most evolved, but many mislabelled primitive eyes have advantages over
ours. For example, the human eye can register up to 60 images per second; a lowly bee about 300 per second. For this
reason, bees can see far better while rapidly moving. The motion picture standard (24 frames per second), to a bee, would
be viewed as a series of still pictures. For humans the frames are blurred, giving the illusion of motion. This design
innovation in so-called primitive animals is more complex than the corresponding structure in the human eye.The simplest
eye type known is the ocellus, a multicellular eye comprising of photoreceptor cells, pigment cells and nerve cells to process
the informationis step 4 in Darwins list.27 The most primitive eye that meets the definition of an eye is the tinyabout the
size of the head of a pinmicroscopic marine crustacean copepod copilia. Only the females possess what Wolken and
Florida call remarkable eyes which make up more than half of its transparent body. 28 Claimed to be a link between an
eyespot and a more complex eye, it has two exterior lenses that raster like a scanning electron microscope to gather light
that is processed and then sent to its brain. 29 It has retinal cells and an eye analogous to a superposition-type ommatidium
of compound eyes.30 This, the most primitive true eye known, is at stage 6 of Darwins evolutionary hierarchy!
Visual cell differences
Evolution would predict that the more advanced an eye, the more detail it can pick up, a factor related to the number of
visual cells. This is not what is often found. In a simple visual system (brain and retinas) the smallest number of visual cells
is found in the plethodontid salamander, T. narisovalis, which uses about 65,000 cells for the entire visual brain centre and
60,000 for the retina alone. This extraordinarily low number of cells is used not because the animal is primitive but because
it has a very small head, eye, and brain plus relatively large cells. 31 They add that the smallest extant salamander, T.
pennatulus (which is much smaller than T. narisovalis), has about 94,000 visual cells and about the same number of retinal
cells. For comparison, the brain visual centres of the frog S. limbatus contain about 400,000 cells. This illustrates the fact
that evolution cannot be argued by asserting that the eye can be built up gradually from a single patch of light-sensitive
skin through various stages, slowly reaching the complexity of the vertebrate camera eye.
the case for the evolution of the vertebrate eye or even a light-sensitive patch of skin must be made in regard to the
entire complexity of the living organism, at least insofar as that complexity supports vision (even in the least complex form).
For this reason, the debate shouldnt be about the evolution of the eye, but about the evolution of vision, and vision is
always the vision of some particular kind of living animal, a living whole in which the integrated activity and experience of
seeing, even in its simplest form, can take place.32In addition to number of cell differences, photoreceptor cell differences
also exist. The cells that provide the membrane surface for opsin molecules can be either ciliary or microvillar structures.
The microvilli type dominates in invertebrates, and ciliary types in vertebrates. Even physiological responses vary widely.
Light causes microvillous receptors of arthropods and molluscs to depolarize but causes the ciliary receptors of vertebrates
to hyperpolarize. Invertebrates use inositol triphosphate for photo-transduction in the second messenger system, whereas
vertebrate photoreceptors use cyclic Guanosine 5-Monophosphate (GMP). Although opsin is the key molecule used to
detect light in both vertebrates and invertebrates, regeneration mechanisms (reisomerization) of the chromophore/opsin
system are dramatically different among phyla. 33 Other important differences include invertebrate eyes that are formed from
the dermal surface of the ectoderm and vertebrate eyes that are formed from the neural ectoderm. 34Another problem for
evolution is that at least 11 distinct optical methods are used to produce images. For one type to evolve into a more
advanced type requires intermediate stages that are much worse or useless compared with the existing design. This would
make a switch essentially lethal to animals that depend on sight. 35 For example, the advanced rods and cones in primitive
animals and the lack of evidence for their evolution has motivated some to conclude that the basic tetrachomatic system
evolved very early in vertebrate evolution.36 Furthermore, no progression from simple to complex photoreceptors exists, but
rather only four spectrally distinct classes of cone pigment encoded by distinct opsin genes is found in the natural world.37
Evaluation of genes involved in eye development
Conversely, similarities, such as the fact that some of the genes involved in eye development are very similar in most
animals, argue for a single evolution of the eye. Yet, the difficulties of eye evolution are so great that eyes are hypothesized
by some researchers to have independently evolved at least 40 and as many as 65 times. 38 As Fernald notes, at present,
we do not know whether eyes arose once or many times, and, in fact, many features of eye evolution are still puzzling. 23 A
better explanation for the same gene being used by different animals (or plants) is for economy of design by a higher
Intelligence.Vertebrate eyes could not have evolved in isolation because eye parts do not have a function as self-contained
entities. Eyes are part of very complex, interconnected living organisms, and eyes are only one part of the vision system. 39
One gauge to help determine eye complexity is the number of genes involved in producing the eyethe more genes that
are required, the more complex the eye may be. In the primitive Drosophila, so far 501 eye-related genes have been
identified, or about 3.5% of its entire genome.24 Vertebrate eyes are estimated to involve 7,500 genes just to develop and
regulate the retinaor about 30% of the entire human genome of 25,000 genes.24
Views on eye evolution have flip-flopped
These problems are part of the reason why views on eye evolution have flip-flopped, alternately favoring one or many
origins.40 The markedly distinct ontogenetic origin of eyes in very different species is one reason why eyes are postulated to
have evolved 40 or more times independently.40 For example, the eyes in many molluscs, including some cephalopods such
as squids and octopuses, are remarkably similar to vertebrate eyes. Both have a cornea, a lens, an iris and a retina. One of
the major differences is, in one, the retina is inverted, compared to the other. 41Evolutionists attempt to solve this problem by
assuming that the phylogenetic line that led to molluscs split very early in evolutionary history, long before the eye had
evolved. Then they postulate parallel evolutionconcluding that the two eyes evolved to be almost identical, yet were
completely independent of each other. Of note is the fact that the most primitive camera eye known (the nautilus pinhole
eye) and the most advanced eye known are both found in cephalopods! Molluscs as a group contain a pigment eyespot
design, a pigment cup (cupulate), a simple optic cup with a pinhole lens, an eye with a primitive lens (a murex marine snail)
and a complex eye (the octopus), the latter which is the most elaborate eye in the invertebrate kingdom.42
Embryonic origin of vertebrate eyes in contrast to cephalopod eyes
Another major difference is found in the embryonic origin of many structures in vertebrate eyes in contrast to cephalopod
eyes. For example, cephalopod eyes form from an epidermal placode by successive infoldings, whereas vertebrate eyes
develop from the neural plate, and the overlying epidermis forms the lens. Yet another problem for eye evolution is that the
eye of just one evolutionary related class, the vertebrates, develops from a diverse collection of embryonic sources through
a complex set of inductive events.43

Conclusions
Dennett wrote that the eye lens is exquisitely well-designed to do its job, and the engineering rationale for the details is
unmistakable, but no designer ever articulated it. 44 He concludes that its design is not real, but an illusion because evolution
explains the eye without the need for a designer. This review has shown that evolution does not explain the existence of the
vision system, but an intelligent designer does. The leading eye evolution researchers admit they only have some
understanding of how eyes might have evolved.45 These explanations do not even scratch the surface of how a vision
system could have arisen by evolutionlet alone when.Much disagreement exists about the hypothetical evolution of eyes,
and experts recognize that many critical problems exist. Among these problems are an explanation of the evolution of each
part of the vision system, including the lens, the eyeball, the retina, the entire optical system, the occipital lobes of the brain,
and the many accessory structures. Turner stressed that the real miracle [of vision] lies not so much in the optical eye, but
in the computational process that produces vision.46 All of these different systems must function together as an integrated
unit for vision to be achieved. As Arendt concludes, the evolution of the eye has been debated ever since Darwin and is still
being debated among Darwinists.47For non-evolutionists there is no debate.
Problems with the evolutionary interpretation of limb design
by Dominic Statham
Figure 1. The vertebrate forelimbs show a common design but develop
in different ways. This is seen even between different orders of
amphibian, e.g. frogs and salamanders.
To evolutionists, the vertebrate forelimbs are a classic example of
homology.1 Their similarities are regarded as undeniable evidence of
descent with modification, and they appear in almost every educational
textbook promoting evolution. Counter-arguments presented by
creationists include the observation that digit development can be
different in amniotes and amphibians2 (e.g. humans and frogs) and that
the forelimbs grow from different embryonic segments (somites) in
different species (e.g. newt, lizard and man).3,4 If descent with
modification were the correct explanation for common forelimb design,
we would expect the forelimbs to develop in similar ways and from the
same parts of the embryo.A less well-known problem for evolutionists is
the unique order of limb bone development seen in urodeles, something
that has been clarified recently by Frbisch and Shubin. 5 Generally,
tetrapods (including anurans) show a distinct postaxial dominance in
their pattern of limb skeletogenesis, meaning that the outer bones form
before the inner bones. For example, the ulna leads the radius and the
digits develop in the sequence IV-III-II-I. Salamanders, however, show a preaxial dominance, with the inner bones forming
before the outer bones, for example, the radius leading the ulna, and digits I and II forming before III and IV. Also, whereas
in most tetrapods the proximal mesopodial elements form before the distal ones (i.e. in a direction from tail to head), in
salamanders this is reversed.
Animation showing the different pattern of limb bone
development in frogs and salamanders.
As argued by ReMine,6 the natural world appears to
have been designed so as to point to a general unity
and thus a single designer, yet with exceptions that
resist evolutionary explanations. All organisms use DNA
but a few utilize a different DNA code, thus ruling out
common ancestry.7 (To change from one code to
another would require the absurdly improbable event of
a simultaneous modification of both the DNA and its
translation apparatus.) Similarly, vertebrate forelimbs
show a common design, but develop in different ways,
supporting the view that the different vertebrate kinds
were independently created. If these two amphibian
groups had really arisen from a common ancestor, the
embryological pathways would not be expected to show
such divergent characteristics.
Morphology and molecules in conflict yet again1
by Reinhard Junker
Figure 1. The roughly 8-cm-long fish-like
lancelet Amphioxus. The notochord is a
flexible supporting rod above the intestine,
which is also formed during the embryonic
development of vertebrate animals as the first
supporting organ and which is replaced to a
large extent in the course of ontogenesis by
the vertebral column. The transparent lancelet
lives in coastal sands (Image after Piotr
Jaworski, www.wikipedia.org)
A frequently used and apparently striking
argument for the fact of evolution is the
supposed harmony between molecular similarity trees, and the classical morphological family trees (based on physical
shape and structure) which are commonly featured in the popular media. The technical literature, however, does not reflect
such a harmony. In fact the very opposite can be seen, and the molecular data is bringing these established morphological

phylogenies/lineages into disarray.This fate seems recently to have overtaken the relationship between the tunicates (seasquirts), cephalochordates and vertebrate animals. All three groups together make up the phylum Chordata, characterized
by the possession of a flexible supporting rod (the notochord). Salps and sea-squirts belong to the tunicates (saclike
animals); a prominent representative of the cephalochordates is the fish-like lancelet or amphioxus (figure 1). Based on
morphological similarities, the lancelet was for a long time unrivalled as the closest relative of vertebrate animals.
But this is now being questioned by the extensive molecular studies of Delsuc et al.2 The researchers examined 146 nuclear
genes from 14 deuterostomes (to which the chordates, hemichordates and echinoderms belong) and 24 other species as
outgroups.
Figure
2. Contradictory
lines
of
descent. a) Classical textbook view, showing a
gradual increase in complexity; b) Topology
after the data of Delsuc et al. (After Gee3).
The results placed the tunicates and not the
cephalochordates
(which
include
the
lancelets) nearest to the chordates (figure 2).
So this shifts the lancelets closer to the
echinoderms than to the other groups. This
also makes chordate monophyly uncertain, i.e.
not all the chordates can be traced back to
one single common ancestor. This would mean that such a marked key characteristic as the notochord developed
independently at least twice. The authors indicate, however, that this result must be verified by additional data. If these
findings are confirmed, one more key characteristic could no longer be used as an indicator of ancestry.Gee points out in a
commentary that these results turn this textbook scheme of deuterostome evolution on its head.Rather than the steady
acquisition of progressively more chordate-like (and, by implication, human like) features from an ancestor with nothing to
recommend it, the story becomes one of persistent loss The ancestor would have looked like a cross between an
amphioxus and a larger, brainier, tunicate tadpole larva. Crazy? Possibly. But possibly not. 3In any case, it is clear that
studies being driven by evolutionary assumptions are overturning current concepts of evolution. From complex to simple
this is not the way we learnt evolution.
Tiktaalik roseaea fishy missing link
by Jonathan Sarfati
15 April 2006
Fig. 1: Tiktaalik fossil.
The secularized mainstream media (MSM) are gleefully promoting a recent
find,Tiktaalik roseae (right), as the end of any creationist or intelligent design idea.
Some paleontologists are claiming that this is a link between fishes and land
vertebrates that might in time become as much of an evolutionary icon as the protobirdArchaeopteryx.1
So is Tiktaalik real evidence that fish evolved into tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates,
i.e. amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds)? As will be shown, there are parallels
withArchaeopteryx, the famous alleged reptile-bird intermediate, but not in the way the
above quote claims!The alleged fish-to-tetrapod evolutionary transition is full of
difficulties, explained in great detail in The fossil record of early tetrapods: evidence of
a major evolutionary transition? In this, it parallels the record of reptile-to-bird, Mammallike
reptiles, land-mammaltowhale and ape-to-human evolution;
superficially
plausible, but when analyzed in depth, it collapses, for many parallel reasons. For
simpler summaries on the fossil record than the preceding linked articles, see The links
are missing and Argument: The fossil record supports evolution.
What was found?
The above quote comes from two leading European experts in the alleged evolutionary transition from fishtetrapod, Per
Ahlberg and Jennifer Clack. It was about the find of well-known American leaders on the same alleged transition, Neil
Shubin and Edward Daeschler, and which was the cover story for Nature.2,3 Clack, Shubin and Daeschler even previously
featured on the PBS-Nova seven-part series, Evolution, Episode 2: Great Transformations about the origin of
tetrapods.Shubin et al. found a 20-cm-long skull sticking out of a cliff. They found that this skull, superficially like a
crocodiles, was part of a fish that had a fin that was supposedly on the way to becoming a tetrapod limb. They dated it to
383 Ma (million years ago). Since it was in Ellesmere Island, Nunavut Territory (Canada), it was given a genus name from
the indigenous Inuktitut word for burbot, or large, shallow freshwater fish.
Is it transitional?
Clack and others are naturally enthusiastic about Tiktaaliks transitional status. But this is not surprisingto her, we are all
fishes anyway! She states:
Although humans do not usually think of themselves as fishes, they nonetheless share several fundamental characters that
unite them inextricably with their relatives among the fishes Tetrapods did not evolve from sarcopterygians [lobe-finned
fishes]; theyare sarcopterygians, just as one would not say that humans evolved from mammals; they are mammals.4
This is reminiscent of University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin criticising overly enthusiastic feathered dinosaur
claims:
You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote the paper, the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur. 5
Clack also admitted:
There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits
evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning.
Of course, there are still major gaps in the fossil record. In particular we have almost no information about the step
betweenTiktaalik and the earliest tetrapods, when the anatomy underwent the most drastic changes, or about what
happened in the following Early Carboniferous period, after the end of the Devonian, when tetrapods became fully
terrestrial.1
Indeed, the evolution of land limbs and life on land in general requires many changes, and the fossil record has no evidence
of such changes. Geologist Paul Garner writes:
[T]here are functional challenges to Darwinian interpretations. For instance, in fish the head, shoulder girdle, and circulatory
systems constitute a single mechanical unit. The shoulder girdle is firmly connected to the vertebral column and is an anchor

for the muscles involved in lateral undulation of the body, mouth opening, heart contractions, and timing of the blood
circulation through the gills.6However, in amphibians the head is not connected to the shoulder girdle, in order to allow
effective terrestrial feeding and locomotion. Evolutionists must suppose that the head became incrementally detached from
the shoulder girdle, in a step-wise fashion, with functional intermediates at every stage. However, a satisfactory account of
how this might have happened has never been given.
Indeed, Tiktaaliks fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land. The
discoverers claim that this could have helped to prop up the body as the fish moved along a water bottom, 3 but evolutionists
had similar high hopes for the coelacanth fin. However, when a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in
1938, the fins turned out not to be used for walking but for deft manuvering when swimming.
Thus all the claims about Tiktaalik are mere smokescreens, exaggerating mere tinkering around the edges while huge gaps
remain unbridged by evolution. Similarly, all the hype about Archaeopteryx and alleged feathered dinosaurs is beside the
point while feathers, the avian lung andflight are still an evolutionary enigma. See also Does a Transitional Form Replace
One Gap with Two Gaps?
Transitional limb?
Fig. 2: Cladogram of the pectoral fins on the tetrapod stem, from Ref.
3. Click to see larger image
Quite aside from the huge problems explaining the origin of locomotion,
there are other problems. The series of corresponding limbs (Fig. 2, right)
does not appear to show the clear progression. Even from looking at it, it is
not obvious that the Panderichthys limb belongs in between the adjacent
ones in the series. It has fewer small bones. The authors themselves
appear to recognize this:
In some features, Tiktaalik is similar to rhizodontids such as Sauripterus.
These similarities, which are probably homoplastic, include the shape and
number of radial articulations on the ulnare, the presence of extensive and
branched endochondral radials, and the retention of unjointed
lepidotrichia.
Homoplastic essentially means convergent or analogous, i.e. independently evolved because of a common function
(such as the wings of pterosaurs, bats, birds and insects, according to evolutionists), rather than evolved from a common
ancestor (homologous, as evolutionists claim for features such as the different forelimbs here). But homology is alleged to
be the evidence for evolution (despite many problemssee Common structures = common ancestry?) But appeal to
homoplasy is really explaining away evidence that doesnt fit the paradigm, and indeed such explaining away is ubiquitous.
Two evolutionists admit:
Disagreements about the probable homologous or homoplastic nature of shared derived similarities between taxa lie at the
core of most conflicting phylogenetic hypotheses.7
In fact, when more characteristics than just one are analysed, homoplasies become even more necessary to explain away
anomalies, as will be explained in the section Mosaic rather than transitional.
Another major problem is that evolutionists appeal to the common pentadactyl 5-digit pattern as evidence for their common
ancestry from a 5-digited creature. Yet the nearest creatures they have to a common ancestor did not have five digits!
Acanthostega had eight, whileIchthyostega had seven.
Fossil order
Fig. 3: Alleged lineage including Tiktaalik, from ref. 1. Click to see larger
image.
Fig. 3 (right) does much to popularize evolution, but there are a number of
problems.
The caption admits, These drawings are not to scale, but all animals are
between 75 cm and 1.5 m in length. If size were taken into account, would
there be such a clear progression? Compare a far more extreme example,
the supposed land-mammaltowhale sequence. This was also illustrated
as equally sized, but Basilosaurus was 10 times longer than Ambulocetus.
Another admission is, The vertebral column of Panderichthys is poorly
known and not shown. We should remember the Pakicetus fiasco: when a
few bones were known, evolutionists drew it like a half-way land-water
form. But when more bones were found, it was realized that it was a fastrunning land mammal.
All the fossils of this entire series are assigned to middle-upper Devonian,
or 385365 Ma. Naturally, there are many problems with dating , but even
under the evolutionists own scenario, there are problems. E.g. the entire
fish-to-tetrapod transition is supposed to have occurred in 20 Ma, but other salamanders, according to Shubin himself, have
remained unchanged for far longer :
Despite its Bathonian age, the new cryptobranchid [salamander] shows extraordinary morphological similarity to its living
relatives. This similarity underscores the stasis [no change] within salamander anatomical evolution. Indeed, extant
cryptobranchid salamanders can be regarded as living fossils whose structures have remained little changed for over 160
million years.8
Fig 4: Lobe-finned fish and amphibians, according to evolutionary
order. Click to see larger image.
Even more importantly, the order is not right! Compare Fig. 4
(right): Panderichthys is
dated
earlier
than
its
supposed
predecessor, Eusthenopteron. And all are earlier than the undoubted fish,
the coelacanth. This is yet another parallel with alleged bird evolution
undoubted beaked birds like Confuciusornis are 10 Ma older than their
alleged feathered dinosaur ancestors. Evolutionists would argue that it is
not a problem, for the same reason that sometimes a grandfather can
outlive his grandson. This is correct, but one of the major evidences of
evolution is how the evolutionary order supposedly matches the fossil sequence. So the mismatch of claimed order of
appearance with claimed phylogeny undermines the evolutionary explanation.
Also, Acanthostega is allegedly a predecessor to Ichthyostega, but they were actually contemporaries.

Mosaic rather than transitional

Many of the alleged transitional forms do not have structures in transition from one form to another. Rather, the alleged
transitional nature is a combination of fully-formed structures that in themselves are not transitional. 9For
example, Archaeopteryx has fully formed flight feathers, an avian lung and an avian braincase (which is why the hoax claim
is indefensible), but had allegedly reptile features like a tail and teeth. Alleged whale evolution also has a number of
modules, as documented inWalking whales, nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist? These creatures with a
mixture of characteristics are called mosaics orchimeras.Also, who was the predecessor of whom in the case
of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega? It depends on which characteristic one looks at: e.g.Ichthyostega's skull seems more
fish-like than Acanthostegas, but its shoulder and hips are more robust and land-animallike.10The inconsistencies in
progression are much like that of the Mammal-like reptiles: major trait reversals and discontinuities. Andrew Lamb,
commenting on another alleged tetrapod claim by Per Ahlberg, Livioniana, points out:The same sort of reasoning and logic
as was used in this article would apply to the fish-to-tetrapod series. In this proposed reptile-to-mammal series, features do
not progress consistently. Some organisms towards the mammal end of the series are devoid of certain mammal-like
features present in organisms closer to the reptile end of the series. The majority of the hundred-odd traits examined did not
progress
consistently.Lambs paper demonstrates
this,
using Ahlbergs
own
table,
showing
that:For
example, Acanthostega, ninth organism in his series, boasts two tetrapod features that are absent in the tenth organism!
The same is true of the limb pattern as shown above. This is also consistent with a designer who used modules of different
characteristics.
A better explanation
When analyzed in detail, the evidence is consistent not with evolution, but with a particular form of intelligent design. But not
just intelligent design in the broad sense, which allows for any sort of designer(s), even aliens (such as the Ralian cult),
and even can allow for evolution (Michael Behe, author of Darwins Black Box, accepts evolution, for example).
Rather, it supports a particular subset of ID: the biotic message theory, as proposed by Walter ReMine in The Biotic
Message. That is, the evidence from nature points to a single designer, but with a pattern which thwarts evolutionary
explanations. In this case, the common modules point to one common designer, but evolution is powerless to explain this
modular pattern, since natural selection can work only onorganisms as a whole. That is, it cannot select for particular head
design as such, but only for creatures that have a head that confers superior fitness. But a designer who worked with
different modules could create different creatures with different modules, that fit no consistent evolutionary pattern.
But as we say, Design is not enough! Nature does not reveal the identity of the Intelligent Designer. Fortunately,
the Designer already has.
Mammal-like reptiles: major trait reversals and discontinuities
by John Woodmorappe
Summary
Evolutionists repeatedly claim that their assembled chain of mammal-like reptiles shows a step-by-step morphological
progression to mammals. Despite this, a close and simultaneous examination of hundreds of anatomical character traits
shows no such thing, even if one takes basic evolutionary suppositions as a given. Very many, if not most, of the pelycosaur
and therapsid traits used in recent evolutionistic studies to construct cladograms actually show a contradictory pattern of
progression towards, followed by reversion away from, the presumed eventual mammalian condition. Furthermore, gaps are
systematic throughout the pelycosaur-therapsid-mammalian sequence, and these gaps are actually larger than the existing
segments of the chain. These sobering facts demonstrate that, however the supposed evolutionary lineage of mammallike reptiles towards mammals is interpreted, it is divorced from reality.
The so-called mammal-like reptiles are believed by evolutionists to be the ancestors of the mammals and to have become
more mammal-like with the passage of time. Evolutionists consider anatomical traits to be mammal-like if they occur in
modern mammals but not in other modern vertebrates.The highly-touted, alleged succession of mammal-like reptiles
towards increasing mammalness is not found at any one location on Earth. It can only be inferred through the correlation of
fossiliferous beds from different continents. Judgments are made as to which stratum on one continent is older than another
stratum on another continent. Moreover, intercontinental correlations are made even when the fossil genera do not
correspond with each other. Instead, the correlations are based on the general similarity of specimens, as well as their
assumed degree of evolutionary advancement.1 The circularity of such reasoning is obvious. Thus, despite the claims of
some evolutionists, it is clear that such biostratigraphic correlations are not empirically self-evident:Stratigraphic
correlations, like phylogenetic relationships, must be inferred from data and are not actually observations
themselves.2However, for purposes of an argument, it is acceptable to start with premises accepted by an opponent, even if
I dont accept them myself, and show that they imply a conclusion that undermines the opponents positionin logic, this is
called reductio ad absurdum. Thus, in this work, Ill presuppose that the evolutionists intercontinental correlations of
therapsid fossils as true and valid. The same holds for evolutionary phylogenies and cladograms, as well as the anatomical
deductions behind them. Despite granting all these concessions, it soon becomes obvious that many of the anatomicallybased evolutionistic claims, when analyzed, turn out to be
questionable.3,4
A more fundamental issue, however, is that evolutionistic claims about
transitional character states (however these states are defined) typically
centre on a relatively small number of features. These features are
pieced together and cited as examples of evolutionary change towards
reptiles that are increasingly mammal-like. This claim is made despite
the fact that evolutionists are usually not concerned with ancestordescendant relationships, but rather the degree of presumed
Reconstruction of gorgonopsid therapsid (after
evolutionary relatedness between mammal-like reptiles. Yet, using
Stearn & Carroll).42
isolated bits of evidence, we could construct just about any progression
we wanted. We could, for instance, arrange a sequence of spoons to
show a progression in size, thickness, etc. And this would be all the
more questionable if only partsof the spoons were considered (e.g. the spoons arranged to show a trend towards greater
bowl size while the handles showed no trend at all).Clearly, a comprehensive approach is needed. All the anatomical
features must be considered, not just a few. Accordingly, this work evaluates the claim that mammal-like reptiles, as
arranged in succession by evolutionists (from pelycosaurs to mammals), show an essentially unbroken chain of
progressively more mammal-like fossils. We examine large numbers of inferred morphological changes, simultaneously
considering literally hundreds of characters that have been used by evolutionists in the construction of cladograms

(branching patterns showing alleged degrees of evolutionary relatedness of one form to another). Even though cladograms
are not intended to identify ancestor-descendant relationships, each node (branching point) in the cladogram is taken by
evolutionists to be, more or less, morphologically intermediate between the previous node and the successive one.
How to evaluate numerous presumed evolutionary changes
To keep track of hundreds of anatomical changes, and analyze these changes semi-quantitatively, requires a method of
scoring the extent of each change, and tabulating the total number of changes. One way would be to sum the character
polarities that evolutionists use to construct their own cladograms. 5 To briefly demonstrate the methodology used in the
present study, I have arranged seven hypothetical organisms in a series (Figure 1), to indicate evolution from (A) to (G). This
series can be viewed either in the traditional ancestor-descendant sense or in a cladistic sense. Cladistically, evolutionists
would consider organism (A) to represent the least derived (earliest evolved) state and (G) the most derived (most recently
evolved), but without any necessary connotation of immediate ancestor-descendant relationships.
Figure 1. Seven hypothetical organisms arranged in a series to indicate evolution from (A) to (G). The general
stratigraphic succession of (A) through (G) is accepted as a given. In the traditional evolutionary sense, this series
can be viewed as an ancestor-descendent relationship with (A) the ancestor of all other 'organisms'. Cladistically,
(A) would be the least derived (earliest evolved) and (G) the most derived (most recently evolved). Of the five
morphological traits shown, three are progressive (cap-morph, X-morph). Two are gradational (circle-morph, Xmorph) while the others have a polar nature, being either present or absent.Consider how progressive traits would
be scored. Progressive traits proceed unidirectionally through the sequence that the evolutionists have constructed.
Note that organisms (A) through (D) dont have the cap-morph trait, but organisms (E) through (G) do. This trait
is a presence-absence (zero-one) polarity trait, and can be scored as (0000111) in the sequence of seven
organisms. In like manner, the triangle-morph can be scored as (0000001), since it only appears in the most
derived organism. The progressive circle-morphs, by contrast, are also gradational, increasing from zero to three
circles per organism. This evolutionary trend can be scored as (0011233).Look at what I call reversing traits: ones
that change direction at least once in the accepted evolutionary sequence. For instance, note that the bar-morph
first appears in (C) and continues in (D), only to disappear in (E). It then makes an evolutionary reappearance in
(F) and persists in (G). This reversing trait can be scored as (0011011). As a final example, a reversing yet
gradational trait is provided by the X-morph, which can be scored as (0102212).We can quantify the overall
changes from (A) through (G) by summing the character polarities of all the traits. The sum is (0124568). However,
this sum distorts the picture of the changes, because the reversing traits make the overall change appear much
smoother (transition-filled) than it really is. If we only sum the progressive character polarities, a much less
gradational chain is obtained (0011345). Thus, to circumvent the bias created by mingling numerous reversing
traits with progressive traits, I omit the reversing traits entirely in Table 1. Where reversing traits are relatively few in
number (Tables 2 and 3), I sum all the traits in one list, and only the progressive traits in another.To what extent
could the hypothetical evolutionary progression from (A) through (G), as shown in Figure 1, support the
evolutionary claim about transitional forms? Obviously, it depends not only on how the polarities are summed, as discussed
previously, but also on which particular polarities are emphasized. The circle-morph shows the most incrementally-filled
progression of traits (0011233), and could be argued to support an evolutionary scenario. By contrast, the cap-morph and
triangle-morph appear as sudden jumps without any gradual evolutionary development. And the reversing characters,
which go from primitive to derived and back to primitive again, cannot be said to constitute an evolutionary trend by any
stretch of the imagination. As we shall see, these same principles that apply to the hypothetical organisms in Figure 1 also
apply to actual fossils of mammal-like reptiles, and the evolutionistic claims about their supposed series of intermediate
stages culminating in mammals.However, when analyzing character polarities in actual fossils, a few cautions are in order.
To begin with, as discussed elsewhere, 6 genera of mammal-like reptiles are inflated by taxonomic oversplitting, a fact that is
substantiated by more recent studies.7,8 Another concern lies in the way that changes in anatomical characters are scored.
This can always be done, deliberately or subconsciously, in a way which favours the desired evolutionary outcome:By
oversplitting apomorphies9 in its favor, one hypothesis can dominate over its rival without gaining any biological insight. One
way to guard against this fallacy is to show how the apomorphies in support of a given hypothesis are biologically
associated.10Of course, the phrase biologically associated smacks of evolutionistic just-so stories. However, in this study, I
do not attempt to make any anatomical judgments, but rely on datasets provided by evolutionists. In this way, the negative
conclusions regarding evolution become all the more compelling.
Sources and types of data
One way to limit the extent of potential biases in choice of apomorphies, 9 etc., is to use information from different authors,
because each author has analyzed a largely-different set of anatomical characters. Accordingly, I employed three recentlypublished datasets for this comprehensive analysis as summarized in Tables 1, 2 and 3. To clarify the relationships between
the members in each dataset, I have, as shown in all of the tables, assigned an identification number to each taxon.11 I have
also used descriptive phrases for each entry in each table. 12 Although the use of these descriptors here is informal, they
approximate those used by Kemp.13 Adjectives such as primitive, medial and advanced (or derived) are used solely to
follow the evolutionists in orienting the particular taxon relative to the mammalian condition, and are not intended to have
any other connotation.14 They are definitely not intended to endorse any notions of succession of mammal-like reptiles
through time, relative evolutionary relatedness of mammal-like reptiles, lineages of mammal-like reptiles or ancestordescendant relationships.The first of the three datasets used in this study, by Sidor and Hopson, 15 is essentially a broad
overview of the entire sequence, starting with pelycosaurs and culminating in mammals. Because, as noted earlier, large
numbers of reversing characters tend to confound the overall scoring of trends in the acquisition of mammalian characters, I
have excluded these 77 reversing characters. More on this later. The relevant part of the data is summarized in Table
1,16 and consists of 88 anatomical characters. 17 Not all of the taxons, however, have data available for all of the 88 useable
characters. For this reason, all of the entries in Table 1 are each normalised by taking the sum of character polarities divided
by the number of available characters, and then multiplying the quotient by 100.18 This is what I call the Mammalness Index
in Tables 13.
Overall skeletal characters
ID
Number

Description

Taxon

Mammalness
Index
Progressive
Characters
88 of 165 useable characters
from 181 total characters

primitive pelycosaurs

Ophiacondontidae

advanced pelycosaurs

Edaphosauridae

primitive sphenacodont

Haptodu

overall sphenacodont

Sphenacodontidae

primitive therapsids

Biarmosuchia

29

primitive therapsids

Anteosauridae

32

primitive therapsids

Estemmenosuchidae

32

varied therapsids

Anomodonti

33

primitive therapsids

Gorgonopsidae

43

10

advanced therapsids

Therocephalia

52

11

primitive cynodont

Dvinia

80

12

primitive cynodont

Procynosuchus

81

13

medial cynodont

Galesauridae

85

14

varied cynodont

Thrinaxodon

87

15

advanced cynodonts

Cynognathia

82

16

advanced cynodont

Probelesodon

101

17

advanced cynodont

Probainognathus

102

21

sister-group candidates

Trithelodontidae

109

26

mammals

Morganucodontidae

120

Table 1. Mammalness Index for mammal-like reptiles calculated from overall skeletal characters from Sidor and
Hopson.15 The ID number approximates the relative position each taxon would have on one comprehensive cladogram
(including all three Tables 1-3).11Descriptions approximate Kemp13 and reflect evolutionary notions of the mammalian
condition. The descriptions are not intended to endorse these evolutionary notions.
The second database used (Table 2) is much more restricted in its anatomical scope, being confined to the presumed
evolutionary changes in the quadrate bone. In fact, much of the discussion about mammal-like reptiles as presumed
transitional forms centres on the alleged evolution of the mandibular-auditory system. Luo and Crompton 19 have evaluated
14 characters relative to the quadrate bone in the reptilian jaw evolving into the eventual mammalian incus (one of the tiny
bones in the ear). This data is summarized in Table 2. Because there are only 14 traits, exclusion of the reversing traits, as
in Table 1, would have left only a few traits to consider. On the other hand, simply amalgamating the progressive and
reversing characters for the sake of a larger database would have created bias in the data.20 As a compromise, both
potential biases were set at cross-purposes towards each other by creating two separate columns in Table 2. These reflect
the distinction I have made between all 14 traits (first column), and the five consistently progressive traits21 (second column).
The small number of characters also necessitates a different approach, from that used in Table 1, in computing the
Mammalness Index. Because there are only 14 traits, if one were to, as before, compute the relevant quotient and then
multiply it by 100, it would cause serious distortion of the data.22 For this reason, the Mammalness Index in Table 2 is simply
the sum of character polarities for each taxon.
Quadrate skeletal characters
Mammalness
Index
All
Progressive
Characters
(5 of 14)

ID
Number

Description

Taxon

Mammalness
Index
Characters
(14)

varied therapsids

Anomodontia

primitive therapsids

Gorgonopsid

10

advanced therapsids

Therocephalia

12

primitive cynodont

Procynosuchus

14

varied cynodont

Thrinaxodon

17

advanced cynodont

Probainognathu

15

19

advanced cynodont

Massetognathus

13

20

sister-group candidates

Tritylodontidae

20

21

sister-group candidates

Trithelodontidae

21

12

26

mammals

Morganucodontida

25

13

Table 2. Mammalness index for mammal-like reptiles calculated from quadrate skeletal characters from Luo and
Crompton.19 ID numbers and descriptions are explained in Table 1.
The third database (Table 3), like the first database, is relatively comprehensive, compared with the second database. Table
1 can be pictured as a broad overview of the entire chain of mammal-like reptiles, while Table 3 resembles a detailed closeup of the latter part of the chain.
The third database is intermediate in size between the first and second. 23 In Table 3, therefore, the progressive and
reversing characters are treated the same as in Table 2, whereas the Mammalness Index is computed the same as in Table
1. The data in Table 3 also overcomes the limitations of the data in Table 1, which neglected early mammals other than
Morganucodontidae from consideration (as this would have largely limited the characters in Table 1 to those of the
dentition24). In fact, Luo10 deliberately focused his analysis on cranial and dental characteristics. Luos analysis is more of a
detailed view of the latter part of the evolutionary chain, and as such, complements Table 1.
Dental and cranial characters
ID
Number

Description

Taxon

Mammalness
Index
Characters
(81 of 82)

Mammalness
All Index
Progressive
Characters
(53 of 81 of 82)

14

varied cynodont

Thrinaxodon

17

advanced cynodont

Probainognathus

18

18

advanced cynodont

Diademodontidae

19

19

advanced cynodont

Traversodontidae

35

20

sister-group candidates

Tritylodontidae

78

34

21

sister-group candidates

Trithelodontidae

58

54

22

mammal

Sinoconodon

100

104

23

mammal

Haldanodon

131

120

24

mammal

Triconodontidae

139

131

25

mammal

Dinnetherium

134

126

26

mammal

Morganucodon

132

128

27

mammal

Megazostrodon

117

122

Table 3. Mammalness index for mammal-like reptiles calculated from dental and cranial characters from Luo. 10 ID numbers
and descriptions are explained in Table 1.
Reversing traits are the rule among mammal-like reptiles
As discussed earlier, I have made every concession to the evolutionist. I have not disputed the validity of intercontinental
biostratigraphic correlation, the temporal succession of mammal-like reptiles, the objectivity of anatomical analyses, the fact
that cladograms are not intended to identify ancestor-descendant relationships, etc. Despite all these concessions, the
evidence, taken as a whole, fails to conform to all the evolutionary ballyhoo surrounding the mammal-like reptiles.
One of the most striking findings uncovered by this analysis is that the majority of anatomical traits (the ones actually used
by evolutionists in the construction of their cladograms) do not show a unidirectional progression towards the mammalian
condition! Of the 181 anatomical characters considered by Sidor and Hopson, 165 were deemed to be sufficiently complete,
in terms of data, for further consideration in the present study 25 (Table 1). Of these 165, 88 were found to be progressive. In

stark contrast, no fewer than 77 of the 165 showed reversals of character. 26 This is not an isolated instance. As noted earlier,
9 of the 14 quadrate characters used by Luo and Crompton were likewise reversing (Table 2). Finally, in the analysis of 82
mostly dental and cranial characters, by Luo (Table 3), no fewer than 53 characters were found to be reversing. 27The
abundance of reversing traits means that the mammal-like reptiles cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be portrayed
as some sort of quasi-lineage (even a crude one) culminating in mammals. (Nor, for that matter, can individual mammal-like
reptilian genera be placed in a lineage. According to Kemp, 28 few extinct vertebrates are sufficiently unspecialized, in terms
of morphology, to be the direct ancestors of other vertebrates).Furthermore, the proliferation of reversing traits makes it
difficult for evolutionists to decide which mammal-like reptiles, and inferred early mammals, are, evolutionarily speaking,
closest to each other. This confusion is reflected in the construction of widely-contradictory cladograms. 29 To illustrate this, I
now use a system of brackets to illustrate two of the four mutually-contradictory sets of evolutionistic nested hierarchies
relative to the taxons numbered in Table 2. They are:
8[(910)<12|14{171920(2126)}|>]
versus
9/8!10[12<14|171921(2026)|>]!/
The large number of reversing traits also takes to task the evolutionistic claim about stratomorphic intermediates. To begin
with, stratomorphic intermediates have validity only if one can legitimately infer ancestor-descendant relationships. This is
not true of mammal-like reptiles, as noted earlier. Can it be said, in the context of mammal-like reptiles, that a less mammallike genus will inevitably be situated stratigraphically below a more mammal-like one? Apart from the fact that this argument
takes the biostratigraphic correlation of mammal-like reptiles at face value (as I have done for purposes of this study), any
such notion is soundly contradicted by the numerous reversing traits uncovered by this analysis. It is sobering to realize that
a given mammalian trait can appear, disappear, and then freely reappear anywherethroughout the entire evolutionaryconstructed sequence of mammal-like reptiles. As a result, if all of the mammalian traits are considered together, it becomes
obvious that any stratomorphic sequence of mammalian traits as a whole is crude at best. Mechanisms related to the Flood
should have no difficulty generating a sequence of organisms that happens to show a crude stratomorphic progression of
mammalian traits interspersed with numerous other traits showing no progression at all (that is, the reversing traits).Of
course, evolutionists have a series of stock rationalizations to cope with reversing traits. They can, for instance, allow for
some traits to actually reverse themselves during the course of supposed evolution. But this makes their whole argument
internally inconsistent: we are asked to believe that the progressively-appearing mammalian traits constitute powerful
evidence for evolution, while the more numerousreversing mammalian traits do not mean anything. Heads I win, tails you
lose. And, owing to the fact that cladograms are not presumed to identify ancestor-descendant relationships, the
evolutionists can always pigeonhole any reversing trait as a specialization in that particular mammal-like genus.25 This
allows them to ignore contrary evidence and to perpetuate their illusion of a generalized chain of mammal-like reptiles that
becomes progressively more-mammalian.
Analysis of discontinuities
From Tables 13 we see that the traits usually considered unique to mammals are distributed variously throughout the
mammal-like reptiles. While this distribution is not haphazard or random, it does not form lineages. We will now see that the
remaining gaps between these organisms are not gradualistic.Remember that mammal-like reptiles are not just any group
of extinct creatures. They are supposed to be the very showcase of step-by-step, transition-filled evolutionary change. On
this basis alone, the mammal-like reptiles should be subject to the strictest standards for evaluating alleged gradational
evolutionary changes. Thus, the significance of morphological discontinuities becomes magnified. Second, as noted earlier,
whatever step-by-step changes to the mammalian condition do exist, these come only at the cost of having to discard large
numbers of anatomical traits because they are reversingi.e. appearing, disappearing and reappearing in the chain.
If, despite such treatment, the discontinuities can be shown to be significant in those relatively few traits which are
unmistakably progressive to the mammalian condition, the credibility of mammal-like reptiles as genuine evolutionary
transitions becomes all the more doubtful.Third, and most important of all, the magnitude of any discontinuities must be
addressed. Are they large or small? To answer this question, we must compare the size of each discontinuity with the range
of anatomical information available from known fossils.30 Using the same methodology employed to score inferred
morphological changes throughout the presumed evolution of mammal-like reptiles, one can place the discontinuities into a
semi-quantitative perspective. Consider the most comprehensive sequence of mammal-like reptiles (Table 1). We can see
the precipitous gap between the pre-therapsids (05) and therapsids (2952). From the vantage point of the Mammalness
Index of 120 for the listed inferred first mammals (the Morganucudontidae), the mammal-like traits in pelycosaurs and
sphenacodonts are trivial in magnitude. This gap is all the more extreme because pelycosaurs and therapsids are each
large, internally-diverse groups.This is only the beginning. It is eye opening to realize that the discontinuity between the
therapsids (29-52) and cynodonts (80109), at 28 points, is greater than the entire range of mammal-like traits within the
evolution of the therapsids themselves, the latter of which amounts to 23 points! The gap within cynodonts (8087 vs. 101
109), while not as extreme, is nevertheless appreciable, and, at 14 points, is greater than both the ranges of the
antecedents (7 points) and successors (8 points). Those with a strong background in vertebrate anatomy may want to
consult the original sources and examine how the anatomical technicalities (here just summarized as numbered traits) fail to
resemble anything like a gradational appearance of mammalian traits in the evolutionistic-constructed chain of mammal-like
reptiles.When the appropriate anatomical details of the middle part of the chain of mammal-like reptiles is analyzed, we find
that the non-transitions grow in size. Consider all the characters relative to part of the inferred aural-mandibular evolution
from mammal-like reptiles to mammals (Table 2). One is struck by the abrupt discontinuities between therapsids and early
cynodonts (16), on one hand, and the advanced cynodonts (13, 15), on the other (we are, for a moment, excluding the
trithelodonts and the tritylodonts). When we consider the latter two, both of which are the possible evolutionary sister groups
of the earliest mammals, we observe yet another gapbetween them (13, 15) and the inferred earliest mammals (2025).
In both instances, the gap is, once again, larger than the actual range of mammalness that both precedes and follows the
gap.The foregoing analysis of Table 2 actually understates the magnitude of the gaps because, as noted earlier, it does not
consider the smoothing-out effects caused by the inclusion of the reversing characters. Consider just the progressive
characters in Table 2. Under such conditions, the discontinuities are stark. With the exception of the last member of the
chain (the Morganucodontidae), every change in the sequence involves a series of jumps in increments of 2 or (usually) 3,
and each such jump is relative to only 13 character points.Probably the most informative analysis of mammal-like reptiles as
(alleged) transitional forms is the one which focuses, in detail, on the presumed changes from advanced cynodonts to the
earliest mammals (Table 3). The sister-group cynodonts (Tritylodontidae and Trithelodontidae) rival each other for the status
of the closest non-mammalian relatives to mammals. Yet, when all of the characters are considered, one is struck by the
chasm between these sister-group advanced cynodonts (58 and 78) and the earliest presumed mammals (100139).
However, the bottom falls out when only the progressive characters are considered in Table 3. Here, a giant evolutionary
leap is required to make the presumed change from fairly advanced cynodonts (7) to the advanced sister-group cynodonts

(34 and 54). From there, another great gulf must be spanned in order to link the sistergroup cynodonts (at 34 and 54) with the earliest mammals (104131).Thus, the gaps
are as large, or larger, than the range of so-called mammalian traits actually present.
This makes it difficult to maintain that even a crudely, ever-more-mammalian, quasilineage exists among the mammal-like reptiles. Furthermore, the reversing traits are
more common than the gap-filled progressive traits. It is difficult to escape the
conclusion that the evolutionistic-constructed pelycosaur-therapsid-mammal chain is
little more than a motley group of extinct creatures crudely cobbled together into an
Figure 2. Labial view of
artificial evolutionary progression. Just because some mammalian traits are present
complex multi-cusped molar of
in mammal-like reptiles, this does not entail evolution in the slightest. It simply means
an
extinct
Mesozoic
that some traits now considered mammalian (by virtue of the fact that they are found
crocodilian from Malawi. These
only in extinct mammals) once existed in some extinct non-mammals (Figure 2).31
extinct crocodilians are related
Regardless of which choice the evolutionist makes for the closest non-mammalian
to neither mammal-like reptiles
relatives to primitive mammals, he/she must be content with either a rock or a hard
nor
mammals,
and
no
place:
evolutionist would contemplate
It is not known which cynodont family was ancestral to mammals, or whether all the
these reptiles as ancestral to
mammals originated from the same group (family) of cynodonts. In the vast literature
mammals in any way. Yet their
concerning mammalian origins, it is easier to find suggestions that one or the other
dentition
shows
clear
therapsid or cynodont family cannot be ancestral to the Mammalia, rather than to find
resemblances to mammalian
a positive answer.32Both the tritheledontid-mammal hypothesis and the tritylodontidcheek
teeth,
and
these
mammal hypothesis are supported by large numbers of apomorphies in dentition,
crocodilians
also
contain
cranium and postcranial skeleton. Yet both are also contradicted by a substantial
another mammalian traita
amount of anatomical evidence.33And, ironic to the fallacious argument about
secondary
palate
(from
mammalian traits appearing in correct stratomorphic sequence,34 we have a situation
Melhert).41
where one of the presumed sister groups (Tritylodontidae) is actually more
mammalian than the first recognized mammals! Consider the following unenviable
dilemma faced by evolutionists:
The main difficulty with the tritylodontid-mammal hypothesis is that too many apomorphic features of tritylodontids are more
derived than the corresponding features in primitive mammals such asSinoconodon and Adelobasileus ... . By contrast, the
main weakness of the trithelodontid-mammal hypothesis is that far too many trithelodontid characters are primitive ...
[emphasis added].35Primitive and derived, of course, are in comparison with the presumed earliest mammals, though
neither the trithelodonts nor the tritylodonts are capable of being connected to the inferred earliest mammals in an ancestordescendant lineage. Table 3 shows that a near doubling of characters (in fact, tripling if Tritheledontidae is chosen as the
sister-group) is necessary to bridge the chasm between the sister-group cynodonts and the inferred primitive mammals. For
evolutionists who portray the sister-group cynodonts as almost mammals, this is a sobering result.Several creationist
scholars have pointed out the lack of evidence for gradational change in the mandibular-auditory mechanism of the
advanced mammal-like reptiles towards that of the presumed early mammals. Interestingly, a few evolutionists have
actually acknowledged this fact in print:Intermediate stages in the transference of postdentary elements to the cranium are
poorly documented. Indeed, the only fossil evidence on this critical interval is the presence of persistent attachment sites for
the anterior end of the postdentary unit in the primitive theriansAmphitherium and Peramus.36Finally, owing to the fact that
the mammalian traits do not, by any stretch of the imagination, occur in a nested hierarchy in the mammal-like reptiles,
evolutionists must blame this state of affairs on convergence. In this regard, the mammal-like reptiles are hardly alone
among fossil vertebrates:The distribution of primitive and derived characters differs from lineage to lineage, showing that
many features were evolved or lost convergently. As in the case of other major transitions in vertebrates, such as the origin
of birds and mammals, the convergent origin of derived features makes it difficult to establish specific relationships, or to
agree on objective criteria to differentiate tetrapods from their fish ancestors.37
Conclusions
Mammal-like reptiles may indeed qualify as the very best examples of transitional evolutionary change that evolutionary
theory has to offer from the fossil record. This only shows the barrenness and intellectual poverty of macroevolution. When
all of the characters used for the conventional constructions of cladograms are considered, the majority of mammal-like
reptile characters do not consistently progress towards the mammalian condition. Instead, within the evolutionary chain of
mammal-like reptiles, there are many reversals away from mammalian characteristics.The use of mammal-like reptiles as
an argument for transitional change (however one strictly defines it) rests upon special pleading (like everything else in
evolutionary theory). So let us permit the evolutionist special pleading and pretend that the large numbers of reversing traits
dont exist, so that the argument can be based solely on the progressive characters. Even this does not let the evolutionist
off the hook. To the contrary, the chain of mammal-like reptiles, when examined closely and with attention to many (instead
of just a selected few) anatomical characters is full of major discontinuities. And very many of these discontinuities are as
large, if not larger, than the ranges of characters which both precede and follow them. Therefore, the oft-repeated
evolutionistic claim about mammal-like reptiles showing a series of intermediate stages to the mammalian condition is, at
best, an exaggeration.Could not the evolutionists argue that, as more fossils are discovered, the gaps will close? Perhaps.
At least they have been trying to do so since the days of Darwin, but with little success, despite a vastly larger known fossil
record. Remember that, as shown elsewhere, 38 new fossil finds can just as easily accentuate the gaps as reduce or close
them.
Consider
three
new
genera
that
have
been
described
in
the
1980s
and
1990s: Sinoconodon, Adelobasileus and Haldanodon. As noted earlier, not enough is preserved of Adelobasileus to include
it in Tables 13. When it comes to Sinoconodon, its existence does narrow the gap in Table 3 that would otherwise exist
without it, but not by much in comparison with the gap that remains afterward. Haldanodon, on the other hand, cuts the other
way. By virtue of the fact that its characters fall within the range for previously-known primitive mammals, its very discovery
actually reinforces the gap between cynodonts and mammals.What if mammal-like reptiles never existed? Would
evolutionary theory be crippled? Certainly not. Evolutionary theory is so plastic that anyseries of observations in the natural
world could be cited in its favour! If anyone thinks that this is an overstatement, consider the following:Indeed, it was a fossil
found in the Karoo in 1838the skull of a mammal-like reptile with two large tusk-like teeth in its upper jawthat first
convinced the scientific establishment that mammals had evolved from reptiles, not directly from amphibians. 39T. H. Huxley
(1880), for instance, proposed that amphibians gave rise to mammals. This conclusion was based on aortic arch patterns,
heart morphology and features of the pelvis. Subsequent workers rejected Huxleys ideas when theriodont pelvises, which
were not known to Huxley, were found to be intermediate in structure between the pelvises of amphibians and mammals.40
Clearly, the ruling evolutionary paradigm existed before the discovery of mammal-like reptiles, and would have flourished
had these reptiles never been discovered. In that event, todays evolutionists would be extolling some

extinct amphibian group as the transitions (or stratomorphic intermediates) leading up to mammals. Cladograms would be
constructed to show the close branching pattern between that chosen group of amphibians and mammals.All else would fall
in place according to the dictates of evolutionary dogma. The evolutionist triumphalists would be telling everyone that
evolution is fact because of the many obvious similarities between the ancestral amphibians and the descendant
mammals. Leading humanist scientists would inform us that anyone who questions the amphibian-mammalian transition
cannot possibly be a scientist, no matter his degrees or publications. And, of course, the secularist fanatics would whip up
considerable hysteria about the fact that the questioning of the amphibianmammalian transition is a dangerous threat to
the very survival of science and reason, and that, if not quickly reversed, it will soon return us to the Dark Ages.
Walking whales, nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist?
by John Woodmorappe
Summary
Recent claims about terrestrial whales are examined and refuted. The trends cited in whale evolution are rather superficial
in nature, and little different from those that become apparent by lining up wheeled vehicles within a cladogram. A close
examination of whale evolution in general, and whale-ear evolution in particular, demonstrates that most anatomical traits do
not change in a consistent whale-like direction. Recently discovered pakicetids consist of cetacean modules within
otherwise non-cetacean bodies. These extinct creatures are examples of chimeric creatures. The cetaceans, mesonychids,
and artiodactyls share a number of anatomical traits in a pattern that is inconsistent with any type of evolutionary nested
hierarchy, and this argues strongly for the special creation of all these creatures.
In Greek mythology, the Chimera was an animal whose body consisted of anatomical modules (part-goat, part-snake, and
part lion) (Figure 1).1 Another familiar chimera is the mermaid.2 Evolutionists tell us that chimeric creatures do not exist
because an extremely improbable set of circumstances 3 would have to take place in order to make their existence a reality.
Therefore, organisms supposedly evolve as slightly modified versions of their ancestors, and thus culminate in a nested
hierarchy of all living things. It is at this point that some evolutionists take a big leap. They speculate that an Intelligent
Designer, repeatedly using the same bauplan (construction plan) while creating different forms of life, should create living
things by assorting at least some of the modular units. This would result in truly chimeric animals, thereby preventing any
sort of classification of living things according to a nested hierarchy. The nonexistence of chimeric creatures is supposed to
favor organic evolution over Special Creation. Let us examine these premises.
Figure 1. The Chimera according to Greek mythology: part goat, part lion,
and part snake.
Implications of chimeric creatures
To begin with, the notion that the created living things should contain
chimeric modules (assemblages of morphologies) 4 While we cannot know
the motives behind the creation, we can easily see that extensive
deployments of chimeric structures do not necessarily follow from
intelligent design. This can be seen from all of the devices which man, the
intelligent designer, has built, in which extensive usage of chimeric
structures is uncommon.5 Finally, it takes little imagination to arrange manmade devices and machines into a nested hierarchy.6
What qualifies as a chimeric creature?
The very existence of chimeric creatures depends upon its definition.
Whereas chimeras involving entire half-body modules, such the humanmodule/fish-module of the mermaid, have not been discovered, less
pronounced examples of mosaic creatures do exist, and do so in large
numbers. Every time we hear the word convergence in evolspeak, in
reference to some anatomical attribute, we are actually hearing about a
chimeric creature that has violated, to some degree, an evolutionary
nested hierarchy.But, evolutionists commonly say, while individual traits,
or small groups of traits can re-appear on an occasional and sporadic
basis in different evolutionary lineages, it is inconceivable that a related series of numerous traits (i.e. a module) could reappear in a concerted manner, at least to an extent sufficient to cause the development of incorrect phylogenies.Oh no?
Consider the microorganisms, in which there is such a chimeric overlap of essential genomic components among and
between the Bacteria, Eukarya, and Archaea, that an extensive ancient set of genetic exchanges is postulated. 7 Among
marine invertebrates, the extinct cephalopods show such a bewildering assortment of chimeric conch morphologies that it is
often difficult to distinguish presumed shared ancestry from convergence. 8 Whats more, these real-life chimeras also make
it difficult to classify cephalopods according to higher taxonomic categories.When convergence of traits is extensive, we
often hear evolutionists speak of the mosaic nature of evolution. As an example of this, the mammal-like reptiles are much
more chimeric than transitional creatures.9 Rather than a progression to mammalness, we observe an assortment of
unmistakable reptilian traits and unmistakable mammalian traits.Let us now consider an example of chimeric creatures
among land mammals. Hystricomorphy, a unique muskoskeletal pattern involving the jaw, enables the mouth to be opened
in a large gape. Hystricomorphy is characteristic of the hystricomorph rodents, but has also now been found in the extinct
saber-toothed Barbourofelis. Although it is believed that a highly-detailed phylogenetic analysis should spot the independent
acquisition of the two complexes of traits, it is acknowledged that supposedly-unique character complexes could arise
through convergence and fool the evolutionist into believing that they had arisen from common ancestry.10

Figure
2. A
generalized
pedigree of supposed whale
evolution. While not strictly
indicative of inferred ancestordescendant relationships, each
of the fossil organisms is
supposed to be a signpost
indicative of the progressive
appearance of whaleness.
The
nature
of
alleged
transitional forms
Two
recently
described
pakicetids, Ichthyolestes
pinfoldi and Pakicetus
attocki11 (Figure
212)
are
supposedly transitional to true
cetaceans.13Ironically, were this
true, it would only support the
common
scientific-creationist
contention about the rarity of
transitional forms:Thewissen et al.s discovery of these terrestrial cetaceans is one of the most important events in the past
century of vertebrate palaeontology. Only a very few fossils, such as these, reveal a link between two groups of vertebrates
that are hugely different in terms of evolution . But the new fossils superbly document the link between modern whales
and their land-based forebears, and should take their place among other famous intermediates, such as the most primitive
bird, Archaeopteryx, and the early hominid Australopithecus(emphasis added).14That (half-convincing) evolutionary
transitional forms number a mere handful only repeats what creationist scientists (for example, Duane T. Gish15) have been
saying for decades, and squarely refutes the anti-creationists who adamantly insist that transitional forms are common.Let
us analyze what usually passes for transitions in discussions surrounding the evolution of whales. To illustrate this, I have
constructed a mock character-trait matrix (Table 1), and thence a cladogram (Figure 3) to show the gradual evolution of a
unicycle into an 18-wheeled truck.16 Note that the apparent progression seems, at first, to be somewhat
convincing.17 However, a closer look reveals that the step-by-step transition-filled progression is actually quite
superficial,18 as it is full of discontinuities. (The pointing out of discontinuities is sometimes dismissed as an exercise in
futility: of having two gaps whereas before there was one. As elaborated elsewhere, 19 however, it is themagnitude of the gap
or gaps which is/are important and not the number(s) of alleged gap-filling organisms!) Even more serious is what
is notpresented in the character matrix (Table 1) or cladogram (Figure 3)namely specializations, 20 and the outright reversal
of traits.21 The latter are very much part of the unmentioned story of whale evolution, as described below.
Heavy
Light truckAutomobile
3-wheel motorcycle2-wheel motorcycleBicycle
Unicycle
truck
Horn
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Manual steering
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Multiple wheels
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
3 ln number wheels 9
7
4
3
2
2
0
Thick tyres
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
Motorization
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
Self stability
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
Backrest seating
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
Ln cargo capacity 5
3
1
0
0
0
0
Enclosed cabin
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Steering wheel
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Upward exhaust
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Double wheels
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Interior partition
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Detachable units
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 1. Mock character-trait matrix of wheeled vehicles. Most traits are polarized: 0-Absent and 1-Present. The number of
wheels is indicated by three times the natural logarithm of the actual number of wheels, rounded off to the nearest whole
number. The cargo space is denoted by the ratios of natural logarithms of the cargo volume relative to that of the automobile,
based on a guesstimate.
Do fossil whales generate a chain of transitional forms?
Earlier claims of transitional fossil whales had been found wanting. 22 A recent National Geographic article23 calls the
readers attention to a number of supposed trends24 in cetacean evolution. These are towards: 1) Greater aquatic
specialization,25 2) Underwater hearing,26 3) Reductions in size of the hindlimbs,27 and 4) Migration of the nares (nostrils)
towards the posterior of the skulls dorsal (upper) surface.28 The alleged trend towards underwater hearing merits some
attention, and is discussed in some detail below.The remaining three trends fail immediately because they are superficial in
nature, and are not corroborated by detailed anatomical analyses, as elaborated below. Moroever, a close look at the
relative positions of the nares in the skulls of just the five protocetid genera 29 while showing a slight trend towards more
posterior placement with supposed time, also reveals the fact that this meager trend is completely overshadowed by the
considerable differences in cranial geometry between the five genera. On this basis, any trend towards increasingly
posterior placement of the nares within protocetids, let alone within the entire Order Cetacea, is all but meaningless. It is
literally like comparing apples and oranges, and making something out of the fact that one can arrange these fruits into a
sequence showing progressively larger pores. The three-member Nasal Drift sequence 28 in the National Geographic article
is, in my opinion, disingenuous to the point of bordering on intellectual dishonestydoubly so in view of the fact that most
readers of that magazine are unsuspecting laypersons.

Figure 3. A mock cladogram of wheeled

vehicles, showing transitional changes leading
to the evolutionary emergence of 18-wheeled
trucks. Using this as an analogy, but adhering
to evolutionistic reasoning, the pakicetids are
walking whales in the same way that unicycles
are primitive trucks.
The remaining trends are little better. The
progressive reduction of hindlimbs is of dubious
significance, if only because of the wide range
of hindlimb sizes in the creatures involved.
Moreover, modern whales sometimes sprout
hindlimbs of appreciable size (larger than
those of ancestors, and thereby contrary to the
trend in hindlimb reduction). Finally, even
greatly reduced hindlimbs lack any necessary
evolutionary connotation.30Let us now consider
the forelimbs. Although different cladograms
contradict each other, they are unanimous in
grouping Pakicetus with Ambulocetus as sister
groups.31 One can therefore appreciate the
ironic fact that, in terms of forelimb anatomy,
there is no actual trend but, to the contrary,
a sharp discontinuity between the pakicetids
and the next successively-more cetacean-like
creatures,
the
ambulocetids
(Figure
2):Ambulocetus probably swam using its hind
limbs as the main propulsor, and its robust feet
may be an adaptation for forcefully displacing
water during swimming. Pakicetids, on the other hand, had the slender metapodials of running animals. 32The National
Geographic conspicuously fails to mention this sharp discontinuity in its slick portrayal of the Back to the Sea parade 25 of
creatures. This only aggravates the borderline-deceptive practice of picturing both Pakicetus andAmbulocetus as having
more aquatic-adapted appendages (fin-like legs, etc.) than could possibly be justified by fossil evidence. 33 To top it all off, the
leading researcher in whale evolution, as quoted in National Geographic, engages in a crass misrepresentation of scientific
creationists.34It is not only the limbs, but also the tail, which supposedly underwent extensive modifications in order to
convert a terrestrial creature into an aquatic one. Entirely omitted in the National Geographic article is the fact that, owing
partly to preservation problems, there is a lack of intermediates between tails and flukes:Despite recent discoveries of early
cetaceans, such as Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Rodhocetus, there still remains a paucity of tangible physical evidence on
the evolution of the flukes. Tail vertebrae in these fossils are lacking or incomplete, especially for the most terminal portions.
To this add that (1) modern cetacean species exhibit the highly derived thunniform swimming mode and design, (2) no
series of intermediate fluke designs exist, and (3) they are phylogenetically disjunct from their closest living relative (i.e.,
ungulates), which have specialized for terrestrial locomotion; thus little direct information is available to answer the
evolutionary questions regarding the transition to flukes.35We would never actually consider the bicycle as ancestral to the
motor vehicles (Table 1, Figure 3) in spite of its structurally intermediate character between the unicycle and the
automobile. Why not free ourselves from the mental boxes of evolutionary thinking and give living things the same benefit?
Note that, in contrast to the locomotion of the terrestrial pakicetids, that of the ambulocetids and rodhocetids is described as
resembling the locomotion of modern sea lions, eared seals, and otters. 36 In fact, these creatures are actually endowed with
lutrine (like an otter) and phocid (like a seal) relative limb proportions. 37 Why then not view these extinct creatures as little
more than ecological counterparts of extant seals, otters, etc., and forget all of the evolutionary tales that have them
transformed to whales?
Are pakicetids transitional forms?
To what extent are pakicetids intermediate in structure between the generic artiodactyls on one hand and true cetaceans on
the other? Gingerich38 has surveyed changes in four anatomical features (body mass, tooth length, bullar length, and femur
length), over the supposed time interval of 3750 million years ago, for fossil mammals which include six of the reputed
cetacean genera39 shown here in Figure 2. With the exception of the inferred change in femur length (especially when body
sizes are normalized), none of the remaining three features show even a self-consistent, unidirectional change with time!
40
What about the recently described pakicetid genera?11 The vast majority of the skeletal traits found in the complete
skeletons are consistently unlike those of true cetaceans (ancient or modern). By no stretch of the imagination do we
observe anything resembling a gradational trend of changes to true cetaceans:Aquatic postcranial adaptations are
pronounced in late Eocene basilosaurids and dorudontids, the oldest obligate aquatic cetaceans for which the entire
skeleton is known, and therefore can be used to evaluate pakicetid morphology. Aquatic adaptations of basilosaurids and
dorudontids include [nine features are listed]. Pakicetids display none of these features. 41As if all this were not enough,
the few pakicetid traits once believed unambiguously indicative of an aquatic or semi-aquatic transitional lifestyle, are no
longer necessarily considered thus.42 Consequently, the already borderline-deceptive practice33 of sketching Pakicetus as a
semiaquatic-adapted creature, in a very recent issue of National Geographic magazine,43 is all the more inexcusable. And it
is creationists who are supposed to be the purveyors of inaccurate and outdated information!The editors of National
Geographic magazine would do well to communicate, very carefully to their lay audiences, the following sobering facts about
the reconstruction of soft parts being unempirical (with very few exceptions), and in fact belief-driven:
Traditionally, Ambulocetus, an early cetacean, has been constructed with hair (bottom). As discussed by John Gatesy and
Maureen OLeary on pp. 562570, hypotheses of phylogeny, however, determine how soft tissues, such as skin, are
reconstructed in fossils.Recent cladistic studies suggest Ambulocetus was nearly hairless (top) [emphasis added].44
Emerging whaleness: unsupported by anatomical details
Up to now, the anatomical changes in the alleged land-animal-to-modern-whale progression have been followed only in
response to the cursory and superficial trends cited by evolutionists. As was the case with the mammal-like reptiles, 9 what
is needed is a comprehensive survey of all of the relevant traits of this supposed transformation. Unfortunately, much data is
lacking, making it all but impossible to meaningfully compute the relative numbers of progressive and nonprogressive
anatomical traits,45 as had been done for mammal-like reptiles.9It cannot be stressed enough that, from an evolutionary point

of view, organisms situated at the point of trait reversal are chimeras consisting of primitive and derived features, and they
will not fit any nested hierarchy.In spite of the problems with missing data in cetacean evolution, one can arrive at
an extremely conservative46 estimate of the relative proportion of non-progressive traits. In order to minimize the possibility
of artifacts caused by incomplete information, we can compare severalcladistic analyses by different authors, each of which
use different anatomical traits, different outgroups for comparison, and different constituent taxa. Let us consider one
analysis47 of basicranial, cranial, dental, postcranial, and live-tissue data (from living cetaceans). I trace the changes in
character polarity which take place through all of the organisms listed in Figure 2, with modern whales represented
byBaleonoptera and Tursiops. Out of the 123 anatomical characters evaluated by the cited authors, only 33 have data for at
least 7 of the 8 taxa, and are considered further. Out of these 33, fully 24% reverse themselves at least once, and are
therefore nonprogressive. To show that this is no fluke (pardon the pun), let us now focus on another cladistic analysis,
which consists of 67 skeletal traits48 in a comparable range of fossil to modern cetaceans (Figure 2). Although 30% (183 of
603 data points) are missing, an astonishing 31% (21 out of the 67) traits are nonprogressive.
He who has an ear, let him hear
Let us evaluate, in some detail, the much-discussed evolution of the cetacean ear. It turns out that there is only one (one!)
unambiguous bullar synapomorphy linking Pakicetus to the cetaceans, and simultaneously absent in all noncetacean
animals.49 What about the numerous other auditory features supposedly involved in cetacean evolution? A detailed analysis
of 64 aural and other basicranial traits,50 spanning the entire scope of cetacean evolution (and thus consisting of precetaceans, Archaeocetes, Odontocetes, and Mysticetes), has been performed. In this particular study, only 17% of the 1472
possible data points are missing. Almost half (44%) of the traits are nonprogressive! The situation gets even worse, from the
evolutionary progression point of view, if we focus our attention primarily on modern whales and their immediate (extinct)
relatives. Using one archaeocete cetacean as the outgroup, and omitting one of the 28 traits which has more than half its
data missing, one can examine the intermediate stages involved. It is sobering to realize that two-thirds (17 of 27) of the
traits reverse themselves.51As noted earlier about the National Geographic article, a handful of traits supposedly showing a
trend in cetacean-ear evolution had been selectively highlighted. 26 Not mentioned are the large bodies of contrary evidence,
consisting of numerous anatomical details that show no consistent trend towards whaleness. There is a whole suite of
features, found in archaeocete whales, which are believed to have become (conveniently) secondarily lost (or reversed) in
the Odontocetes and Mysticetes. 52 Keeping in mind the extremely conservative nature of all of the above estimates, it is
plain to see that any connotation of cetacean lineage (e.g., Figure 2) is totally artificial. The supposedly progressive
character of cetacean evolution (aural as well as non-aural) is completely unwarranted. Furthermore, rather than being the
crown group of cetacean evolution (Figure 2), the extant mysticete and odontocete whales stand out as chimeras consisting
of mostly derived but also many primitive features.Believe it or not, the hoary and long-discredited53 embryonic-recapitulation
theory is dusted off and employed by some whale-evolution specialists 54 to infer the supposed fine stages of cetacean ear
evolution. The fact that evolutionists feel the need to fall back on the recapitulation theory in order to infer alleged
evolutionary changes is itself mute testimony to the fact that detailed structural intermediates illustrative of alleged cetacean
aural evolution are lacking.
Walking whales or walking chimeras?
The pakicetids are an interesting set of chimeric creatures, consisting of an artiodactyl-like ankle and a somewhat truecetacean-like inner ear residing in a body that is otherwise hardly distinguishable from that of a typical extinct land-dwelling
artiodactyl!:The newly found fossils include several skulls and postcranial bones from two early pakicetid specieswhich it
seems, had the head of a primitive cetacean (as indicated by the ear region) and the body of an artiodactyl. All of the
postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and it is likely that they would have been thought of as some
primitive terrestrial artiodactyls if they had been found without their skulls. 9The evolutionary successor to Pakicetus is
hardly better in this regard:Ambulocetus is recognized as a whale because of characters of its teeth and skull that it shares
with other whales, and demonstrates that derived cetacean cranial characteristics were present in an organism with legs
resembling those of modern terrestrial mammals. 55While certainly not as dramatic as the would-be discovery of a genuine
mermaid, the chimeric structure of the pakicetids and ambulocetids could hardly be described in a more lucid manner. It is
difficult to imagine how, by any stretch of the imagination, the pakicetids are supposed to qualify as gap-fillers between the
terrestrial artiodactyls and aquatic true cetaceans. The fact that serious evolutionary scholars make such claims 14 only goes
on to show the poverty of evidence for evolution, and the concomitant desperate lengths to which evolutionists will go to
recruit some extinct creature as a transitional form.The recent finding of certain whale-like (actually seal-like)
protocetids56 does nothing significant to close the huge chasm between pakicetids and true cetaceans. With the exception of
possessing the artiodactyl-like double-pulleyed astralagus (heel), these newly described protocetids are highly specialized,
fully aquatic creatures, and not indicative of any compelling ancestral connections to the pakicetids or the ambulocetids.Let
us now put cetacean features
into a broader context. It is
hardly surprising that, as more
fossils are discovered, our
concept of the anatomical
diversity of certain groups must
expand: certain anatomical
traits thought to be unique to
particular mammalian orders
turn
up
as
chimeric
assortments in other orders.
Rather than demonstrating
evolution, the chimeric cooccurrence of cetacean and
non-cetacean
features
in
extinct mammals only shows
that certain features thought to be essentially cetacean (because they occur only in modern cetaceans and not in any other
extant mammal) are not exclusively cetacean after all. It does not warrant the re-definition of cetaceans to absurd extremes,
to encompass all of these chimeras, as is currently done by evolutionists.57
Figure 4. Mesonychians as the sister group of the Cetaceans. The chimeric mammalian orders, and failed nested hierarchy,
are subject to either (or both) secondary-loss rationalizations (left), or convergent-evolution rationalizations (right).
Cetacean relatives? The chimeric trichotomy
Is it the Artiodactyls or is it the Mesonychians 58 that are the closest relatives to the Cetaceans? Until recently, the extinct
Order Mesonychia was largely accepted by evolutionists as the sister group of Order Cetacea (Figure 4). A recent

analysis59 has demonstrated that the respective dental complexes of mesonychids and cetaceans stand out in uniting the
two groups into a clade. This is supported by a variety of other mesonychid-cetacean synapomorphies. 60When the
pakicetids were discovered along with a host of other finds, 61 the artiodactyls began to displace the mesonychids as the
closest known relatives of cetaceans (Figure 5). The double-pulleyed astralagus now appears to be an unambiguous
component of both the pakicetid and protocetid skeletons. This synapomorphy (shared form) links artiodactyls and
cetaceans as sister groups, to the exclusion of mesonychians, which do not possess this kind of specialized heel. 11 The
three mammalian orders are clearly chimeras. Once again, the evolutionary nested hierarchies have been turned upside
down, as chimeric creatures are incompatible with any sort of nested hierarchy, and only create headaches for evolutionists.
The evidence places the evolutionist in a particularly unenviable position. Notions of stratomorphic intermediates are of no
help to him, as the stratigraphic order of fossils themselves does not show a clear-cut preference for one phylogeny over
another.62 So which anatomical traits is he to reckon as phylogenetically informative, and which is he to reject and explain
away? Having made his arbitrary decision, he is forced to make another one. Which rationalization is he to invokethe one
which supposes backward evolution and character loss (Figure 4, left, and Figure 5, left), or the one which imagines that
lookalike complex anatomical structures can independently arise in different lineages (Figure 4, right, and Figure 5, right)?
How much more parsimonious to recognize an Intelligent Designer who used the same anatomical modulus in otherwisedifferent mammalian orders?Since rationalistic preconceptions wont, of course, allow the evolutionist to consider the latter
possibility, he is forced to stumble along in his imaginations and rationalizations. For some evolutionists, 63,64 the secondary
de-volution of the specialized artiodactyl heel is considered possible (Figure 4, left). Others 65 speculate that the doublepulleyed heel is homoplasic. According to this thinking, the double-pulleyed astralagus must have arisen twice
independently (convergently) in artiodactyls and mesonychians (Figure 5, right).Conversely, if pakicetids are to be accepted
as the closest known relatives of cetaceans, as the ruling paradigm dictates, all of the foregoing rationalizations must be
placed in reverse. The evolutionist must now contemplate the reverse evolution of artiodactyl teeth back towards a lessderived state (Figure 5, left). A recent study11 actually contemplates this evolutionary flip-flop.Alternatively, the cetacean-like
teeth of mesonychians must be the product of convergent evolution (Figure 5, right). The latter rationalization, in fact, is the
one that appears widely accepted by evolutionists.11,14,36,66 Such thinking constitutes a revolution of sorts in mammalian
paleontology. Prior to the recent turn of events, teeth had been used for construction of mammalian phylogenies, more or
less uncritically, for over a century. All this time, dental features had been generally considered too detailed to be capable of
being duplicated independently via convergent evolution.66There is yet another set of rationalizations invoked for the
conflicting phylogenies shown in Figures 4 and 5. It would have us believe that the most basal cetaceans, artiodactyls, and
mesonychians have not been discovered, and these postulated fossils hold the key to our understanding of the correct
evolutionary branching order.67 Apart from being ad hoc, this hypothesis is self-defeating because it invokes large gaps in
the fossil records of the mammalian orders, and thereby implicitly repudiates the claim that fossil cetaceans qualify as a
transition-filled sequence! It
invokes nonexistent fossils to
resolve problems in known
ones.
Figure 5. Artiodactyls as the
sister group b of the
Cetaceans. Although the
players are reversed, the
evolutionary game is the
same:
the
chimeric
mammalian
orders,
and
failed nested hierarchy, are
subject to either (or both)
secondary-loss
rationalizations
(left),
or
convergent-evolution
rationalizations (right).
Conclusions
In answer to the questions posed by the title of this report, the answers are: 1). No, walking whales do not exist. Just
because pakicetids have somewhat cetacean-like middle ears and cetartiodactyla-type double-pulleyed heel bones, this
does not yet make them whalesunless of course one is willing to entertain the most ludicrously-strained definition of a
whale. Perhaps pakicetids are walking whales just as firetrucks are tomatoes on wheels (since both firetrucks and tomatoes
are red, and both are filled with water). 2). Owing to widespread so-called evolutionary convergence, a nested hierarchy of
living things exists only in part. The more detailed the anatomical analysis, the more the nested hierarchy breaks down.
While full-bodied chimeric creatures, such as mermaids and mermen, do not exist, somewhat lesser examples of chimeric
creatures, of which pakicetids and mesonychids are notable examples, definitely exist.Whenever evolutionists make
assertions about the limits of convergence, they do so on an after-the-fact basis.68 As ever-more-detailed examples of
convergence are found, evolutionists are forced to backpedal, thus moving the goalpost of conceivable convergence. For a
long time, evolutionists had tacitly supposed that detailed convergences of clusters of traits (modules), such as the
independent acquisition of cetacean-like teeth in mesonychids and cetaceans (Figure 5, right), were a virtual impossibility.
What is there to stop the evolutionists from saying, in case of the discovery of a mermaid-like chimeric creature, that even
more pronounced convergence of modular units can occur than previously supposed? Evolutionary theory is so plastic that
any observation could be fitted into it. The apparent absence of extremely-chimeric creatures cannot, by any standard of
reasoning, be accepted as evidence for evolution. To the contrary, the existence of less-extreme chimeric creatures, notably
fossil whales, argues strongly against a common evolutionary ancestry of
living things.
ARE EARLY EMBRYOS VERY SIMILAR?DO THEY RECAPITATULATE
EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY?
The fish gills girl
by David Catchpoole
One of the most exciting things about addressing church congregations on
the creation/evolution issue is meeting people afterwards who recount their

own interesting anecdotes on this topic. Recently in Perth, Western Australia, a middle-aged lady approached me and said,
Hi, Im Carol. Id like you to meet our living fossil. Here she isour daughter, Leanne. A living fish fossil.
Carol and Des Burgess, with daughter Leanneand not a fossil, nor fish, in sight.Seeing my bewilderment, Carol and her
husband Des explained that when Leanne was 12 years old, she developed an inflamed abscess in her neck. The surgeon
in Perth, Australia, who drained the abscess explained that it was caused by bacteria infecting an area of cartilage in her
neck, which he described as leftover pieces of gilla legacy of our having evolved from fish ancestors.As the Burgess
family emerged from the post-op consultation room, Leannes brother David turned to her and said jokingly, See, I always
knew you were lower on the evolutionary scale than me.And when Leannes school heard of what happened, her teacher
called Leanne the fish girla reference also to Leanne being a school champion swimmer at that time.But Des and Carol
had raised their children to have a creation worldview. They had in fact begun subscribing toCreation magazine a couple of
years earlier, so they knew that the surgeons claims about fish gills were wronghence Davids comment to his sister was
very much a tongue-in-cheek jibe at the doctors ignorance. (Creationmagazine had earlier reported that the fish gills story
was widely believed and promulgated in medical circles, despite their own textbooks plain teaching that this belief is false 1,2
see No fish for relatives below.)
Ernst Haeckel
Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit
by Russell Grigg
Known as Darwins Bulldog on the Continent and the Huxley of Germany,
Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel is notorious as the scientist who
perpetrated fraud upon fraud to promote the theory of evolution.Born at
Potsdam, Prussia (now Germany), on February 16, 1834, Haeckel studied
medicine and science at Wrtzburg and the University of Berlin, and was
professor of zoology at Jena from 1865 until his retirement in 1909. The
turning point in his thinking was his reading of Charles Darwins Origin of
Species, which had been translated into German in 1860.In a letter to his
mistress, written when he was 64 and had acquired the nickname of Der
Ketzer von Jena (the gadfly of Jena),1 he explained how he began as a
creationist but after studying evolution became a free-thinker and pantheist. 2
Darwin believed that Haeckels enthusiastic propagation of the doctrine of
organic evolution was the chief factor in the success of the doctrine in
Germany.3 Ian Taylor writes, He became Darwins chief European apostle
proclaiming
the
Gospel of evolution
with
evangelistic
fervor, not only to the
university
intelligentsia but to the
common
man
by
popular books and to
the working classes by lectures in rented halls.4In these he used
enormous backdrops showing embryos, skeletons, etc., which has led
to his presentation being described as a sort of Darwinian passion
play!
The Imaginary Monera
Haeckels drawings of the eating habit and reproductive cycle of an
alleged Moneron to which he gave the scientific name, Protomyxa
aurantiaca, as published in his book The History of Creation. The
extent of the detail is the measure of his fraud, as the Monera did not
then and do not now exist!
Haeckels enthusiasm for the theory of evolution led him to
fraudulently manufacture evidence to bolster his views. He was the
first person to draw an evolutionary family tree for mankind. To fill the
gap in this between inorganic non-living matter and the first signs of
life, he invented a series of minute protoplasmic organisms which he
called Monera (plural of Moneron). These, he said, were
not composed of any organs at all, but consist entirely of shapeless,
simple homogeneous matter nothing more than a shapeless,
mobile, little lump of mucus or slime, consisting of albuminous
combination of carbon.5,6
In 1868, a prestigious German scientific journal published 73 pages of
his speculations, with more than 30 drawings of these
imaginaryMonera, as well as scientific names such as Protamoeba
primitivia, and the process of fission by which they allegedly
reproduced,7 even though his detailed descriptions and elaborate drawings were totally fictional, as these life particles were
entirely non-existent.Later the same year, Thomas Huxley, Darwins champion in England, reported finding something that
fitted Haeckels descriptions in mud samples that had been dredged from the bottom of the north Atlantic and preserved in
alcohol. Huxley named them Bathybius haeckelii.8Unfortunately for Huxley, Haeckel, the Monera, and the theory of
evolution, in 1875 a chemist aboard the expeditionary ship discovered that these alleged protoplasm specimens were
nothing more than amorphous gypsum, precipitated out of sea-water by alcohol! 9 Haeckel refused to be moved by this
confuting evidence, and for about 50 years the public continued to be duped by unrevised reprints of his popular The History
of Creation (1876), complete with drawings of the Monera, until the final edition in 1923.10,11
The Non-Existent Speechless Apeman

Everything about Pithecanthropus alalus, or the speechless

apeman was the product of Haeckels imagination.To Haeckel,
human reasoning was much more important than facts and
evidence. He believed that the only major difference between
man and the ape was that men could speak and apes could not.
He therefore postulated a missing link which he
called Pithecanthropus alalus (speechless apeman) and even
had an artist, Gabriel Max, draw the imagined creature, although
there was not a scrap of evidence to support a single detail in the
drawings.A contemporary of Haeckel, Professor Rudolf Virchow
(famous as the founder of cellular pathology and for many years
president of the Berlin Anthropological Society), was scathing in
his criticismfor Haeckel to have given a zoological name to a
creature that no one had proved to exist was to him a great
mockery of science.The Dutch scientist, Professor G.H.R.von
Koenigswald, described the drawing thus,Under a tree a woman
with long lank hair sits cross-legged suckling a child. Her nose is
flat, her lips thick, her feet large, with the big toe set considerably
lower than the rest. Beside her stands her husband, fat-bellied
and low-browed, his back thickly covered with hair. He looks at
the spectator good-naturedly and unintelligently, with the
suspicious expression of an inveterate toper [habitual drinker]. It
must have been a happy marriage; his wife could not contradict
him, for neither of them could speak. 12
No such alleged missing link has ever been found.
The Infamous Fish Stage in Human Embryos
Haeckels doctored drawings of dog and human embryos as they
appeared in his book The History of Creation25
Of all Haeckels dubious activities, that for which he is most
famous, or perhaps most infamous, is his promulgation of the
totally erroneous theory that the human embryo is initially
identical with that of other mammals and then goes through a
series of stages where it has gills like a fish, 13 a tail like a monkey, etc. Sometimes called the law of recapitulation or
Haeckels term the biogenetic law, this idea has been summarized in the mouthful, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,
which means the development of the
individual embryo repeats its alleged
evolutionary history.
The first thing to say about this
dictum, is that law it is not! The idea
is now known to be completely false.
It is therefore not surprising that
Haeckel could not find sufficient
anatomical evidence to make his
theory convincing. Never one to let
lack of evidence stand in his way,
Haeckel manufactured the evidence
by
fraudulently
changing
the
drawings of embryos by two other
scientists.In his book Natrliche
Schpfungs-geschichte (The Natural
History of Creation),published in
German in 1868 (and in English in
1876 with the title The History of
Creation), Haeckel used the drawing
of a 25-day-old dog embryo which had been published by T.L.W. Bischoff in 1845, and that of a 4-week-old human embryo
published by A. Ecker in 185159.14 Wilhelm His, Sr (18311904), a famous comparative embryologist of the day and
professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig, uncovered the fraud.Prof. Wilhelm His showed in 1874 that Haeckel had
added 3.5 mm to the head of Bischoffs dog embryo, taken 2 mm off the head of Eckers human embryo, doubled the length
of the human posterior, and substantially altered the details of the human eye. He sarcastically pointed out that Haeckel
taught in Jena, home of the then finest optical equipment available, and so had no excuse for inaccuracy. He concluded that
anyone who engaged in such blatant fraud had forfeited all respect and that Haeckel had eliminated himself from the ranks
of scientific research workers of any stature.15,16 [See also Encyclopedic truth or wordly wisdom?]
Haeckels Confession of Fraud
The furor in German scientific circles was so great that Haeckel found it impossible to persist in his policy of silence. In a
letter to Mnchener Allegemeine Zeitung, an international weekly for Science, Art and Technology, published on January 9,
1909, Haeckel (translated) wrote: a small portion of my embryo-pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really (in Dr
Brasss [one of his critics] sense of the word) falsifiedall those, namely, in which the disclosed material for inspection is
so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps
through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task
encounters, and how easily the draughts-man may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge. 17Discerning readers who
compare Haeckels doctored dog and human embryo pictures with the originals (see photographs), will readily see that
Haeckels confession was itself a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and essentially an attempt to justify and
perpetuate his shameful forgeries.Despite this totally dishonest and grievously mischievous basis for the theory of
embryonic recapitulation, and the fact that it has long since been discredited scientifically, the completely false idea that
human beings retrace their evolutionary past in the womb has been taught as evidence for evolution in schools and
universities in the past, and it is still included in many popular science books.18,19Even worse, the argument that the foetus is

still in its fish stage so you are just cutting up a fish is used to this day by some abortionists to convince girls and young
women that killing their offspring is OK.
Concerning this, Dr Henry Morris writes.
We can justifiably charge this evolutionary nonsense of recapitulation with responsibility for the slaughter of millions of
helpless, pre-natal children or at least for giving it a pseudo-scientific rationale.20
Haeckel and the Rise of Nazism
Sadly, in spite of all of his unsavoury activities, Haeckel was overwhelmingly successful in Germany, not only in having
evolution widely taught as the accepted story of origins, but also in imposing a unique form of social Darwinism and racism
on the German national ethos. He became one of Germanys major ideologists for racism, nationalism, and
imperialism.21,22This involved the concept that the Germans were members of a biologically superior community (akin to
Nietzsches super-man).Unfortunately for mankind, Haeckels evolutionism laid the foundation for the intense German
militarism that eventually contributed to World War I. And then,Social Darwinism, racism, militarism, and imperialism finally
reached their zenith in Nazi Germany under the unspeakable Adolph Hitler Hitler himself became the supreme
evolutionist, and Nazism the ultimate fruit of the evolutionary tree.23

The original drawings of a dog embryo (4th week) and a human embryo (4th
week) by Ecker.26 The extent to which Haeckel fraudulently altered these is
apparent by comparison with the picture above.
A fishy story
by Carl Wieland
Tweed boy had fish gills in his neck. The headline was not that of some
cheap tabloid paper, the type which is as likely to feature a phony
photograph of a goat-human hybrid as to report Elvis running a hamburger
cafe in Tibet. It was a respected Australian regional daily, The Northern
Star (New South Wales) of October 30, 1993 (Tweed in the headline refers
to the town of Tweed Heads).The fuss was about a small fragment of
cartilage (10-15 millimetres long) which had been removed from the neck of
an 11-year-old boy. It was referred to as a fish gill, and as fish gill cartilage.
The parents were reported as saying, The doctor told us that if our son had
been a fish he would be able to breath [sic] under water.[ 1] He said it was a
gill like in a fish.The report seemed to directly quote a medical authority
as saying that the tissue found in this boys neck was hard cartilage exactly
the same as found in the gills of fish. Little wonder that the boy had
experienced some teasing at school!
Human cartilage
Knowing that we humans have human (not fish) DNA and can therefore
make only human (not fish) cartilage, I rang the pathologist referred to in the
A scar on the boys neck shows where
article, who confirmed that the histology (microscopic appearance) of this
the alleged fish gill cartilage was
cartilage
was
not
in
any
way
distinguishable
from
removed. Occasionally, human cartilage
ordinary human cartilage.The whole article seemed to be strongly promoting
may be abnormally seeded during
the mistaken belief that the human embryo, as it develops, goes through the
development of the embryo, and this is
stages of its pre-human evolutionary ancestry. It actually stated that in the
what grows in a persons neck. The
first few weeks of life the human fetus develops six gills.Few, if any,
cartilage taken from the boys neck is
respected embryologists today accept this belief that the human fetus
about the size of one of Australias
repeats its past evolutionary history. In a major textbook on human
smallest coins. The pathologist who
development (Jan Langman, Medical Embryology, fourth edition, Williams &
examined the fish gill cartilage
Wilkins, Baltimore, 1981) we read that in the human embryo real gills
confirmed
that
its
microscopic
branchia are never formed.2
appearance
was
indistinguishable
from
Superficial similarity
human cartilage.
There are pouch-like structures which form in the fish embryo and which
look superficially similar to the pharyngeal pouches or grooves in the human
embryo (these were formerly incorrectly called branchial (i.e. gill) grooves).
However, whereas in fish this region develops gills, in humans it forms very important, and quite different, structures in the

head and neck region, structures which have nothing to do with gills in either form or function.These structures include
several which contain cartilage (such as the voice-box, or larynx). So it is not at all surprising, in a fallen world, that there
should occasionally be an aberration of normal embryonic development, such that a clump of laryngeal-type cartilage (for
example) is incorrectly seeded in the side of the neck during development in the womb, and begins growing.Actually, such
embryonic rests or remnants (not remnants of our evolutionary ancestry, but remnants of our own tissue which ended up
in the wrong place), when they involve softer tissues than cartilage, are well-known in the neck region. 3 So-called cartilage
rests, as in this case, are much rarer, but have been described. 4 There is therefore no mystery, and no evolutionary
significance, to finding this tiny scrap of ordinary human cartilage in a human neck.It is tragic how readily the secular media,
which will give virtually no exposure to visits by distinguished creation scientists, will publish such misleading and erroneous
reports which reinforce evolutionary beliefs.

The human umbilical vesicle (yolk sac) and pronephrosAre they vestigial?
Published: 2 May 2009(GMT+10)
This week we feature an enquiry from university student
Andr Z of New Zealand, whose biology lecturer
teaches that the yolk sac (umbilical vesicle), the
pronephros, and other human embryonic structures are
vestigial, constituting evidence that humans evolved.
Andr also asks about so-called endogenous
retroviruses (ERVs). Below is Andrs enquiry, followed
by a response by Andrew Lamb andJonathan Sarfati.
Hello, I study 2nd year biology (BSc/BA) at a university
in NZ. I have searched your site and not found any (or
much) relevant information from a creationist
perspective on two common evolutionary arguments in
particular.
Embryo developmentthe human embryo has some
structures which serve no purpose in adults and
resemble the embryos of simpler organisms, which do
have a use for these structures. The pronephros
kidney is effectively the same as in simpler animals,
but in humans it degenerates by the 6th week.
The yolk sac is apparently vestigial, having very little
purpose in humanscertainly my lecturer is fond of it
as evidence for evolution.
Related to the comment on the yolk sac is something my lecturer was rather keen on repeating; that an engineer would not
design a system such as found in the embryonic blood circulations. The claim is that the mixing of oxygenated/poorlyoxygenated blood in e.g. the embryos heart is rather inefficientI assume the idea is that poorly oxygenated blood
shouldnt really be mixed back in with oxygenated blood after circulation.
Endogenous retrovirusesI have read the two articles on your site on these, and I am no expert on the details, but the
extreme similarity in the location of some ERVs in the genetic sequences of different creatures such as chimps and humans,
and a pattern of differences in these ERVs (or their surrounding genetic sequences) which fits evolutionary phylogenies,
seems to support a common ancestry of different mammalian species. Is there a story in our genes, when we examine
specific examples of similarity (rather than broad similarity biochemically which is arguably required to an extent for nutrition
purposes and such)?i.e., I am not convinced of the strength of your arguments concerning molecular similarity and would
appreciate any further comments or hints.
Thank
you,
Andr Z
Hi Andr
Many vestigial arguments like those your lecturer pushes are based on the long-discredited theory of embryonic
recapitulation, supported by the forged diagrams of German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel (18341919). More recent research
shows that even the embryonic similarities that appear in many biology textbooks were actually based on Haeckels
forgeries.
There are just too many anomalies for the recapitulation idea to work: The tail in the human embryo does not mean that we
descended from tailed animals. In fact, the human embryo also has a post-anal gut. Does this mean that we descended
from an animal with such a thing?Some of the numerous examples of embryonic development which are contrary to the
supposed evolutionary sequence are: the mammalian heart forms before the circulatory system, the teeth form before the
tongue, and the whale embryo never has a four-legged phase.Therefore, since embryonic recapitulation is utterly defunct,
any argument based on it should not trouble anyone.Another common evolutionary claim is that the pharyngeal arches of
the human are vestigial gill slits, but these pharyngeal arches are neither gills nor slits! Refutations we have published of this
claim can be found by entering gill slits in the search field near the top right of our website. [Update: according Andr,
Gill slits were discussed by my lecturer and the Haeckel-esque simplistic story which has previously been attached to them
was debunked by him; it is clear that the pharyngeal arches do not develop into
slits in humans (though the possibility that they may sometimes break through
seemed to be left open).]
Potentially helpful resources re human embryology include:
Does the human fetus temporarily develop gills, a tail, and a yolk sac?, largely
adapted from Gary Parker, Embryonic Development, pages 5463 in: Creation:
Facts of Life.
Alex Williams, Abortion argument unravels, Creation 27(4):1619, September
2005.

Jerry Bergman and George Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional, Creation Research Society Books 1990.
Andrew Lamb, Human tails and fairy tales, 1 September 2007. See especially the quotes from embryology textbooks in the
References section at the end of this article.
Embryonic development
Another important point with embryology is that the needs of the developing embryo are as important as those of the adult.
The tail ensures that there is an adequate blood supply to the developing leg buds in the embryo. The development of the
kidneys is an example of this (see below). Just as many temporary structures such as scaffolding, ramps, rubbish chutes,
portaloos, etc. are needed on a construction site, but are superfluous once the building is completed, so too it is reasonable
to expect there to be temporary structures needed by a growing organism, that may no longer be needed by the fully grown
adult.Still another point is that some structures develop only when induced by other structures. An embryology textbook
explains:Organs are formed by interactions between cells and tissues. Most often, one group of cells causes another set of
cells or tissues to change their fate, a process called induction. In each such interaction, one cell type or tissue is
the inducer that produces the signal, and one is the responderto that signal. Examples include gut endoderm and
surrounding mesenchyme to produce gut-derived organs, including the liver and pancreas, limb mesenchyme with overlying
ectoderm to produce limb overgrowth and differentiation; and endoderm of the ureteric bud and mesenchyme from the
metanephric blastema to produce nephrons in the kidney [more below]. Inductive interactions can also occur between two
epithelial tissues, such as the induction of the lens by epithelium of the optic cup. 1The book goes on to explain, Cell-to-cell
signaling is essential for induction, for conference of competency to respond, and for cross talk between responding cells.
Then it explains these complex biochemical processes.Induction explains another favourite evolutionary proof: teeth in
embryonic baleen whales, supposedly proving that they evolved from toothed whales. But Louis Vialleton (18591929), who
was Professor of Zoology, Anatomy and Comparative Physiology at Montpelier University, southern France, argued:Even
though the teeth in the whale do not pierce the gums and function as teeth, they do function and actually play a role in the
formation of the jaws to which they furnish a point dapui on which the bones mold themselves. 2Douglas Dewar (1875
1957), a prominent British creationist who strongly refuted evolutionary arguments around WW2, supported Vialletons
argument in several ways:the embryonic teeth are very different in disposition, form and number from the toothed
whaleswhy would toothless whales acquire extra teeth, then scrap them and replace them with the new structure of baleen
plates;there is a parallel example in humans, where microcephalic individuals with very poor or non-existent teeth
development suffer from receded jaws. These poorly developed jaws are due to a deficiency or actual total failure of
development of the dental germs, the effect being that the investing jaws likewise fail to execute their normal growth and
evolution. 3With these principles out of the way, well now tackle the yolk sac, pronephros (plural pronephroi), embryonic
heart, and endogenous retoviruses in turn.
Embryonic kidney development
The above embryology textbook points out that the pronephros serves an important role as an inducer, as explained above:
Formation of the pronephric kidney (i.e., pronephros) lays the foundation for the induction of the mesonephric kidney (i.e.,
mesonephros), and it in turn lays the foundation for the induction of the metanephric kidney (i.e., metanephros). Hence,
formation of a pronephric kidney is really the start of a developmental cascade leading to the formation of the definitive
kidney.4Also, Dewar suggested that the pronephroi have a function in the very early embryo, and its simple structure and
positioning are appropriate for this function:As the embryo must have a kidney to rid himself of waste products at an early
stage, one has to be developed while the complicated adult kidney is being formed. Accordingly what is known as the
pronephros or head kidney is first formed. This consists of a row of two or three nephridia on each side of the body. These
nephridia are tubes, one end of which opens into the body-cavity and the other end into a common duct leading to the
exterior. Each nephridium comes into contact with a bunch of tiny blood-vessels known as a glomerulus. From the blood in
these the waste products of the embryo are taken up by the nephridia and so passed out of the embryo. As the embryo
increases in size new nephridia are formed behind the first ones. These are of more complicated structure and are
described as a second kidney, the mesonephros or middle-kidney. As the mesonephridia increase in number the pronephros
gradually undergoes atrophy. A kidney of the mesonephros type suffices to carry off the waste products of comparatively
simple organisms; in consequence in fishes it persists throughout life as the functional kidney. In some cases the
pronephros also persists. The mesonephros is inadequate for the needs of organisms higher [i.e. more complex] than
fishes, in consequence a far more complicated kidneythe metanephros or hind-kidneydevelops behind the
mesonephros. When this final kidney is ready to function, the nephridia of the mesonephros become absorbed, but their
duct persists, being used to carry the male genital products. The reason why the early embryonic kidney, instead of being
converted into, is replaced by the adult kidney, thus appears to be, not that the embryo is compelled to recapitulate
prepiscine and piscine stages, but that embryonic conditions require the kidney to be situated far forwarda position that
would be inconvenient in the adult.5As yet medical research has not confirmed Dewars inferences about the function of the
pronephros, but research has shown the pronephros to have the crucial function of inducing development of the kidney, as
related earlier in this article. But the next stage, the mesonephros,does have kidney function, which would vindicate Dewars
argument that it is designed for what it does and where it does it:Although there is evidence of urinary function in the
mammalian mesonephric kidney, the physiology of the mesonephros has not been extensively investigated. Urine formation
in the mesonephros begins with a filtrate of blood from the glomerulus into the glomerular capsule. The filtrate then flows
into the tubular portion of the mesonephros, where the selective resorption of ions occurs. The return of resorbed materials
to the blood is facilitated by the presence of a dense plexus of capillaries around the mesonephrous tubules.The structure
of the human mesonephros is very similar to that of adult fishes and aquatic amphibians, and it functions principally to filter
and remove body wastes. Because these species and the amniote embryo exist in an aquatic environment, there is little
need to conserve water. Therefore the mesonephros does not develop a medullary region or an elaborate system for
concentrating urine as the adult kidney does.6
Yolk sac
Evolutionists sometimes argue that the yolk sac of mammals is vestigial, being small and devoid of yolk, in contrast to birds
and reptiles. However, an embryology textbook points out that it is vital to the embryo because of other functions associated
with it.7As creationist biologist Dr Gary Parker points out, The so-called yolk sac is the source of the human embryos first
blood cells, and death would result without it! (Creation: Facts of Life, page 56). Evencreation-hostile
Wikipedia acknowledges its importance, saying it functions as the developmental circulatory system of the human embryo,
before internal circulation begins (Yolk sac).In fact, most embryologists no longer call it yolk sac but umbilical vesicle.
Here is a relevant excerpt from a contemporary textbook:
Significance of the Umbilical Vesicle
Although the umbilical vesicle is nonfunctional as far as yolk storage is concerned (hence the name change), its presence is
essential for several reasons:It has a role in the transfer of nutrients to the embryo during the second and third weeks when
the uteroplacental circulation is being established.Blood development first occurs in the well-vascularized extraembryonic

mesoderm covering the wall of the umbilical vesicle beginning in the third week (see Chapter 4) and continues to form there
until hemopoietic activity begins in the liver during the sixth week.During the fourth week, the endoderm of the umbilical
vesicle is incorporated into the embryo as the primordial gut (see Fig. 5-1). Its endoderm, derived from epiblast, gives rise to
the epithelium of the trachea, bronchi, lungs, and digestive tract.Primordial germ cells appear in the endodermal lining of the
wall of the umbilical vesicle in the third week and subsequently migrate to the developing gonads (see Chapter 12). They
differentiate into spermatogonia in males and oogonia in females.8Here is a comment from another textbook:
The definitive yolk sac remains a major structure associated with the developing embryo through the 4 th week and performs
important early functions. Extraembryonic mesoderm forming the outer layer of the yolk sac is a major site
of hematopoiesis (blood formation; discussed in Ch. 13). Also, as described in Chapter 1, primordial germ cells can first
be identified in humans in the wall of the yolk sac.9
Embryonic heart
The reason why the mammalian embryonic heart is at first a simple tube is, not that mammals evolved from fishes, but that,
as the mammalian embryo must have a functioning heart at a very early stage, the simplest possible heart is formed.
Douglas Dewar
The evolutionary lecturer claims design flaws, but I would challenge him to design a better system that develops from a
single cell and keeps the creature alive. Once again, the simple heart is vital for the embryo at this stage of development.
Dewar explains:The so-called fish heart and gill-arches have to be formed because the head region of the embryo from a
very early stage onwards, requires a copious blood supply. This necessitates the early formation of a heart or pumping
organ and a simple system of blood vessels. These have to be formed before there is time to develop the four-chambered
heart necessary to the higher animal. The heart develops as follows: Two tiny tubes are formed which run parallel. Those
coalesce to form a single tube; the wall of the front part of this thickens and the thickened part becomes separated from the
thinner hind part by valves. The heart is now an effective pumping machine composed of two communicating chambers
In fishes this type of arrangement persists throughout life, being suitable for a gill-breathing animal Animals higher up the
scale need a more complicated heart and in them the embryonic heart becomes three-or four-chambered by the growth
of a septum in one or both of the chambers.Clearly then, the reason why the mammalian embryonic heart is at first a simple
tube is, not that mammals evolved from fishes, but that, as the mammalian embryo must have a functioning heart at a very
early stage, the simplest possible heart is formed. As development proceeds the form of the heart changes to meet the
increasing demands made upon it.10
Endogenous retroviruses
The term endogenous retroviruses is inherently misleadingsee the Endogenous retroviruses section within the
article Junk DNA, asteroid impacts, and supernovas.You said you have read our two articles related to ERVs. We have
previously published articles refuting the general shared mistakes claim by evolutionists:
John Woodmorappe, Are pseudogenes shared mistakes between primate genomes? Journal of Creation 14(3):5571,
2000.
John Woodmorappe, Potentially decisive evidence against pseudogene shared mistakes Journal of Creation 18(3):6369,
2004.
ERVs act as promoters, starting transcription at alternative starting points, which enables different RNA transcripts to be
formed from the same DNA sequence.
We find the arguments in these two articles compelling. [Andr informed us he had also read the instructive overview Junk
DNA: evolutionary discards or Gods tools? Which likewise discusses ERVs]Extreme similarity (homology) of component
parts is to be expected if things have the same DesignerseeAre look-alikes related? Indeed, in most cultures that have
existed around the world, such similarities would bring great honour to a designer, demonstrating his complete mastery over
what he had madeseeNot to Be Used Again : Homologous Structures and the Presumption of Originality as a Critical
Value.Our most recent article on ERVs, and specifically on this topic, is:Shaun Doyle, Large scale function of endogenous
retroviruses Journal of Creation 22(3):16, 2008.
This points out:
Moreover, researchers have recently identified an important function for a large proportion of the human genome that has
been labelled as ERVs. They act as promoters, starting transcription at alternative starting points, which enables different
RNA transcripts to be formed from the same DNA sequence. Were not just talking about a small scale phenomenon.
These ERVs aid transcription in over one fifth of the human genome!Since the so-called ERVs clearly have a vital function,
this is consistent with a design explanation.
Best wishes in your course.
Andrew Lamb and Jonathan Sarfati
CMIAu