Sie sind auf Seite 1von 214

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 w