Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 2 



“All through the previous century there has at all times existed a big minority of first-rate biologists who’ve by no means been capable of deliver themselves to just accept the validity of Darwinian claims. Actually, the member of biologists who’ve expressed a point of disillusionment is virtually limitless.” —*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Idea in Disaster (1986), p. 327.

“I personally maintain the evolutionary place, however but lament the truth that nearly all of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully blind to lots of the critical issues of the evolution principle. These issues is not going to be solved until we deliver them to the consideration of scholars. Most college students assume evolution is proved, the lacking hyperlink is discovered, and all we now have left is a couple of tough edges to {smooth} out. Truly, fairly the opposite is true; and plenty of latest discoveries . . have pressured us to re-evaluate our primary assumptions. ” —*Director of a big graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Chopping Edge (1982), p. 26.

“Charles Darwin, himself the daddy of evolution in his later days, steadily turned conscious of the shortage of actual proof for his evolutionary hypothesis and wrote: `As by this principle, innumerable transitional types should have existed. Why will we not discover them embedded within the crust of the earth? Why is just not all nature in confusion as a substitute of being, as we see them, nicely outlined species?” — H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139.

Evolution relies on change from one species to a different. In chapters 13 and 14, Pure Choice and Mutations, we now have discovered that there isn’t any mechanism by which it will probably happen, and In chapter 17, Fossils, we’ll be taught that there isn’t any previous proof of such change.

However for the reason that distinct plant and animal sorts are such a crux in the complete controversy, we’ll right here commit a full chapter to speciation. This materials will assist fill out the image of what we’re studying in different chapters.


WHERE THE BATTLE IS—The battle over evolutionary principle finds its middle within the species. That is the place *Charles Darwin tried to combat it, however with out success: Why are there distinct species? *Darwin’s theorized “evolving” ought to solely have produced a confusion of life types with no separate species. Why has cross-species change by no means occurred? Why can we not discover the way it may happen?

“Darwin by no means actually did focus on the origin of the species in his Origin of the Species.” — *Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Idea of Punctuated Epuilibria (1985), p. 33.

The issue of species has change into a serious unsolved drawback of science.

“However within the final thirty years or so speciation has emerged as the main unsolved drawback. The British geneticist William Bateson was the primary to focus consideration on the query. In 1922 he wrote: ‘In dim define evolution is clear sufficient. However that specific and important little bit of the speculation of evolution which is involved with the origin and nature of species stays completely mysterious.’ Sixty years later we’re if something worse off, analysis having solely revealed complexity inside complexity.” —*G.R. Taylor, Nice Evolution Thriller (1983), p. 140.

“Extra biologists would free with Professor Hampton Carson of Washington College, St Louis, when he says that speciation is ‘a serious unsolved drawback of evolutionary biology.’” —*G.R. Taylor, Nice Evolution Thriller (1983), p. 141.

 In his e book, Darwin by no means touched on the origin of the species, and the fabric he gave on the evolution of the species was completely insufficient.

“Not one change of species into one other is on document . . we can not show {that a} single species has been modified.” –*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.

For added info see the appendix subject, “1 — Origin of the Species Unknown, ” and ” 2 — The specialists are Puzzled” within the appendix.


PLANT AND ANIMAL CLASSIFICATIONS—The science of classifying vegetation and animals known as taxonomy.

“Classification or taxonomy is the principle and observe of naming, describing, and classifying organisms. ” –*W. Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (1977), p. 98.

All vegetation and animals have been positioned by taxonomists in logical classes, after which organized on a number of main ranges, that are these:









It ought to be saved in thoughts that there isn’t any such factor as a phylum or a household. These are simply handy names, and are like rooms in a zoo or botanical backyard; every one with a distinct assortment of plant or animal species. It’s the species that are alive; the room is just not. The phrases “phyla, courses, orders, households,” and many of the “genera” are merely class labels. It is just the species (with some genera included, which ought to be labeled as species) which depend, for they solely have any actual, dwelling existence.

“In accordance with the writer’s view, which I believe almost all biologists should share, the species is the solely taxonomic class that has, no less than in additional favorable examples, a very goal existence. Larger classes are all roughly a matter of opinion.” —*G. W. Richards, “A Information to the Observe of Trendy Taxonomy,” in Science, March 13, 1970, p. 1477, (remark made throughout overview of *Mayr’s Authoritative Rules of Systematic Zoology).

Right here is an instance of how classification works. That is the classification of the home cat:

“PHYLUM Chordate—all animals possessing at a while of their life cycle pharyngeal pouches, a notochord, and a dorsal tubular nerve wire.

“SUB-PHYLUM Vertebrate—all these animals that possess vertebrae.

“CLASS Mammalia—all these animals which have internally regulated physique temperature, possess hair, and suckle their younger.

ORDER Carnivora—All these mammals whose enamel are tailored to a predatory mode of life, however which aren’t insectivores.

“FAMILY Felidae—all these Carnivore with retractile claws, prolonged tail, and a sure tooth association.

“GENUS Felis—the true cats.

SPECIES domestics—[the domesticated cats].” —Wayne Frair and Percival Davis, A Case for Creation (1983), p. 37.

In the event you go to the zoo, you will notice an indication on one cage, “Large Panda,” with the phrases, “Ailuropoda melanoleuca” slightly below it. The primary line is the widespread title of this giant black-and-white bear from China; the second line is its “scientific title.” These two-part Latin names (referred to as binomials or binominals) are understood by scientists worldwide. The primary phrase is the Genus, and the second is species. Generally the title of the discoverer or namer is added as a 3rd phrase. The Swedish naturalist, Linnaeus, invented this methodology of scientific nomenclature within the 1750s.

Darwin acknowledged that there was no proof that any species had advanced from another species. His rivalry that the one sensible resolution was, first, to categorise vegetation and animals; second, level to similarities between them, and, then, declare that, due to this fact, one should have advanced from the opposite, or from a standard ancestor. From starting to finish, evolution is simply principle, principle, principle.

“Darwin wrote a good friend in 1861, ‘the change of species can’t be instantly proved, and . . the doctrine should sink or swim in accordance because it teams and explains [disparate] phenomena. It’s actually curious how few decide it on this manner, which is clearly the precise manner.’ Just a few years later he wrote that he was ‘weary of making an attempt to elucidate’ the purpose; most individuals couldn’t grasp it.” —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 436 (italics and brackets his).

Little marvel few may perceive it. They noticed that Darwin was mainly making an attempt to show an assumption (that species advanced from different species), with extra assumptions.

For added info see the appendix subject, ” 3 — Classifying the Vegetation and Animals, ” within the appendix.

 THE GENESIS KIND—Again to start with, the regulation of the “Genesis sorts” was established:

“Let the earth deliver forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his sort . . And the earth introduced forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his sort, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his sort.” —Genesis 1:11, 12.

In the identical manner, the birds, sea-life, and animals have been every to breed “after their sort” (Genesis 1:20-22, 24-25). This precept was to not be violated. And that is what we discover within the fossil document, and on the planet in the present day. The “Genesis sort” is typically equal to the species degree, however generally the genus degree. This variation is because of flaws in our humanly-devised classification programs.

Because the Hebrew phrases utilized in Genesis for “create” and “sort” are naked and min, Frank Marsh, a cautious analysis scholar in speciation, has advised the time period baramin as an figuring out title for this “Genesis sort.” (Min is used 10 occasions in Genesis 1, and 21 occasions in the remainder of the Previous Testomony.) It will be a great phrase to make use of, since it’s extra correct than “species,” which may at occasions be incorrect. One other essential time period is the “organic species.”

 BIOLOGICAL SPECIES—The time period, “organic species,” is more and more turning into accepted as a primary reference level by scientists. Though there are cases by which apparent subspecies don’t cross breed, organic species would usually apply to these species which don’t cross-breed exterior of their very own sort. Listed here are some definitions of such a real species:

“Teams of really or probably interbreeding pure populations that are reproductively remoted from different such teams.” —*Ernst Mayr, “Speciation Phenomena in Birds” in American Naturalist, 74: 249.

“Species are teams of interbreeding pure populations which are reproductively remoted from different teams.” —*Ernst Mayr, Rules of Systematic Zoology (1989).

“The most important and most inclusive. . reproductive group of sexual and cross-fertilizing people which share in a standard gene pool.” —*Theodore Dobzhansky, “Mendelian Populations and their Surroundings” in American Naturalist, 84:401.

“The sum complete of the races that interbreed steadily or often with each other, and that intergrade roughly constantly of their phenotypic characters.” —*V. Grant, The Origin of Adaptions (1983).

“A genetic species is a gaggle of organisms so constituted and so located in nature {that a} hereditary character of many one in every of these organisms could also be transmitted to a descendent of another.” —*George G. Simpson, “Standards for Genera, Species, and Sub-species in Zoology and Paleozoology, ” in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 44:145.

 Marsh has studied the species query for many years. Right here is his method to making an attempt to relocate the “Genesis sort:”

“Initially created sorts are distinguishable in the present day in two methods: (t ) by the carefully comparable morphological characters of members of a primary sort, and (2) by true fertilization when eggs and sperms are introduced collectively. In each identified occasion the place true fertilization happens, the mates are sufficiently comparable in look to point membership in the identical primary sort.” —Frank L. Marsh, Variation and Fixity in Nature (1978), p. 122.

MICRO VS. MACROEVOLUTION—Evolutionists level to adjustments inside the species and name that “microevolution,” andthen proceed to inform us that such sub-species adjustments show that there theorized adjustments throughout species (which they time period “macroevolution”) should even be occurring. However random gene shuffling inside the species solely produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is just not penetrated. Transformations throughout the species barrier by no means happen. New varieties finish new breeds is just not evolution; it’s only variation inside the already current species.

For added info see the subject, “4 – Micro and Macro,” within the appendix.

COUNTING THE SPECIES— *Aristotle may listing solely about 500 sorts of animals, and his pupil *Theophrastus, essentially the most eminent botanist of historic Greece, listed solely about 500 completely different vegetation.

By way of the centuries, as naturalists counted new kinds of creatures within the discipline, within the air, and within the sea, and as new areas of the world have been explored, the quantity of recognized species of animals and vegetation grew. By 1800 it had reached 70,000. Right this moment there are a number of million. Two-thirds of them are animal and one-third are plant. The flowering vegetation and bugs are the 2 largest single classes.

 JOHN RAY—John Ray (Wray) (1627?-1705) apparently was the primary scientist to previously acknowledge the “species.” He ready a big classification of all of the species of vegetation and animals identified in his time (about 18,600).

Ray was an earnest Christian who, within the great constructions of vegetation and animals, noticed plentiful proof of a Creator’s hand.

 CARL LINNAEUS—Carl von Linne (1707-1778) spent his grownup life as a instructor on the College of Uppsala. On the age of fifty, he latinized his title to “Carolus Linnaeus. ” Theclassification system of vegetation and animals developed by Linnaeus was to change into the usual used in the present day. He printed it in his e book, Methods Naturae in 1735.

As was standard amongst scientists of his day, he used Latin descriptive names to determine every class and order, which have been then subdivided into genera, and eventually into species. On account of his lifework of investigations into the complete discipline, Linnaeus got here to 2 particular conclusions: (1) Species have been, for the most half, the equal of the “Genesis sort.” (2) There had been no change throughout the essential classes—now or earlier. On account of his research, Linnaeus arrived at a agency perception in Particular Creation and the fixity of species. He mentioned, “We reckon as many species as issued in pairs kind the palms of the Creator” (quoted in *H.F. Osborne, From the Greeks to Darwin (1929), p. 187).

Males in the present day could name themselves specialists in taxonomy, however it’s important that the 2 males in human historical past capable of lay a stable basis for organic classification—noticed in all their findings solely proof of creation, not evolution.

“Ultimately, he [Linneaus] devised scientific names for the roughly 4,200 species of animals and seven,700 vegetation then identified. Botanical names printed earlier than 1763 don’t have any standing until they have been adopted by Linnaeus in his Species Plantarum (1752) or Genera Plantarium (fifth version, 1754). His System of Animate Nature (1735) has steadily been expanded, till in the present day it contains 350,000 vegetation and greater than one million animals.” —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 278.



 RAY AND LINNAEUS—Althoughthe English naturalist Ray (1686) and the Swedish taxonomist Linnaeus (1738) have been the primary biologists to acknowledge the reproductive hole (the incapability to cross) as the essential mechanism in nature which separates the true species, Linnaeus was the one to develop our trendy system of classification. Sadly, he steadily listed as separate species, life types which may interbreed. A few of these selections have been primarily based on ignorance, however nonetheless we dwell with the outcomes in the present day. Thus, the true species aren’t at all times these that are listed within the textbooks as “species.”It’s now acknowledged by many certified biologists that John Ray did higher high quality work, for he rigorously adhered to organic species in making ready his species classes. In distinction, Linnaeus at occasions confused them by inserting true species in genera or sub-species classes.


Reproduced beneath is a web page from an previous biology textbook. Discover the deceptive wording: There’s “fixed progressive departure from ancestral sorts” and, “after all, solely the essential branches are proven.”

The textbook illustration solely reveals the twigs, as a result of that’s all there may be!

 This diagram is supposed to counsel the origin of assorted animal types, with the fixed progressive departure from ancestral typo, now in a single course and now in one other, just like the branching of a tree. In fact solely the essential branches are proven.



LUMPERS AND SPLITTERS—There has been a perennial drawback in regard to the “Jumpers” and “splitters”. There’s a tendency for the taxonomists—the specialists who classify vegetation and animals—to fall into one or the opposite of those two classes.

The Jumpers place species collectively which ought to be divided into sub-species. The splitters are inclined to put true species into sub-species classes.

“Lumper species,” are additionally referred to as “Linnaean species” as a result of, again within the early 1700s, each Linnaeus and Ray pioneered the lumping of species. “Splitter species” are additionally referred to as “Jordanian species” for the French botanist, Jordan, who initiated this method within the early 1800s.

So in the present day we discover each Linnaean and Jordanian species scattered all through the scientific lists of vegetation and animals. You will need to hold this in thoughts, for selective breeding of Jordanian species can produce new species! This would seem to show evolutionary claims, and point out species cross-over as taken place—when, really, two members of the identical sub-species interbred.

An instance of such a splitter could be the taxonomist, *Walker, who lists seven species of cattle—all of that are in the identical species. When the Santa Gertrudis cattle have been developed within the Sixties by breeding zebu bulls with strains of Texas longhorns, Herefords, and shorthorns, the consequence was a brand new sub-species, however some splitters classify it as a “new species.” But the Santa Gertrudis is merely one other kind of the cattle species, and capable of cross-breed with a number of others.

 FAMILY TREE—Everybody has seen work in museums and textbooks of our “household tree,” with its worms, birds, apes, and man proven in relation to how they advanced from one one other. The impression is provided that there may be little question that it actually occurred that manner, for didn’t scientists put together these charts?

The reality is that the “Evolutionary Tree of Life” is simply one other faux, like all the opposite “evidences” of evolutionary principle.

One instance of what you can see on one “limb” of this imaginary “tree” are a mutually numerous group of creatures referred to as the “coelenterates” solely as a result of they’ve a saclike physique, tentacles, and a single mouth opening. Though coral and jellyfish aren’t a bit alike, they’re due to this fact categorised collectively. We’re purported to consider that, as a result of coral and jellyfish are collectively on the tree, one advanced from the opposite! Within the plant kingdom, the Compositae is merely a waste-basket class that features all of the flowering vegetation that can’t be fitted in elsewhere. So due to this fact, they’re purported to have advanced from each other. This “tree” is a classificationist’s nightmare!

In chapter 21, Similarities, you will discover numerous similarities by no means mentioned by the classification specialists. If used, they might produce completely completely different “tree” relationships. Two such examples could be aortic arch groupings and chromosome depend comparisons.

Evolutionists have tried to shoehorn species into varied “households” of associated species. However there are many creatures which have such uncommon shapes, organs, or features—that they match into no specific sample. The one motive the classification programs work in addition to they do is as a result of just a few floor distinguishing traits are used within the classification schemes.

For added info see the matters, a “8 – Our Household Tree, ” and “9 – The Creature that Suits a no Class,” within the appendix.


INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT SPECIES—Right here are some information about species and subspecies that may provide help to perceive a number of the issues inherent on this Fascinating discipline of plant and animal classification:

1 – Chickadees. The Carolina Chickadee (Parus carolinus) and the black-capped Chickadee (parus atrlcapillus) look similar to every different in each manner, and freely interbreed. But they’ve completely different songs! Though they’ve been categorised as two completely different species, we have right here one species with two alternate gene elements.

 2 – Wheat. Linnaeus categorised spring wheat (Trltlcum aestlvum L.) as a distinct species than winter wheat (T. hybernum L.). But they’re each strains of the similar wheat. They are going to cross and produce fertile hybrids. They need to have been categorised as sub-species.

 3 – Ladybugs. The ladybird beetle (Coccinellidae) has been divided into numerous completely different “species,” however solely on the idea of various wing covers and the quantity and association of spots on their backs.

 4 – Track sparrows. For over two centuries 4 species of sparrows in North America had been listed (lincoln, fox, swamp, and music). Regularly this quantity elevated as taxonomists moved westward and located further sparrows. Quickly we had a number of sparrow “species.” However as increasingly more have been found, it was acknowledged that they have been however intermediates between the others! So the specialists lastly bought collectively and reclassified all of them as sub-species of however one species, the music sparrow (Passerella melodia).

5 – Horses. The horse (Equus caballus L) and the zebra (E. zebra L.) have been each categorised by Linnaeus as completely different species, but they’re solely kinds of the horse sort, and are typically cross-fertile.

 6 – Foxes. The pink fox (Vulpes fulva) and the Newfoundland pink fox have been categorized in several species, though the one distinction is a paler reddish coat and shorter tail for the Newfoundland selection. Six taxonomists listing 10 kinds of pink fox, whereas 2 others listing one species (Vulpes fulva) and depend 12 sub-species.

 7 – Cattle. There are a number of completely different subspecies of cattle (Bos taurus L.). Though the American bison (Bison bison L.) and the European bison (Bison bonasus L) have an analogous morphology (look), they are going to nonetheless typically crossbreed with cattle. As well as, it has been found that the African buffalo (Syncerus Gaffer) additionally interbreeds with them—but the bison and cattle have been positioned in completely completely different genera.

  8 – Corn. One skilled (*Sturtevant) categorized 6 species of corn (candy, flint, flour, pod, dent, and popcorn), whereas different taxonomists acknowledge that they’re all solely varieties of 1 species.

9 – Finches. Within the chapter on Pure Choice and Historical past of Evolutionary Idea, we focus on *Charles Darwin’s finches (13,14,17, or 19; the depend varies relating to this look-alike chicken), which he discovered on the Galapagos Islands. Though about the identical in measurement, form and colour, and collectively kind a set of subspecies of finches which initially got here from South America, but Darwin referred to as them completely different species—and due to this fact a proof of evolution. These finches made a powerful impression on his thoughts.

INCREASING SUBSPECIES—Manydifferent sub-species exist for some life types, whereas there are however few for others. A key issue appears to be the power of the creature to journey, whether or not by seed, spore, or in particular person.

For instance, the tiny fruit flies can not journey very far, so there are a lot of kinds of them. The animal with essentially the most sub-species seems to be the southern pocket gopher (Thomomys umbrinus) with 214 subspecies, and, subsequent to it, the northern pocket gopher (T, talpoides) with 66. One other highly-isolated species is the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), with 66 subspecies.

Within the case of animals which have been domesticated, reminiscent of canines, cats, cattle, sheep, pigeons, and chickens, there aremany sub-species because of selective breeding. The identical holds true for cultivated crops (corn, beans, lettuce, cabbage).

It was certainly unusual that sub-species bought *Darwin off on the fallacious monitor.

“We acknowledge the good powers of remark possessed by Darwin, however we’re amazed that he didn’t observe the limits of variation. Variation, he ought to have acknowledged, can produce new varieties solely inside sorts already in existence—a state of affairs which may by no means produce evolution. Whereas tracing migration paths of vegetation and animals [from South America to the Galapagos], Darwin by no means grasped the truth that he was capable of hint these routes as a result of the migrants have been nonetheless bona fide members of the identical primary sorts to which their ancestors belong.” —Frank L Marsh, Variation and Fixity in Nature (1976), p. 19 [italics his].

There are cases by which sub-species typically don’t breed throughout sub-species. The opposite excessive is cases by which animals above the species degree will breed and apparently have younger. In some circumstances these are true species, and may have been categorised as such. However there are additionally cases by which breeding did NOT happen—though it appeared to happen! In true fertilization, the female and male components unite and produce younger. However there are occasions when non-species have been bred and younger have been produced-in which no true breeding occurred!

This false breeding takes place when the presence of male sperm stimulates the egg to start manufacturing on a brand new life kind, however the sperm is rejected as a result of it’s from a completely different species. The ensuing start is called parthenogenesis. Scientific evaluation has established that this false breeding throughout true species works in precisely the style described right here.

It’s important that mankind can by no means efficiently breed throughout with another species, together with any of the good apes.

“There is no such thing as a proof of the origin of a hybrid between man and another mammal.” —*Edward Colin, Components of Genetics (1946), pp.222-223.

That which evolutionists name “microevolution,” is nothing greater than breeding inside species and producing varieties (subspecies); it isn’t evolution. Males have bred sure domesticated animals for hundreds of years, however all they’ve produced is variations of these animals—nothing else. For instance, a cow could produce an Brown Swiss, a Devon, an Africander, a Holstein-Friesian, an Aberdeen-Angus, a Jersey, a Brahman (Zebu), a Galloway, a Shorthorn, a Guernsey, a Hereford, or a Catalo. However they’re all merely varieties of cattle. Producing new breeds in animals is just not evolution; producing new varieties in vegetation is just not evolution.

One cautious researcher (Frank Marsh) spent years monitoring down each report of crosses above that of true species. Every time he discovered them to be hoaxes. One occasion was of chicken feathers sewn to a stuffed animal pores and skin. It made good copy for a newspaper article, so it was printed.


MENDELIAN GENETICS—It has been mentioned that the foundations of evolutionary principle have been laid by the work of *Charles Darwin (1809-1882), however that the rules which Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) found, as he labored with backyard peas at about the identical time that Darwin was writing his e book, have been the technique of abolishing that principle.

Everyone seems to be acquainted with the illustration of the tough and smooth-coated guinea pigs. It was the work of Mendel that fashioned the idea for understanding the transmission of inherited traits. Mendel ready the inspiration for contemporary genetics. It was later found that inside the cell are chromosomes, and contained in the chromosomes are genes, and inside them is the coded DNA. (For extra info on this, see chapter 10, DNA.) Random shuffling of the genetic code is what determines whether or not or not that child guinea pig will inherit a tough or a {smooth} coat from its mother and father. However both manner he’ll stay a guinea pig. As a result of that tiny new child creature is locked into being a guinea pig is the explanation why Darwin’s principle crumbles earlier than the science of genetics.

 PRIMITIVE ANCESTORS—Evolutionists inform us that sure creatures are extra “primitive” than others, and are their “ancestors.” However that’s simply principle. Think about however one instance: the monotremes and the marsupials, that are purported to be “primitive ancestors” of the mammals:

“What then are we to make of the monotremes that are egg-layers, don’t have any enamel and have a completely different excretory system than the placentals? Or the marsupials which give start within the embryonic stage? Evolutionists interpret these items as being proof that the monotremes and marsupials are ‘primitive’ as compared with placental mammals and exhibit indicators of reptilian ancestry (i.e., the egg-laying of the monotremes).

“However is that this true? Of the earliest (Cretaceous) fossil marsupial, the opossum, Michael Denton writes: ‘It was already on the [rock strata] degree of dwelling, primitive mammals such because the insectivores or the Virginia opossum.’ The Australian zoologist, T.J. Dawson, wrote that the at the moment held principle that monotremes and marsupials symbolize the earliest phases of evolution and being on the way in which in the direction of placentals, is simplistic and now identified to be deceptive. He additional wrote that marsupials are not inferior to placentals . . [Monotremes and marsupials] aren’t primitive and they maintain their very own in competitors with placentals in each respect—protection and assault, temperature management, intelligence, adaptability, and many others.” —*A. W. Mehlert, “A Critique of the Alleged Reptile to Mammal Transition” in Creation Analysis Society Quarterly, June 1988, p. 10. [Italics his.]

 MANY VARIATIONS POSSIBLE—Sure, variations are restricted by the species barrier—however what number of potential variations are doable inside a given species? This is a vital query.

Francisco Ayala has calculated that, amongst people, a single couple may theoretically produce 102017 kids earlier than they must produce one which was an identical to 1 of their earlier kids (not counting an identical twins, which got here from the identical egg and sperm). That may be 1 adopted by 2,017 zeroes. The variety of atoms within the identified universe is barely 108. So the variety of doable variations inside any given species is kind of broad. But all of them would solely be variations inside the similar species.

 ALWAYS A LIMIT—Then there may be synthetic choice. We mentioned this at size in chapter 13, Pure Choice, and located it to be extremely selective plant and animal breeding. In regard to any given single issue, selective breeding could be carried out, however quickly a restrict in issue selection can be reached. What limits it? It’s the DNA code within the genes. That code forbids a crossover to a brand new species. The genetic make-up inside the chromosomes types a barrier; a literal wall of separation between one species and one other. (For a number of scientific quotations relating to this, see the selective breeding citation part behind chapter 13, Pure Choice.)

“What synthetic choice and breeding really accomplishes is to quickly set up the restrict past which no additional change is feasible. We want to cite simply two examples. In 1800, experiments have been begun in France to extend the sugar content material of desk beets, which at the moment amounted to six p.c. By 1878, the sugar content material had been elevated to 17 p.c. Additional choice failed to extend the sugar content material above that determine.

“One employee tried to scale back the variety of bristles on the thorax of fruit flies by synthetic choice and breeding. In every technology, the common variety of bristles turned fewer till the 20 th technology. After that, the common remained the identical, though he chosen as earlier than. Choice was not efficient; the restrict had been reached.

“Comparable experimental approaches have been used to develop chickens that lay extra eggs, cows that give extra milk, and corn with elevated protein content material. In every case limits have been reached past which additional change has not been doable. Moreover, the breeders ended up with the identical species of chickens, cows, and corn with which they started. No actual change had taken place.” —Duane Gish, Evolution: Problem of the Fossil Document (1985), pp. 33-34.

 LIMITS OF VARIABILITY—This can be a essential issue. All evolutionary principle pivots on whether or not or not there are such limits. Can one species turn into one other one? If there are particular limits forbidding it, then evolution can not happen. An evolutionary encyclopedia gives us with a short overview of the historical past of principle and “pure—line analysis” into limits of variability:

“Alfred Russet Wallace and Charles Darwin had insisted that by way of gradual, steady change, species may (in Wallace’s phrase) ` . . depart indefinitely from the unique kind.’ Round 1900 got here the primary direct check of that proposition: the ‘pure line analysis’ of Wilhelm Ludwig Johannsen (1857-1927). What would occur, Johannsen questioned, if the biggest members of a inhabitants have been at all times bred with the biggest, and the smallest with the smallest? How massive or how small would they proceed to get after a couple of generations? Would they ‘depart indefinitely’ from the unique kind, or are there built-in limits and constraints?

“Experimenting on self-fertilizing beans, Johannsen chosen and bred the extremes in sizes over a number of generations. However as a substitute of a gradual, steady progress or shrinkage as Darwin’s principle appeared to foretell, he produced two stabilized populations (or ‘pure strains’) of enormous and small beans. After a couple of generations, they’d reached a selected measurement and remained there, unable to range additional in both course. Continued choice had no impact.

“Johannsen’s work stimulated many others to conduct comparable experiments. One of many earliest was Herbert Spencer Jennings (1868-1947) of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, the world authority on the conduct of microscopic organisms. He chosen for physique measurement in Paramecium and located that after a couple of generations choice had no impact. One merely can not breed a paramecium the dimensions of a baseball. Even after a whole lot of generations, his pure strains remained constrained inside mounted limits, ‘as unyielding as iron.’

“One other pioneer in pure line analysis was Raymond Pearl (1879-1940), who experimented with chickens on the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Pearl took up the issue . . [to] evolve a hen that lays eggs all day lengthy.

“He discovered you might breed some super-layers, however an absolute restrict was quickly reached.. Actually, Pearl produced some proof indicating that manufacturing may really be elevated by enjoyable choice—by breeding from ‘decrease than most’ producers.” —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 376.

No matter we could attempt to do inside a given species, we quickly attain limits which we can not break by way of. A wall exists on each facet of every species. That wall is the DNA coding, which allows wide selection inside it (inside the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)—however no exit by way of that wall.

“Darwin’s gradualism was bounded by inner constraints, past which choice was ineffective.” —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 46.

 LOSS OF FITNESS—So then, a limiting wall will at all times be reached, however the variations made inside these borders do not really deliver general enhancements within the corn, cows, and chickens. The entire obvious enchancment is made on the expense of general health for all times. Gish explains why that is so:

“It should be strongly emphasised, additionally, that in all circumstances these specialised breeds possess decreased viability; that’s, their primary capability to outlive has been weakened. Domesticated vegetation and animals don’t compete nicely with the unique, a wild kind . . They survive solely as a result of they’re maintained in an setting which is free from their pure enemies, meals provides are plentiful, and different circumstances are rigorously regulated.” —Duane Gish, Evolution: Problem of the Fossil Document (1985), p. 34.

“Our domesticated animals and vegetation are maybe the most effective demonstration of the results of this precept. The enhancements which have been made by choice in these have clearly been accompanied by a discount of health for life underneath pure circumstances, and solely the truth that domesticated animals and vegetation don’t dwell underneath pure circumstances has allowed these enhancements to be made.” —*D.S. Falconer, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics (1960), p. 188.

 GENE DEPLETION—The scientific title for this lack of health by way of adaptation is gene depletion. In accordance with this precept, selective breeding at all times weakens a species—and by no means strengthens it.

“[The original species came into existence] with wealthy potential for genetic variation into races, breeds, hybrids, and many others. However so removed from growing into new sorts, or even bettering current sorts, such variations are at all times characterised by intrinsic genetic weak point of people, in accordance with the outworking of the second regulation of thermodynamics by way of gene depletion and the buildup of dangerous mutations. Thus, the adjustments that happen in dwelling issues by way of [the passage of] time are at all times inside strict boundary strains.” —John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (1986), p. 94.

In chapter 14, Mutations, wedeal with the generic load, that’s talked about within the above citation. The unique inventory was robust, however because it branched out into variations inside its sort, it turned weakened. That’s gene depletion. As well as, with the passing of time, genes are broken by way of random radiation and mutations happen. Such mutations are at all times weakening, and steadily a genetic load is constructed up.

Thus we see that, on one hand, the farther the species strays from its central authentic sample, the weaker it turns into (gene depletion). On the opposite, because the centuries proceed on, mutational weaknesses enhance in all kinds of a given species (genetic load).

The whole image is just not one in every of evolving upward, strengthening, bettering, or becoming new and numerous species.

 EVOLUTION WOULD WEAKEN AND NARROW—It’s an astounding proven fact that evolutionary principle, if true, may solely produce ever weaker creatures with frequently narrowed adaptive traits. Think about this:

“A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the method of speciation (reminiscent of the looks of many sorts of canines and cats) is inevitably sure up with genetic depletion because of pure choice. When this scientifically established truth is utilized to the query of whether or not man may have advanced from ape-like animals,’.. the transformist idea of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.’ The rationale for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to clarify, is that the entire means of evolution from animal to man ” ‘ . . must run towards the gradient of genetic depletion. That’s to say, . . man )ought to possess] a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors! [I] Right here, the spectacular absurdity turns into clear by which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific proof, it dogmatically asserts that man has advanced from the animal kingdom!” —Op. cit., pp. 129-130. [Italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), p. 56,57.]

Nicely, that could be a breath-taking discovery! If we had really descended from monkeys, then we’d have much less genetic potential than they have! Our anatomy, physiology, brains, hormones, and many others. could be much less competent than that of an ideal ape. In flip, the monkey is supposedly descended from one thing else, and would due to this fact have much less genetic capability than its supposed ancestor had. Someplace again there, the primary descendent got here from protozoa. All that follows Within the evolutionary ladder must have significantly much less genetic potential than protozoa!

How can evolutionary principle survive such information! Evolution ranks as one of the vital silly concepts of our time, but it has a lock-grip on all scientific thought and analysis. The speculation twists and warps all conclusions in an effort to vindicate itself. Simply think about how a lot farther alongside the trail of analysis and discovery we’d have been if, 100 years in the past, we had throttled evolutionary principle to demise.

 SELECTIVE BREEDING—Selective breeding happens when folks thoughtfully choose out the most effective rose, ear of corn, or milk cow, after which by way of cautious breeding, produce higher roses, corn ears, or milk cows. However please discover a number of information in connection with this:

(1) “Choice” requires intelligence, planning, and constant effort by somebody who is just not the rose, corn, or cow. Random motion is just not “choice.” Due to this fact “pure choice” is a misnomer. It ought to be referred to as “random exercise.”

(2) Opposite to what the evolutionists declare, selective breeding can present no proof of evolution, since it’s clever, cautious, deliberate exercise, whereas evolution, by definition, is random exercise.

(3) Though random accidents may by no means produce new species,—neither can clever selective breeding! Selective breeding by no means, by no means produces new species. But when it can not impact trans-species adjustments, we are able to don’t have any hope that evolutionary probability operations may do it.

(4) Selective breeding narrows the genetic pool, and though it could produce a nicer-appearing rose, on the similar time it weakened the rose plant that grew that rose. Selective breeding could enhance a particular trait, however tends to weaken the entire organism.

Due to this weakening issue, nationwide and worldwide organizations are actually amassing and storing “seed banks” of primitive seed. It’s feared that illnesses could finally wipe out our specialised crops, and we want to have the ability to go again and replenish from the originals: rice, corn, tomatoes, and many others.

 POPULATION GENETICS—A associated space is termed inhabitants genetics, and it’s declared by evolutionists to be one other grand proof of their principle. Inhabitants genetics seems at places of species and variations inside a species, and theorizes evolutionary causes and results.

This discipline of research contains evaluation of: (1) “Geographic isolation” of species, and sub-species produced by that species whereas in isolation. A few of these sub-species could finally not interbreed with associated sub-species, however they’re clearly closely-related sub-species. (2) “Migration of populations” into new areas ensuing often in everlasting colonization. Further sub-species are produced on this manner. (3) “Genetic drift” is analyzed. That is the genetic contribution of a specific inhabitants to its offspring.

Variability right here arises primarily from regular gene reshuffling. It’s due to gene reshuffling that your kids don’t look an identical to you. That is fairly regular, and doesn’t make your kids new species!

Inhabitants genetics, then, is the research of adjustments in sub-species. The data produced is fascinating, nevertheless it gives no proof of evolution, as a result of it solely issues sub-species.

 For added info see the appendix subject, “5 – Inhabitants Genetics.”

A discipline carefully associated to inhabitants genetics is selective breeding of vegetation and animals. However a favourite research of the inhabitants geneticists is folks. Human beings are all one species. Inhabitants genetics analyzes adjustments inside the “folks species.” But adjustments inside a species is just not evolution; solely adjustments throughout a species constitutes real evolution.

“It’s an irony of evolutionary genetics that, though it’s a fusion of Mendelism and Darwinism, it has made no direct contribution to what Darwin clearly noticed as the basic drawback: the origin of species.” —*Richard Lewontin, Genetic Foundation of Evolutionary Change (1974), p. 159.

“The [population genetics] principle explains nothing as a result of it explains every little thing. It’s my rivalry that a great deal of the construction of evolutionary genetics comes perilously near being of this kind.

” . . The mother-lode [of information about human races] has been tapped and information in profusion have been poured into the hoppers of this principle machine. And from the opposite finish has issued—nothing. It’s not that the equipment doesn’t work, for an ideal clashing of gears [research reports and evolutionary conclusions] is clearly audible, if not deafening, nevertheless it someway can not remodel right into a completed product the good quantity of uncooked materials that has been offered. The whole relationship between the speculation and the information must be reconsidered.” —*Op. cit., p. 189.

“The main employees on this discipline have confessed, roughly reluctantly, that inhabitants genetics contributes little or no to evolutionary principle. . If the main authorities on inhabitants genetics confess to this dismal lack of accomplishment and even chuckle about it, it’s altogether becoming and correct for the rank and file to take them at their phrase. Due to this fact it appears to comply with that there isn’t any want to show inhabitants genetics.” —*E Saifisnd, *N. Macbeth, “Inhabitants Genetics and Evolutionary Idea” in Tuatara 26 (1983), pp. 71-72.

A chapter carefully associated to inhabitants genetics is the one coping with Geographic Distribution (chapter 27). Additionally, you will wish to research the fabric on species chromosome counts, to be present in chapter 21 (Similarities). It’s going to offer you one other clear disproof of evolutionary principle. 


The widespread pigeon happens in a outstanding variety of varieties. But they’re all pigeons, and each biologist acknowledges them as such. They’re all members of the identical species.

But Darwin’s finches, which range however little, are mentioned by some taxonomists to symbolize 14 completely different species!



 GENETIC DRIFT—“Genetic Drift” is steadily spoken of as one other “proof” of evolution, however even confirmed evolutionists admit it proves nothing in regard to evolution. Genetic drift is adjustments in small teams of sub—species which have change into separated from the remainder of their species. Oddities of their DNA code elements turned extra distinguished, but there was no change in species.

“Genetic drift was found by the American geneticist Sewall Wright, who studied the arithmetic of inhabitants genetics. The gene pod—that’s, the whole gene contribution of a specific inhabitants to its offspring—is enormously influenced by the dimensions of the inhabitants. In very small populations, reminiscent of these remoted from their dad or mum group, probability performs comparatively a a lot higher function in producing genetic change, generally resulting in non-adaptive adjustments. Though the truth of genetic drift has been confirmed in laboratory experiments, its function in evolution remains to be not clear. It could be of some significance in small populations that later enhance in measurement and will account for a number of the puzzling, persistent non-adaptive or impartial adjustments noticed in diversified wild populations.” —“Frank Rhodes, Evolution (1974), p. 75.

You may see from the above assertion that each one that “genetic drift” refers to is adjustments in a “subspecies” of a plant or animal (or in a “race,” which is a sub-species amongst human beings). Even *Rhodes acknowledges that genetic drift gives no proof of change from one species to a different. This is because of the truth that all of the drift has been discovered to be inside species and by no means throughout them. The DNA species barrier forbids such traps-species adjustments.

 THE MALE/FEMALE REQUIREMENT—Inherent in the species quandary is the female and male ingredient drawback. It will be a lot simpler to bear younger and, hopefully, produce new species, if everybody have been females. However as a result of it requires each a female and male to produce offspring, any chance of going traps-species would imply producing not one new creature however two! Solely not too long ago was the extent of this drawback absolutely realized.

“Maybe you’ve gotten even heard the flippant evolutionary declare that each one it takes is 2 units of human genes to make a human being. However in 1984, researchers working with mice tried to fertilize mouse eggs with equal units of mouse genes from different females. They realized what Scripture has mentioned all alongside—there’s extra to it than easy chemical mechanics. For his or her hassle they bought no mice. Scientists have realized that there are very actual variations between an identical chemical constructions produced by women and men. They’ve additionally found one of many functions this distinction serves; the male proteins on the floor of the growing fetus and placenta modify the mom’s immune response in order that she doesn’t reject the rising youngster..” —P.A. Bartz, Letting God Create Your Day, Vol. 2, No.1 (1990), p. 17.


There are nicely over three dozen completely different, distinct subspecies of canines on the planet. But they’re universally acknowledged by scientists to be however members of the one canine species.


ALTERNATE ORIGINS OFTHE SPECIES—Due to the rigid nature of the species, *Austin H. Clark, a distinguished biologist on the workers of the Smithsonian Establishment, wrote a surprising e book in 1930. He had concluded that, since there was no proof now or earlier of any crossovers between species—the entire main teams of vegetation and animals should have independently originated out of filth and sea water! 

“From all of the tangible proof that we now have bean capable of uncover, we’re confronted to the conclusion that each one the main teams of animals on the very first held nearly the identical relation to one another that they do in the present day.” —*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 211.

However *Clark went additional in his evaluation. Ignoring the fossil proof indicting no transitional types however solely gaps between species, he mentioned that separate evolutions and origins needed to have occurred—for there have been just too many variations between the assorted life types. They may not probably have advanced from one another.

*Clark’s e book shook up the scientific world. The evolutionists tried to quiet issues, however a couple of decade later, ‘ Richard Goldschmidt printed a distinct different view: gigantic million-fold mutations should have occurred all of sudden, that immediately change one species to a different. Goldschmidt’s dreamy principle is in the present day turning into extra accepted by evolutionists, underneath the management of *Stephen Jay Gould.

*Clark acknowledged the impossibility of evolution throughout main teams of vegetation and animals. Due to this fact he mentioned each independently originated out of sand and seawater. *Goldschmidt and *Gould acknowledged the impossibility of evolution throughout species, in order that they theorized that after each 50,000 years or so, a billion optimistic, cooperative, networking mutations immediately appeared by probability and produced a brand new species. (For extra on this, see chapter 14, Mutations.)

 THE CLADISTS—What concerning the specialists in classifying vegetation and animals; what do they consider all this controversy over species and ancestral relationships?

Scientists who focus on categorizing life types are referred to as taxonomists. A stunning variety of them have joined the ranks of the cladists.

Cladist comes from a Greek noun for “department.” Cladists are scientists who research organic classifications solely for its personal sake—for the aim of discovering relationship, other than any concern to find out ancestry or origins. In different phrases, the cladists are scientists who’ve seen a lot proof in vegetation and animals that evolution is just not true, that, as far as they’re involved, they’ve tossed it out the window and as a substitute merely research vegetation and animals. They wish to learn about life types as a result of they’re fascinated by life types, not as a result of they’re making an attempt to show evolution.

Cladists are organic classification specialists who’ve given up on evolution. They acknowledge it to be a silly, unworkable principle, they usually wish to research vegetation and animals with out being required to “match” their discoveries into the evolutionary “anteater” and “descendent” mould. They’re true scientists; involved with actuality, not imaginings.

“So now we are able to see the complete extent of the doubts. The remodeled cladists declare that evolution is completely pointless for good taxonomy; on the similar time they’re unconvinced by the Darwinian rationalization of how new species come up. To them, due to this fact, the historical past of life remains to be fiction somewhat than truth and the Darwinian penchant for explaining evolution by way of adaptation and choice is basically empty rhetoric

“Simply as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by folks whose religion was within the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by folks whose religion is in, nearly, the deity of Darwin. They’ve seen their activity as to elaborate his principle and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. Nevertheless it appears to me that the theoretical framework has little or no affect on the precise progress of the work in organic analysis. In a manner some facets of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism appear to me to have held bade the progress of science.” —*Colin Patterson, The Listener. [Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.]

For added info see the appendix subject, “8 – Cladists In opposition to Evolution.”

THE SPECIES ARE NOT CHANCING—If one species can not turn into one other, there may be no evolution.

However this shouldn’t be stunning, for the fossil document reveals that the bat has not modified because it first appeared within the fossil document, supposedly “50 million years in the past,”—and there was no transitional kind previous it. The identical may be mentioned for the opposite creatures. All through the fossil document, there are solely stable, mounted types, and huge gaps between. These gaps aren’t any shock to us, however they’re agonizing for the evolutionists. In chapter 17, Fossils, we go into element on such issues 

“Nobody has ever produced a species by mechanisms of pure choice. Nobody has gotten close to it.” —*Colin Patterson, “Cladistics,” in BBC Radio Interview, March 4, 1982. [Patterson is senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.]

“Most species exhibit no directional change throughout their tenure on earth. They seem within the fossil document wanting a lot the identical as once they disappear; morphological change is normally restricted and directionless.” —*Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Tempo,” in Pure Historical past, April 1980, p. 144.


“Evolution requires intermediate types between species, and paleontology [the study of fossils] does not present them.” —*David Kitts, “Paleontology and Evolutionary Idea” in Evolution, September 1974, p. 467.

All it is a most horrible drawback for the evolutionists.

“Evolution is . . troubled from inside by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions concerning the central thriller—speciation itself.” —*Keith S. Thomson, “The Meanings of Evolution” in American Scientist, September/October 1982, p. 529.

Evolutionists have motive to be troubled: all of the proof they will discover to substantiate their claims is adjustments inside species (so-called “micro-evolution,” which isn’t evolution), by no means adjustments throughout species (“macro-evolution,” which is evolution).

“Two very influential books in latest years have been the superbly coloured Life Nature Library quantity, Evolution, by Ruth Moore and the Editors of Life, and the much more superbly coloured and produced quantity, Atlas of Evolution, by Sir Gavin de Beer. The spectacular demonstrable proof which fills these volumes is microevolution solely!” —Frank L. Marsh, “The Type and Construction of Residing Issues,” in Creation Analysis Society Quarterly, June 1969, p. 21 (italics his).

The speciation drawback is a spot drawback. There aren’t any transitional species, as there must be if evolution was true. Actually, there shouldn’t be any distinct species at all. (If evolution was right; there would solely be innumerable transitions)

However, in nice distinction, we discover that there are completely no transitional types to fill the gaps. In desperation, evolutionists have give you a solution: “the transitions have been made so slowly that they left no stays behind.” —Wait a minute! How can that be? The extra slowly the transitions, the bigger could be the variety of transitional types which might be within the fossil strata for posterity to look at!

“Established species are evolving so slowly that main transitions between genera and better taxa should be occurring inside small quickly evolving populations that depart no legible fossil document.” —*Steven M. Stanley, “Macroevolution and the Fossil Document” in Evolution, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1982, p. 460.

 —And none apart from *Charles Darwin himself agrees with us!

“Once we descend to particulars, we can show that no species has modified [we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we show that the supposed adjustments are helpful, which is the groundwork of the speculation.” —*Charles Darwin, in “Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Vol. 2 (1887), P. 210.

How can there be hundreds of thousands of species, when the evolutionists inform us it takes one million years simply to make one species? At that fee, in a billion years solely a thousand may have been made!

 For added info see the appendix subject, “7- Tens of millions of Years for One Species.”

 SUB-SPECIES CONTINUE TO BE PRODUCED—Evolutionists require lengthy ages for every species to be produced. For instance, Zeuner explains that the quickest tempo that evolution can prove new species is just one in each a 500,000 years.

“There seems to be a quickest fee of evolution of species underneath pure circumstances, specifically about 500,000 years per species-step.” —*F.E. Zeuner, Relationship the Previous (1948).

However proof for brand spanking new species doesn’t exist. Though new species haven’t been made earlier than and aren’t being made now, sub-species are frequently being produced. That is executed primarily by gene reshuffling. And this making of recent sub-species happens with stunning rapidity. When remoted for a number of years, they generally no longer breed throughout sub-species—but they’re nonetheless sub-species and never completely different species. Listed here are some examples:

“A pressure of Drosophila paulistorum which was absolutely interfertile with different strains when first collected, developed hybrid sterility after having been remoted in a separate tradition for just some years . .

“5 endemic species of cichlid [fish] are present in Lake Nabugabo, a small lake which has been remoted from Lake Victoria for lower than 4,000 years . .

“In birds we now have the basic instance of the European home sparrow (Passer domesticus) which was launched into North America about 1852. Since then the sparrows have unfold and change into geographically differentiated into races which are tailored in weight, in size of wind and of invoice, and in coloration, to completely different North American environments . . But it has been completed in solely about 118 generations (to 1980).

“By 1933 the sparrow had reached Mexico Metropolis the place it has since fashioned a definite subspecies. R. E. Moreau had concluded in 1930 that the minimal time required [by evolution] for a chicken to realize that [sub-species] step was 5,000 years; the sparrow required simply 30 years. As has been aptly commented:

“‘We will right here decide the worth of hypothesis in contrast with remark in analyzing evolution’ [E.B. Ford, Genetics and Adaptation (1976).]

” . . Rabbits have been launched into Australia about 1859; but the wealth of variation now current there may be very intensive, vastly exceeding that obvious within the European inventory (wildlife Analysis 10,7382 (1965)].” —A.J. Jones, “Genetic Integrity of the `Sorts’ (Baramins), ” in Creation Analysis Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 17.

The above information clarify why there are such an abundance of so-called “species” on the planet in the present day. In actuality, giant proportion of them are simply sub-species. 


The horse is a definite species and the donkey is a definite species. A stallion horse bred with a feminine donkey will produce a hinney, which is small and never too robust. A male donkey mated with a mare horse will produce a mule, which is bigger, stronger, and has extra endurance than the donkey, however retains its sure-footedness and braying voice. From its mom, it inherits a giant, well-shaped physique and robust muscle tissues, in addition to a horse’s ease in getting used to harness. From the donkey it additionally receives the standard of saving its power when it has to work laborious and for a very long time. Mules additionally resist illness nicely. Correctly cared for, mules can do as a lot work as horses, however underneath more durable circumstances.

Mules are half-way between two species, so are sterile. Not often does a feminine mule give start, however when that occurs it’s as a result of the mule was bred to a male horse or donkey. In such circumstances, the offspring can be three-fourths horse or donkey; it is not going to be a mule.



“In accordance with the late Theodosius Dobzhansky, on our planet we now have 1,071,500 species of

animals, 368,715 species of vegetation, and three,230 monerans (blue-green algae, micro organism, viruses). Sabrosky tells us that the arthropods represent about 82 p.c of all animal species; among the many arthropods some 92 p.c are bugs; and among the many bugs about 40 p.c are beetles” —Frank L Marsh, “Generic Variation, Limitless or Restricted?” in Creation Analysis Society Quarterly, March 1983, p. 204.

There’s far an excessive amount of jumbling of sub-species with species by the taxonomists. The phrase “species” is steadily utilized by scientists in a free sense to incorporate a mess of sub-species.

“As for small animals—bugs, worms, and so forth—new varieties are found day-after-day. A conservative estimate would have it that there are 10 million species of dwelling issues current on the planet in the present day. Whether it is true that some nine-tenths of all of the species which have ever lived are now extinct than 100 million species of dwelling issues have been discovered on Earth at a while or different.” —*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Information to Science (1984), p. 762.

In distinction, we now have the truth that the subspecies are merely that and no extra. All of the Australian rabbits introduced from Europe are solely variations of the European rabbit. Each naturalists and paleontologists agree that the essential life types—the true species—don’t change.

“Species don’t originate. All they do is stay in existence or change into extinct.” —*G.H. Harper, “Alternate options to Evolution,” in Creation Analysis Society Quarterly 17(1):49-50.

Pages of quotations from evolutionary scientists can be discovered at the back of chapter 17, Fossils and Strata, testifying to the reality that there are solely gaps between the species within the fossil document.

 THERE SHOULD BE NO SPECIES—As talked about earlier, there must be no species in any respect Classes of vegetation and animals may be organized in orderly programs solely due to the separateness of the species. But when evolutionary principle was right, there might be no distinct species. As an alternative, there would solely be a confused blur of transitional types, every one completely different than the others.

“Why ought to we be capable of classify vegetation and animals into sorts or species in any respect? In an enchanting editorial function in Pure Historical past, Stephen may writes that biologists have been fairly profitable in dividing up the dwelling works into distinct and discrete species. Moreover, our trendy, scientific classifications typically agree in minute element with the ‘folks classifications’ of so-called primitive peoples, and the identical standards apply as nicely to fossils. In different phrases, says Gould, there’s a recognizable actuality and distinct boundaries between sorts always and all locations . .

” ‘However,’ says may, ‘how may the existence of distinct species be justified by a principle [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as essentially the most elementary truth of nature?’ For an evolutionist, why ought to there be species in any respect? If all life types have been produced by gradual growth by way of chosen mutations from a small starting gene pool, organisms actually ought to simply grade into each other with out distinct boundaries.” —Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What’s Creation Science? (1987), pp. 121-122.

A number one evolutionist can not perceive why there are any species in any respect.

“If a line of organisms can steadily modify its construction in varied instructions, why are there any strains secure sufficient and distinct sufficient to be referred to as species in any respect? Why is the world not filled with intermediate types of each conceivable sort?.” —*G.R. Taylor, Nice Evolution Thriller (1983), p. 141.

 On one hand there may be immense complexity inside every species, however an a definite barrier between species.

“Within the final thirty years or so speciation has emerged as the main unsolved drawback.. [Over the years, in trying to solve this problem] we’re if something worse off, analysis having solely revealed complexity inside complexity . .

“Extra biologists would agree with Professor Hampton Carson of Washington College, St Louis, when he says that speciation is ‘a serious unsolved drawback of evolutionary biology.’ ” —*Gordon R. Taylor, Nice Evolution Thriller (1983), pp. 140-141.

*Taylor then goes on to quote two nice species issues: (1) If evolutionary principle be true, then why do separate species exist in any respect? (2) Why reside species an identical to these alive “hundreds of thousands of years in the past”? Right here is his touch upon the primary of these:

“First, if a line of organisms can steadily modify its construction in varied instructions, why are there any strains secure sufficient and distinct sufficient to be referred to as species in any respect? Why is the world not filled with intermediate types of each conceivable sort?” —*G.R. Taylor, Grew Evolution Thriller (1983), p. 141.

However *Taylor’s second drawback is merely an extension of the primary: (1) Why are there distinct species in the present day? (2) Why do these distinct species lengthen all the way in which again as far as we are able to hint into the previous?

“Many species and even complete households stay inexplicably fixed. The shark of in the present day, for occasion, is hardly distinguishable from the shark of 150 million years in the past . .

“In accordance with Professor W.H. Thorpe, Director of the Sub-department of Animal Behaviour at Cambridge and a world authority, that is the issue in evolution. He mentioned in 1968: ‘What’s it that holds so many teams of animals to an astonishingly fixed kind over hundreds of thousands of years? This appears to me the issue [in evolution] now—the issue of fidelity, somewhat than that of ‘change.’ ” —*G.R. Taylor, Nice Evolution Thriller (1983), pp. 141-142.

SPECIES NOT CHANGING—So we now have this third drawback: If evolution is consistently producing species, why are the species not altering?

“Regardless of this, many species and even complete households stay inexplicably fixed. The shark of in the present day, for occasion, is hardly distinguishable from the shark of 150 million years in the past. And this fidelity is seen at greater ranges too: birds range broadly in measurement, form, colouring, music and habits however are nonetheless considerably much like the birds of the early Tertiary.

“In accordance with Professor W.H. Thorpe, Director of the Sub-department of Animal Behaviour at Cambridge and a works authority, that is the drawback in evolution. He mentioned in 1968: ‘What’s it that holds so many teams of animals to an astonishingly fixed kind over hundreds of thousands of years? This appears to me the drawback [in evolution] now the issue of fidelity, somewhat than that of change.’ ” —*G.R. Taylor, Nice Evolution Thriller (1983), pp. 141-142.

SUB-SPECIES RUNNING WILD—There isabundant proof that further sub-species are quickly being produced. A whole lot of subspecies of cichlids have been recognized in sure African lakes. The gene pool of the one cichlid species was giant sufficient to permit for these many sub-species variations. (*Taylor, beneath, refers to them as “species,” however they’re actually subspecies.)

“In the event you would like to see the speciation course of operating mad, I counsel you go to the good lakes of Africa—Lake Malawi, Lake Tanganyika and Lake Victoria in the African Rift Valley. Every of the primary two is a few 350 miles lengthy, a broadening of the higher Nile; the final is sort of rectangular and almost 200 miles from north to south, the world’s third largest lake. Every of those lakes incorporates extra species of fish than any different lake on the planet and nearly all of them belong to the household Cichlidae. There are believed to be 126 species of cichlid in Lake Tanganyika, and greater than 200 in Lake Malawi, no species being widespread to each lakes. They’re bony, perch-like fishes, as much as three ft in size, with just one nostril and in some circumstances a bulging brow.

“All these species range broadly within the construction of their jaws and enamel, and are noticeably completely different from cichlids elsewhere on this respect. One species, for occasion, has carefully set enamel that kind a scraper. Others have rows of superb, movable enamel which comb giant algae from the rocks. They keep away from competitors by specialised feeding, dwelling on algae, invertebrates, plankton, fishes and molluscs, and even leaves. The enamel are specialised for every of those meals. Some have advanced extraordinary feeding habits . .

“Amongst their uncommon traits is the behavior of carrying their egg, and subsequently the younger, of their mouth—not only one or two however generally forty a extra. Each sexes present this behaviour and the daddy typically collects straying younger in his mouth and conveys them again to the mom, whereupon he spits them out once more.” —*G.R. Taylor Nice Evolution Thriller (1983), pp. 149-150.

 THE REPRODUCTION PROBLEM —Evolutionary principle doesn’t want sexual copy, but we now have it. How may two of every species-independent of one another—evolve? But that is what had to occur. The female and male of every species are without end uniquely separate from each other in a wide range of methods, but completely matching companions would have needed to evolve collectively, at every step. Evolution can not clarify this.

“From an evolutionary viewpoint, the intercourse differentiation is unimaginable to know, in addition to the structural sexual variations between the systematic classes that are generally immense. We all know that intersexes inside a species should be sterile. How is it, then, doable to think about bridges between two amazingly completely different structural sorts?” —*Nilsson, Artificial Speciation, p. 1225.

“This e book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual copy in greater vegetation and animals is inconsistent with present evolutionary principle.” —*George C. Williams, Intercourse and Evolution (1975), p. v.

“Intercourse is one thing of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the difficulty, protecting it a carefully guarded secret.” —*Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Intercourse, ” Omni, December 1983, p. 18.

“Certainly, the persistence of intercourse is among the elementary mysteries in evolutionary biology in the present day.” —*Gins Maranto and *Shannon Brownlee, “Why Intercourse?” Uncover, February 1984, p. 24.

“So why is there intercourse? We don’t have a compelling reply to the query. Regardless of some ingenious solutions by orthodox Darwinians, there isn’t any convincing Darwinian historical past for the emergence of sexual copy. Nevertheless, evolutionary theorists consider that the issue can be solved with out abandoning the primary Darwinian insights.” —*Philip Kitchen Abusing Science: The Case In opposition to Creationism (1982), p. 54.

 DARWIN’S BEQUEST—It’s well-knownthat *Charles Darwin had little to say concerning the precise origin of the species—the origin of life in a “primitive setting,” however, as a substitute, centered his whole work on an try to disprove mounted species. But, with the passing of the years, he turned so confused relating to the species query that he was not sure how species may probably turn into each other. In his will, he gave a bequest to the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, England, which was making an attempt to organize the Index Kewensis, a huge plant catalogue which would classify and repair all identified plant species.

“Some botanists have commented on the irony that the good evolutionist —who satisfied the world that species are unfixed, changeable entities—ought to have funded an immense, definitive species listing as his last present to science.” —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 236.

Satirically, *Charles Darwin’s final act was cash given to assist categorize the separate species.

 CONCLUSION—Right here is how one writer ably summarized the state of affairs:

“Anybody who can ponder the attention of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger motion, the camouflage of a moth, or the constructing of everykind of matter from variations in association of proton and electron,—after which preserve that each one this design occurred and not using a designer, occurred by sheer, blind accident—such an individual believes in a miracle way more astounding than any within the Bible.

“To treat man, along with his arts and aspirations, his consciousness of himself and of his universe, his feelings and his morals, his very capability to conceive an concept so grand as that of God, to treat this creature as merely a type of life considerably greater on the evolutionary ladder than the others,—is to create questions extra profound than are answered.” —David Raphael Klein, “Is There a Substitute for God?” in Reader’s Digest, March 1970, p. 55.

For added info see the appendix matters, “5A — The Lebzelter Precept, ” and “5B – The Hardy-Weinberg Precept.”

POSTSCRIPT: SOON THEY WILL BE GONE—Apparently sufficient, though the evolutionary drawback is that the species aren’t altering, mankind’s drawback is that the species are disappearing!

“They [plant and animal species] are vanishing at an alarming fee. Usually, [evolutionists speculate] current species change into extinct at roughly the identical fee as new species evolve, however for the reason that yr 1600 that equation has grown more and more lopsided.

“Knowledgeable estimates put the current extinction fee at forty to tour hundred occasions regular. One estimate says that 25,000 Species are in peril proper now. One other says that a million may disappear kind South America alone within the subsequent two many years. If present developments proceed, some twenty p.c of the species now on earth can be extinct by the yr 2000. Present developments will most likely proceed.

“This superior fee of extinction is apparently unprecedented in our planet’s historical past. Many specialists say it represents our most alarming ecological disaster.” —*G. Jon Roush, “On Saving Range, in Fremontia (California Native Plant Society), January 1986.

“Twenty years in the past, species have been being silenced at a fee of about one a day; now, regardless of the efforts of the [Nature] Conservancy and plenty of different teams prefer it, the speed is a couple of per hour. Inside 30 years, mankind could have worn out one fifth of all of the earth’s speciesl”””10,000 Species to Disappear in 1991,” —*U.S. Information and World Report, January 7, 1991, p. 68.

“Throughout the previous 40 years, rain forests in Brazil, Indonesia, Central America and Hawaii have shrunk from 5 million to three.5 million sq. miles. Greater than 25,000 sq. miles are misplaced annually. If these forests disappear, as they are going to if destruction goes unchecked, hundreds of species of vegetation and animals will disappear without end earlier than they’ve even been found, named or studied.” —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 383.

“Because the human inhabitants shoots up to 10 billion throughout the subsequent century, the destiny of hundreds of species is sealed. Since man has appeared on Earth, we now have elevated the speed of extinction of different species by 1,000 p.c.” —*Op. cit., p. 202.



You’ve got simply accomplished




Leave a Reply