Evolution Cruncher Chapter 11
Plant and Animal Species
This chapter is based on pp. 441-474 of
Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved
Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 87 statements by
scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on
Evolution is based on change from one
species to another. In chapters 9 and 10, Natural Selection and
Mutations, we have found that there is no mechanism by which it can
occur; and in chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, we will learn that there
is no past evidence of such change.
The fact that all plant and animal true
species are distinct types is a crux in the entire controversy. So we
will here devote a full chapter to speciation. This material will help
fill out the picture of what we are learning in other chapters.
DARWIN ON THE ORIGIN OF THE
SPECIES—The battle over evolutionary theory finds its center in the
species. This is where *Charles Darwin attempted to fight it, but
without success. Even though he called his first book by that name, he
never did try to figure out the origin of the species.
"Darwin never really did discuss
the origin of the species in his Origin of the Species."—*Niles
Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the
Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, (1985), p. 33.
*Darwin could not figure out why species
even existed. If his theory was correct, there would be no distinct
species, only confused creatures everywhere and no two alike.
"Charles Darwin, himself the father
of evolution in his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of
real evidence for his evolutionary speculation and wrote: ‘As by this
theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not
find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in
confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined
species?"—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
To make the situation worse, *Darwin did
not know of one instance in which a species changed into another.
"Not one change of species into
another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been
changed."—*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.
ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES UNKNOWN—(*#1/27
Origin of the Species Unknown / #2/13 The Experts are Puzzled*) The
problem of species has become a major unsolved problem of the
evolutionists, because they cannot figure out where they came from.
"More biologists would agree with
Professor Hampton Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, when he
says that speciation is ‘a major unsolved problem of evolutionary
biology.’ "—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p.
"In the last thirty years or so
speciation has emerged as the major unsolved problem. The British
geneticist, William Bateson, was the first to focus attention on the
question. In 1922 he wrote: ‘In dim outline evolution is evident
enough. But that particular and essential bit of the theory of evolution
which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly
mysterious.’ Sixty years later we are if anything worse off, research
having only revealed complexity within complexity."—*G.R. Taylor,
Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.
1- IDENTIFYING THE SPECIES
PLANT AND ANIMAL
CLASSIFICATIONS—(*#3/15 Classifying the Plants and Animals*) The
science of classifying plants and animals is called taxonomy.
"Classification or taxonomy is the
theory and practice of naming, describing, and classifying
organisms."—*Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (1977), p. 98.
Taxonomists have placed all plants and
animals in logical categories, and then arranged them on several major
levels, which are these:
It should be kept in mind that there is
no such thing as a kingdom, phylum, class, order, or family. Those are
just convenient names and are like rooms in a zoo or botanical garden,
each one with a different collection of plant or animal species. It is
the species that are alive; the room is not. The terms "phyla,
classes, orders, families," and most of the "genera" are
merely category labels. It is only the true species which should count.
This includes some of what is listed as "species," and some
life-forms called "genera," which should be labeled as
"According to the author’s view,
which I think nearly all biologists must share, the species is the only
taxonomic category that has, at least in more favorable examples, a
completely objective existence. Higher categories are all more or less a
matter of opinion."—*G.W. Richards, "A Guide to the Practice
of Modern Taxonomy," in Science, March 13, 1970, p. 1477 [comment
made during review of Mayr’s authoritative Principles of Systematic
PANTHERA LEO—This is how the
taxonomists classify the lion.
Here is an example of how classification
works. This is the classification of the house cat:
"PHYLUM Chordata—all animals
possessing at some time in their life cycle pharyngeal pouches, a
notochord, and a dorsal tubular nerve cord.
"SUBPHYLUM Vertebrata—all those
animals that possess vertebrae.
"CLASS Mammalia—all those animals
that have internally regulated body temperature, possess hair, and
suckle their young.
"ORDER Carnivora—All those
mammals whose teeth are adapted to a predatory mode of life, but which
are not insectivores.
"FAMILY Felidae—all those
Carnivora with retractile claws, lengthy tail, and a certain tooth
"GENUS Felis—the true cats.
domesticated cats]."— Wayne Frair and Percival Davis, A Case for
Creation (1983), p. 37.
SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR SPECIES—If you go
to the zoo, you will see a sign on one cage, "Giant Panda,"
with the words, "Alluropoda melanoleuca" just below it. The
first line is capitalized and is the common name of this large
black-and-white bear from China; the second line is its "scientific
name." Scientists worldwide understand these two-part Latin names
(called binominals). The first word is the genus, and the second is
species. Sometimes the name of the discoverer or namer is added as a
third word. The Swedish naturalist, Linnaeus, invented this method of
scientific nomenclature in the 1750s.
*Darwin recognized that there was no
evidence that any species had evolved from any other species. He decided
that, instead of denying the existence of species, the only practical
solution for evolutionists was, first, to classify plants and animals;
second, point to similarities between them; and, then, declare that
therefore one must have evolved from the other or from a common
ancestor. From beginning to end, evolution is just theory, theory,
THE GENESIS KIND—Back in the
beginning, the law of the "Genesis kinds" was established:
"Let the earth bring forth grass,
the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind
. . And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his
kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his
kind."—Genesis 1:11, 12.
In the same way, the birds, sea-life,
and animals were each to reproduce "after their kind" (Genesis
1:20-22, 24-25). This principle was not to be violated. And this is what
we find in the fossil record and in the world today. The "Genesis
kind" is generally equivalent to the species level, but sometimes
the genus level. This variation is due to flaws in our humanly devised
Since the Hebrew words used in Genesis
for "create" and "kind" are bara and min, Frank
Marsh, a careful research scholar in speciation, has suggested the term
baramin as an identifying name for this "Genesis kind." (Min
is used 10 times in Genesis 1, and 21 times in the rest of the Old
Testament.) It would be a good word to use, since it is more accurate
than "species," which can at times be incorrect. Other names
for the Genesis kinds, are the Genesis species, the true species, and
the biological species. The present author favors "true
species" as the term most easily understood.
BIOLOGICAL SPECIES—The term,
"biological species," is increasingly becoming accepted as a
basic reference point by scientists. Although there are instances in
which obvious sub-species do not cross breed, biological species would
normally apply to those species which do not cross-breed outside of
their own kind. However, there are instances in which two sub-species of
a true species no longer cross breed.
MICRO- VS. MACROEVOLUTION—(*#4/6
and Macro*) Evolutionists point to changes WITHIN the species and call
that "microevolution," and then proceed to tell us that such
sub-species changes prove that theorized changes ACROSS species (which
they term "macroevolution") must also be occurring.
But random gene shuffling within the
species only produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is
not penetrated. New plant varieties and animal breeds never cross the
New varieties and new breeds are not
evolution; they are only variation within the already existing species.
There is no such thing as "microevolution." Changes within the
true species are not evolution.
COUNTING THE SPECIES—*Aristotle could
list only about 500 kinds of animals; and his pupil, *Theophrastus, the
most eminent botanist of ancient Greece, listed only about 500 different
Through the centuries, as naturalists
counted new varieties of creatures in the field, in the air, and in the
sea, and as new areas of the world were explored, the number of
identified species of animals and plants grew. By 1800 it had reached
70,000. Today there are several million. Two-thirds of them are animal
and one-third are plant. The flowering plants and insects are the two
largest single categories.
Nearly all of these millions of
so-called "species" consist of sub-species of a much smaller
number of original Genesis kinds, the true species. For example, today
there are many different hummingbirds: but, originally, there was only
one. Its gene pool permitted it to produce many sub-species.
JOHN RAY—John Ray
(Wray) (1627-1705) apparently was the first scientist to formerly recognize the
"species." He prepared a large classification of all the
species of plants and animals known in his time (about 18,600).
Ray was an earnest Christian who, in the
wonderful structures of plants and animals, saw abundant evidence of a
CARL LINNAEUS—Carl Von Linne
(1707-1778) spent his adult life as a teacher at the University of
Uppsala. At the age of 50, he latinized his name to "Carolus
Linnaeus." The classification system of plants and animals
developed by Linnaeus was to become the standard used today. He
published it in his book, Systema Naturae, in 1735.
Linnaeus came to two definite
conclusions: (1) Species were, for the most part, the equivalent of the
"Genesis kind." (2) There had been no change across the basic
categories—now or earlier. As a result of his studies, Linnaeus
arrived at a firm belief in Special Creation and the fixity of species.
He said, "We reckon as many species as issued in pairs from the
hands of the Creator" (quoted in *H.F. Osborne, From the Greeks to
Darwin, 1929, p. 187).
Men today may call themselves experts in
taxonomy, but it is significant that the two men in human history able
to lay a solid foundation for biological classification—saw in all
their findings only evidence of creation, not evolution.
LINNAEUS AND RAY—Linnaeus was the one
who developed our modern system of classification. Unfortunately, he
frequently listed, as separate species, life-forms that could
interbreed. Some of these decisions were based on ignorance, but
nevertheless we live with the results today. Thus, the true species are
not always those that are listed in the textbooks as
"species." It is now recognized, by many qualified biologists,
that John Ray did better quality work; for he carefully adhered to
biological species in preparing his species categories. In contrast,
Linnaeus at times confused them by placing true species in genera or
LUMPERS AND SPLITTERS—There has been a
perennial problem in regard to the "lumpers" and
"splitters." There is a tendency for the taxonomists—the
experts who classify plants and animals—to fall into one or the other
of these two categories.
The lumpers place species together,
which should be divided into sub-species. The splitters tend to put true
species into sub-species categories.
"Lumper species," are also
called "Linnaean species" because, back in the early 1700s,
both Linnaeus and Ray pioneered the lumping of species. "Splitter
species" are also called "Jordanian species" for the
French botanist, Jordan, who initiated this approach in the early 1800s.
So today we find both Linnaean and
Jordanian species scattered throughout the scientific lists of plants
and animals. It is important to keep this in mind, for selective
breeding of Jordanian species can appear to produce new species! This
would appear to prove evolutionary claims and indicate species
cross-over as taken place, —when, actually, two members of different
sub-species, of the same true species, have interbred.
When the Santa Gertrudis cattle were
developed in the 1960s by breeding zebu bulls with strains of Texas
longhorns, Herefords, and shorthorns, the result was a new sub-species;
but some splitters classify it as a "new species." Yet the
Santa Gertrudis is merely another type of the cattle species and able to
crossbreed with several others.
Our Family Tree*)
Everyone has seen paintings in museums and textbooks of our "family
tree," with its worms, birds, apes, and man shown in relation to
how they evolved from one another. The impression is given that there
can be no doubt that it really happened that way, for did not scientists
prepare those charts?
COMPARING THE FAMILY TREES—In reality,
there are only twigs (actual species) all over the ground. The rest of
the "evolutionary tree" is as imaginary as the two lower
COMPARING THE TREES
The truth is that the "Evolutionary
Tree of Life" is just another fake, like all the other
"evidences" of evolutionary theory.
One example of what you will find on one
"limb" of this imaginary "tree" are a mutually
diverse group of creatures called the "coelenterates" solely
because they have a saclike body, tentacles, and a single mouth opening.
Although coral and jellyfish are not a bit alike, they are therefore
classified together. We are supposed to believe that, because coral and
jellyfish are together on the tree, one evolved from the other! One is a
hard-bodied creature; the other does not have a bone in its body. In the
plant kingdom, the Compositae is merely a wastebasket category that
includes all the flowering plants that cannot be fitted in somewhere
else. So therefore, they are supposed to have evolved from one another.
This "tree" is a classificationist’s nightmare!
All it really consists of is separate
twigs, with each twig a separate species. Even *Richard Milner, a
diligent evolutionary researcher, admits the fact.
"Delicate twigs, burgeoning in all
directions, is closer to our current idea of evolutionary
history."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 54.
2 - FACTS ABOUT SPECIES
INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT SPECIES—Here
are some facts about species and sub-species that will help you
understand some of the problems inherent in this interesting field of
plant and animal classification:
1 - Chickadees. The Carolina Chickadee (Parus
carolinus) and the black-capped Chickadee (Parus atricapillus) look just
like each other in every way, and freely interbreed. Yet they have
different songs! Although they have been classified as two different
species, we have here one species with two alternate gene factors.
2 - Wheat. Linnaeus classified spring
wheat (Triticum aestivum L) as a different species than winter wheat (T.
hybernum L). Yet they are both strains of the same wheat. They will
cross and produce fertile hybrids. They should have been classified as
SUBSPECIES OF DOGS—Dogs, dogs,
everywhere—and scientists agree that they are all sub-species.
SUBSPECIES OF DOGS
3 - Ladybugs. The ladybird beetle
has been divided into a number of different "species," but
solely on the basis of different wing covers and the number and
arrangement of spots on their backs.
4 - Song sparrows.
For over two
centuries four species of sparrows in North America had been listed
(Lincoln, fox, swamp, and song). Gradually this number increased as
taxonomists moved westward and found additional sparrows. Soon we had
lots of sparrow "species." But as more and more were
discovered, it was recognized that they were but intermediates between
the others! So the experts finally got together and reclassified them
all as sub-species of but one species, the song sparrow (Passereila
5 - Foxes.
The red fox (Vulpes fulva)
and the Newfoundland red fox have been categorized in different species,
although the only difference is a paler reddish coat and shorter tail
for the Newfoundland variety. Six taxonomists list 10 varieties of red
fox, while 2 others list one species (Vulpes fulva) and count 12
sub-species. All these foxes are actually in one true species.
6 - Cattle. There are several different
subspecies of cattle (Bos taurus L). Although the American bison
bison L) and the European bison (Bison bonasus L) have a similar
morphology (appearance), they will still generally crossbreed with
cattle. In addition, it has been discovered that the African buffalo
(Syncerus caffer) also interbreeds with them—yet the bison and cattle have been
placed in totally different genera.
7 - Corn.
One expert (*Sturtevant)
categorized 6 species of corn (sweet, flint, flour, pod, dent, and
popcorn), while other taxonomists acknowledge that they are all only
varieties of one species.
8 - Finches.
In the chapter on Natural Selection, we discuss *Charles Darwin’s finches (13, 14, 17, or 19;
the count varies regarding this look-alike bird), which he found on the
Galapagos Islands. Although about the same in size, shape and color, and
together form a set of sub-species of finches which originally came from
South America, yet Darwin called them different species—and therefore
a proof of evolution. Those finches made a strong impression on his
9 - Platypus.
(*#9/3 The Creature that
Fits no Category*) This one is so strange that it does not fit any
category of animals.
"When zoologists examined a
platypus for the first time, some suspected a hoax, thinking that parts
of different animals had been sewn together. The platypus has the fur of
an otter, the tail of a beaver, the bill and feet of a duck, and the
venomous spurs of a fighting gamecock. Although the platypus is a
mammal, it lays eggs and does not have nipples (milk oozes out of pore
openings in the abdomen)."—*Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p.
INCREASING SUB-SPECIES—There are many
different sub-species in some species while there are but few for
others. A key factor seems to be the ability of the creature to travel,
whether by seed, spore, or in person.
For example, the tiny fruit flies cannot
travel very far, so there are many varieties of them. The animal with
the most sub-species appears to be the southern pocket gopher (Thomomys
umbrinus) with 214 subspecies and, next to it, the northern pocket
gopher (T. talpoides) with 66. Another highly isolated species is the
deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) with 66 subspecies.
In the case of animals that have been
domesticated, such as dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, pigeons, and chickens,
there are many sub-species as a result of selective breeding. The same
holds true for cultivated crops (corn, beans, lettuce, and cabbage).
There are instances in which sub-species
generally do not breed across sub-species. The other extreme is
instances in which animals above the species level will produce young
from an apparent cross-breeding. In some cases these are true species,
and should have been classified as such. But there are also instances in
which breeding did NOT occur—although it appeared to take place! In
true fertilization, the male and female elements unite and produce
young. But there are times when two different species have been bred and
young have been produced—in which no true breeding occurred!
This false breeding takes place when the
presence of male sperm stimulates the egg to begin production on a new
life-form, but the sperm is rejected because it is from a different
species. The resulting birth is known as parthenogenesis. Scientific
analysis has established that this false breeding across true species
works in exactly the manner described here.
It is significant that mankind can never
successfully breed across with any other species, including any of the
"There is no evidence of the origin
of a hybrid between man and any other mammal."—*Edward Colin,
Elements of Genetics, 1946, pp. 222-223.
One careful researcher (Frank Marsh)
spent years tracking down every report of crosses above that of true
species. Each time he found them to be hoaxes. One instance was of bird
feathers sewn to a stuffed animal skin. It made good copy for a
newspaper article, so it was printed.
3 - DISPROVING SPECIES EVOLUTION
MENDELIAN GENETICS—It has been said
that the foundations of evolutionary theory were laid by the work of
*Charles Darwin (1809-1882), but that the principles which Gregor Mendel
(1822-1884) discovered, as he worked with garden peas at about the same
time that Darwin was writing his book, were the means of abolishing that
Everyone is acquainted with the
illustration of the rough and smooth-coated guinea pigs. It was the work
of Mendel that formed the basis for understanding the transmission of
inherited characteristics. Mendel prepared the foundation for modern
genetics. It was later discovered that within the cell are chromosomes,
and inside the chromosomes are genes, and inside them is the coded DNA.
(For more information on this, see chapter 8, DNA.) Random shuffling of
the genetic code is what determines whether or not that baby guinea pig
will inherit a rough or a smooth coat from its parents. But either way
he will remain a guinea pig. Because that tiny newborn creature is
locked into being a guinea pig is the reason why Darwin’s theory
crumbles before the science of genetics.
PRIMITIVE ANCESTORS—Evolutionists tell
us that certain creatures are more "primitive" than others,
and are their "ancestors." But that is just theory. Consider
but one example: the monotremes and the marsupials, which are supposed
to be "primitive ancestors" of the mammals. Both have organs
that are different than mammals and just as complex. (For an excellent
analysis, see A.W. Mehlert, "A Critique of the Alleged Reptile to
Mammal Transition" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June
1988, p. 10.)
MANY VARIATIONS POSSIBLE—Yes,
variations are limited by the species barrier,—but immense variations
are possible within a given species!
*Francisco Ayala has calculated that,
among humans, a single couple could theoretically produce 102017
children before they would have to produce one that was identical to one
of their earlier children (not counting identical twins, which came from
the same egg and sperm). That would be 1 followed by 2017 zeroes. The
number of atoms in the known universe is only 1080. So the number of
possible variations within any given species is quite broad. Yet all of
them would only be variations within the same species.
ALWAYS A LIMIT—We discussed artificial
selection in chapter 9, Natural Selection, and found it to be highly
selective plant and animal breeding. In regard to any given single
factor, selective breeding may, for a time, be carried out; but soon a
limit in factor variety will be reached. What limits it? It is the DNA
code in the genes. That code forbids a cross-over to a new species. The
genetic makeup within the chromosomes forms a barrier, a literal wall of
separation between one species and another.
LIMITS OF VARIABILITY—This is a
crucial factor. All evolutionary theory pivots on whether or not there
are such limits on how far you can breed differences in a species. Can
one species change into another one? If there are definite limits
forbidding it, then evolution cannot occur. An evolutionary encyclopedia
provides us with a brief overview of the history of theory and
"pure-line research" into limits of variability:
"Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles
Darwin had insisted that through gradual, continuous change, species
could (in Wallace’s phrase) ‘depart indefinitely from the original
type.’ Around 1900 came the first direct test of that proposition: the
‘pure line research’ of Wilhelm Ludwig Johannsen (1857-1927). What
would happen, Johannsen wondered, if the largest members of a population
were always bred with the largest, and the smallest with the smallest?
How big or how small would they continue to get after a few generations?
Would they ‘depart indefinitely’ from the original type, or are
there built-in limits and constraints?
"Experimenting on self-fertilizing
beans, Johannsen selected and bred the extremes in sizes over several
generations. But instead of a steady, continuous growth or shrinkage as
Darwin’s theory seemed to predict, he produced two stabilized
populations (or ‘pure lines’) of large and small beans. After a few
generations, they had reached a specific size and remained there, unable
to vary further in either direction. Continued selection had no effect.
"Johnannsen’s work stimulated
many others to conduct similar experiments. One of the earliest was
Herbert Spencer Jennings (1868-1947) of the Museum of Comparative
Zoology at Harvard, the world authority on the behavior of microscopic
organisms. He selected for body size in Paramecium and found that after
a few generations selection had no effect. One simply cannot breed a
paramecium the size of a baseball. Even after hundreds of generations,
his pure lines remained constrained within fixed limits, ‘as
unyielding as iron.’
"Another pioneer in pure line
research was Raymond Pearl (1879-1940), who experimented with chickens
at the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Pearl took up the problem
. . [to] evolve a hen that lays eggs all day long.
"He found you could breed some
super-layers, but an absolute limit was soon reached . . In fact, Pearl
produced some evidence indicating that production might actually be
increased by relaxing selection—by breeding from ‘lower than
maximum’ producers."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution
(1990), p. 376.
Whatever we may try to do within a given
species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall
exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which
permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of
a species)—but no exit through that wall.
"Darwin’s gradualism was bounded
by internal constraints, beyond which selection was useless."—*R.
Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 46.
LOSS OF FITNESS—Not only is there a
limiting wall that will always be reached,—but as the researcher nears
that outer wall, the subjects being bred become weaker. The variations
made within those borders do not actually bring overall improvements in
the corn, cows, and chickens. All of the apparent improvement is made at
the expense of overall fitness for life. Gish explains why this is so:
"It must be strongly emphasized,
also, that in all cases these specialized breeds possess reduced
viability; that is, their basic ability to survive has been weakened.
Domesticated plants and animals do not compete well with the original,
or wild type . . They survive only because they are maintained in an
environment which is free from their natural enemies, food supplies are
abundant, and other conditions are carefully regulated."—Duane
Gish, Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 34.
"Our domesticated animals and
plants are perhaps the best demonstration of the effects of this
principle. The improvements that have been made by selection in these
have clearly been accompanied by a reduction of fitness for life under
natural conditions, and only the fact that domesticated animals and
plants do not live under natural conditions has allowed these
improvements to be made."—*O.S. Falconer, introduction to
Quantitative Genetics (1960), p. 186.
GENE DEPLETION—The scientific name for
this loss of fitness through adaptation is gene depletion. According to
this principle, selective breeding always weakens a species—and never
"[The original species came into
existence] with rich potential for genetic variation into races, breeds,
hybrids, etc. But so far from developing into new kinds, or even
improving existing kinds, such variations are always characterized by
intrinsic genetic weakness of individuals, in accordance with the
outworking of the second law of thermodynamics through gene depletion
and the accumulation of harmful mutations. Thus, the changes that occur
in living things through the passage of time are always within strict
boundary lines."—John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (1986), p. 94.
In chapter 10, Mutations, we mentioned
the genetic load, mentioned in the above quotation.
The original stock was strong, but as it
branched out into variations within its kind, it became weakened. That
is gene depletion. In addition, with the passing of time, genes are
damaged through random radiation and mutations occur. Such mutations are
also weakening, and gradually a genetic load is built up.
Thus we see that, on one hand, the
farther the species strays from its central original pattern, the weaker
it becomes (gene depletion). On the other, as the centuries continue on,
mutational weaknesses increase in all varieties of a given species
The total picture is not one of evolving
upward, strengthening, improving, or changing into new and diverse
EVOLUTION WOULD WEAKEN AND NARROW—It
is an astounding fact that evolutionary theory, if true, could only
produce ever weaker creatures with continually narrowed adaptive traits.
A Dutch zoologist, *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, explains that if man were
descended from animal ancestors, "man should possess a smaller
gene-potential than his animal ancestors!" (*J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A
New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology
(1965), pp. 56, 57.)
Well, that is a breath-taking discovery! If we had actually descended from monkeys, then we would have less
genetic potential than they have! Our anatomy, physiology, brains,
hormones, etc. would be less competent than that of a great ape.
In turn, the monkey is supposedly
descended from something else, and would therefore have less genetic
capacity than its supposed ancestor had. Somewhere back there, the first
descendant came from protozoa. All that follows in the evolutionary
ladder would have to have considerably less genetic potential than
protozoa! That point alone eliminates biological evolution!
How can evolutionary theory survive such
facts! It can only be done by hiding those facts. Evolution ranks as one
of the most far-fetched ideas of our time, yet it has a lock-grip on all
scientific thought and research. The theory twists data and warps
conclusions in an effort to vindicate itself. Just imagine how much
further along the path of research and discovery we would have been if,
a hundred years ago, we had throttled evolutionary theory to death.
SELECTIVE BREEDING—Selective breeding
occurs when people thoughtfully select out the best rose, ear of corn,
or milk cow; and then, through careful breeding, they produce better
roses, corn ears, or milk cows. But please notice several facts in
connection with this:
(1) "Selection" requires
intelligence, planning, and consistent effort by someone who is not the
rose, corn, or cow. Random action is not "selection."
Therefore "natural selection" is a misnomer. It should be
called "random activity." The word "selection"
implies intelligent decision-making. "Meaningless muddling"
would better fit the parameters the evolutionists have in mind.
(2) Contrary to what the evolutionists
claim, selective breeding can provide no evidence of evolution, since it
is intelligent, careful, planned activity; whereas evolution, by
definition, is random occurrences.
(3) Although random accidents could
never produce new species,—neither can intelligent selective breeding!
Selective breeding never, never produces new species. But if it cannot
effect trans-species changes, we can have no hope that evolutionary
chance operations could do it.
(4) Selective breeding narrows the
genetic pool; although it may have produce a nicer-appearing rose, at
the same time it weakened the rose plant that grew that rose. Selective
breeding may improve a selected trait, but tends to weaken the whole
Because of this weakening factor,
national and international organizations are now collecting and storing
"seed banks" of primitive seed. It is feared that diseases may
eventually wipe out our specialized crops, and we need to be able to go
back and replenish from the originals: rice, corn, tomatoes, etc.
Genetics Fails to Prove Evolution*) A related area is termed population
genetics, and it is declared by evolutionists to be another grand proof
of their theory. Population genetics looks at locations of species and
variations within species found there,—and theorizes evolutionary
causes and effects.
This field of study includes analysis
of: (1) "geographic isolation" of species and sub-species
produced by that species while in isolation. Some of these sub-species
may eventually no longer interbreed with related sub-species, but they
are obviously closely related sub-species. (2) "Migration of
populations" into new areas resulting occasionally in permanent
colonization. Additional sub-species are produced in this way. (3)
"Genetic drift" is analyzed. This is the genetic contribution
of a particular population to its offspring.
Variability here arises primarily from
normal gene reshuffling. It is because of gene reshuffling that your
children do not look identical to you. This is quite normal, and does
not make your children new species!
Population genetics, then, is the study
of changes in sub-species. The information produced is interesting, but
it provides no evidence of evolution, because it only concerns
A field closely related to population
genetics is selective breeding of plants and animals. But a favorite
study of the population geneticists is people. Human beings are all one
species. Population genetics analyzes changes within the "people
species." Yet changes within a species is not evolution.
"It is an irony of evolutionary
genetics that, although it is a fusion of Mendelism and Darwinism, it
has made no direct contribution to what Darwin obviously saw as the
fundamental problem: the origin of species."—*Richard Lewontin,
Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (1974), p. 159.
"The leading workers in this field
have confessed, more or less reluctantly, that population genetics
contributes very little to evolutionary theory . . If the leading
authorities on population genetics confess to this dismal lack of
achievement and even chuckle about it, it is altogether fitting and
proper for the rank and file to take them at their word. Therefore it
seems to follow that there is no need to teach population
genetics."—*E. Saiff and *N. Macbeth, "Population Genetics
and Evolutionary Theory" in Tuatara 26 (1983), pp. 71-72.
Drift" is frequently spoken of as another "evidence" of
evolution, but even confirmed evolutionists admit it proves nothing in
regard to evolution. Genetic drift is changes in small groups of
sub-species that, over a period of time, have become separated from the
rest of their species. Oddities in their DNA code factors became more
prominent, yet they all remained in the same species.
*Frank Rhodes (Evolution, 1974, p. 75)
explains that all that "genetic drift" refers to is changes in
a "sub-species" of a plant or animal (or in a
"race," which is a sub-species among human beings). Even
*Rhodes recognizes that genetic drift provides no evidence of change
from one species to another. All the drift has been found to be within
species and never across them.
THE MALE/FEMALE REQUIREMENT—Inherent
in the species quandary is the male and female element problem. It would
be so much easier to bear young and, hopefully, produce new species, if
everyone were females. But because it requires both a male and female to
produce offspring, any possibility of going trans-species would mean
producing not one new creature—but two! Only recently was the extent
of this problem fully realized.
It was supposed that mingling two sets
of genes would produce a new creature; but, in 1984, researchers working
with mice tried to fertilize mouse eggs with equal sets of mouse genes
from other females. But they found a male gene was required. There are
very real differences between identical chemical structures produced by
males and females. In addition, the male proteins on the surface of the
developing fetus and placenta modify the mother’s immune response so
that she does not reject the growing child.
How could two of each
species—independent of each other—evolve? Yet this is what had to
happen. The male and female of each species are forever uniquely
separate from one another in a variety of ways, yet perfectly matching
partners—a male and female—would have had to evolve together, at
each step. Evolution cannot explain this.
"From an evolutionary viewpoint,
the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the
structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which
are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes within a species must be
sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two
amazingly different structural types?"—*Nilsson, Synthetic
Speciation, p. 1225.
"This book is written from a
conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants
and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory."—
*George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (1975), p. v.
"Indeed, the persistence of sex is
one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology
today."—*Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, "Why Sex?"
Discover, February 1984, p. 24.
"So why is there sex? We do not
have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious
suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian
history for the emergence of sexual reproduction."—*Philip
Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (1982), p. 54.
ALTERNATE ORIGINS OF THE
SPECIES—Because of the inflexible nature of the species, *Austin H.
Clark, a distinguished biologist on the staff of the Smithsonian
Institution, wrote a shocking book in 1930. He concluded that, since
there was no evidence now or earlier of any cross-overs between
species,—all of the major groups of plants and animals must have
independently originated out of raw dirt and seawater!
"From all the tangible evidence
that we now have been able to discover, we are forced to the conclusion
that all the major groups of animals at the very first held just about
the same relation to each other that they do today."—*A.H. Clark,
The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 211.
The fossil evidence indicating no
transitional forms, but only gaps between species, would have proved his
point. But *Clark ignored that and said that separate evolutions and
origins had to have occurred—just because there were simply too many
differences between the various life-forms. They could not possibly have
evolved from each other.
Clark’s book shook up the scientific
world. The evolutionists tried to quiet matters; but about a decade
later, *Richard Goldschmidt, of the University of California at
Berkeley, published a different alternative view: Gigantic million-fold
mutations must have occurred all at once, that suddenly changed one
species to another. Goldschmidt’s dreamy theory is today becoming more
accepted by evolutionists, under the leadership of *Stephen Jay Gould.
*Clark recognized the impossibility of
evolution across major groups of plants and animals. Therefore he said
each one independently originated out of sand and seawater. *Goldschmidt
and *Gould recognized the impossibility of evolution across species, so
they theorized that once every 50,000 years or so, a billion positive,
cooperative, networking mutations suddenly appeared by chance and
produced a new species. (For more on this, see chapter 10, Mutations.)
Cladists against Evolution*) What about the experts who classify plants and animals; what
do they think about all this controversy over species and ancestral
Scientists who specialize in
categorizing life-forms are called taxonomists. A surprising number of
them have joined the ranks of the cladists.
Cladistics comes from a Greek noun for
"branch." Cladists are scientists who study biological
classifications solely for its own sake—for the purpose of discovering
relationship, apart from any concern to determine ancestry or origins.
In other words, the cladists are scientists who have seen so much
evidence in plants and animals that evolution is not true; that, as far
as they are concerned, they have tossed it out the window and instead
simply study plants and animals. They want to know about life-forms
because they are interested in life-forms, not because they are trying
to prove evolution.
Cladists are biological classification
specialists who have given up on evolution. They recognize it to be a
foolish, unworkable theory, and they want to study plants and animals
without being required to "fit" their discoveries into the
evolutionary "ancestor" and "descendant" mold. They
are true scientists who are concerned with reality, not imaginings.
A leading British scientist and
life-long evolutionist says this:
"So now we can see the full extent
of the doubts. The transformed cladists claim that evolution is totally
unnecessary for good taxonomy; at the same time they are unconvinced by
the Darwinian explanation of how new species arise. To them, therefore,
the history of life is still fiction rather than fact and the Darwinian
penchant for explaining evolution in terms of adaptation and selection
is largely empty rhetoric . . It seems to me that the theoretical
framework [of evolutionary theory] has very little impact on the actual
progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of
Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress
of science."—*Colin Patterson, The Listener. [Patterson is senior
paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.]
THE SPECIES ARE NOT CHANGING—If one
species cannot change into another, there can be no evolution. But this
should not be surprising. For example, the fossil record reveals that
the bat has not changed since it first appeared in the fossil record,
supposedly "50 million years ago,"—and there was no
transitional form preceding it. The same can be said for the other
creatures. Throughout the fossil record, there are only solid, fixed
forms and wide gaps between species. Those gaps are no surprise to us,
but they are agonizing for the evolutionists. In chapter 12, Fossils and
Strata, we go into detail on such matters.
"No one has ever produced a species
by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near
it."—*Colin Patterson, "Cladistics," in BBC Radio
Interview, March 4, 1982.
"Most species exhibit no
directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the
fossil record looking much the same as when they disappeared;
morphological change is usually limited and
directionless."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Erratic
Pace," in Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.
"Evolution requires intermediate
forms between species, and paleontology [the study of fossils] does not
provide them."—*David Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary
Theory" in Evolution, September 1974, p. 467.
All this is a most terrible problem for
"Evolution is . . troubled from
within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental
mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery—speciation
itself."—*Keith S. Thomson, "The Meanings of Evolution"
in American Scientist, September/October 1982, p. 529.
Evolutionists have reason to be
troubled: All the evidence they can find to substantiate their claims is
changes within species (so-called "microevolution,"
not evolution), never changes across species
("macroevolution," which is evolution).
"Two very influential books in
recent years have been the beautifully colored Life Nature Library
volume, Evolution, by Ruth Moore and the Editors of Life, and the even
more beautifully colored and produced volume, Atlas of Evolution, by Sir
Gavin de Beer. The impressive demonstrable evidence which fills these
volumes is micro-evolution only!"—Frank Marsh, "The Form and
Structure of Living Things," in Creation Research Society
Quarterly, June 1969, p. 21 (italics his).
NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES—The speciation
problem is a gap problem. There are no transitional species, as there
ought to be if evolution were true.
But we find there are absolutely no
transitional forms to fill the gaps. In desperation, evolutionists have
come up with an answer: "The transitions were made so slowly that
they left no remains behind."—Wait a minute! How can that be? The
more slowly the transitions, the larger would be the number of
transitional forms that would be in the fossil strata for posterity to
examine! (*Steven M. Stanley, "Macroevolution and the Fossil
Record" in Evolution, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1982, p. 460).
—And none other than *Charles Darwin
himself agrees with us!
"When we descend to details, we can
prove that no species has changed [we cannot prove that a single species
has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial,
which is the groundwork of the theory."—*Charles Darwin, in
*Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Vol. 2
(1887), p. 210.
IT TAKES A MILLION YEARS TO MAKE ONE
SPECIES—(*#7/4 Millions of Years for One
Species*) That is what the
evolutionists say! How can there be millions of species, when the
evolutionists tell us it takes a million years to make just one of them?
"It takes a million years to evolve
a new species, ten million for a new genus, one hundred million for a
class, a billion for a phylum—and that’s usually as far as your
"In a billion years [from now], it
seems, intelligent life might be as different from humans as humans are
from insects . . To change from a human being to a cloud may seem a big
order, but it’s the kind of change you’d expect over billions of
years."—*Freeman Dyson, Statement made in 1986, quoted in
Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 93 [American
If it takes a million years to produce
just one new species,—there would not have been time for the millions
of present species in the world to come into existence.
There just is not enough time for all
those species changes to occur. Evolutionary dogma states that nothing
was alive on Planet Earth over 2 billion years ago, and that all the
evolving of life-forms has occurred within that brief time span.
"[Evolution is surmised to be of
the order of two billion years . . from causes which now continue to be
in operation, and which therefore can be studied
experimentally."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin
of Species (1951), pp. 3-11 [Columbia University].
Two billion is only 2 thousand million.
If it takes a million years to produce one species change, there would
only be time for 2000 new species to be produced. An evolutionist would
reply that more than one species was changing at the same time in
various parts of the world, and this is how all our present millions of
species could evolve into existence in 2 billion years.
But that is an oversimplification. What
about the theoretical stairstep pattern from the first single-celled
creature that made itself out of sand and seawater to man? That single
stairstep progression alone would require hundreds of thousands of major
changes! Yet only "millions of years" are provided for all the
changes to come about.
"Evolution, in very simple terms,
means that life progressed from one-celled organisms to its highest
state, the human being, by means of a series of biological changes
taking place over millions of years."—*Houston Post, August 23,
1964, p. 6.
Billions of transitional species would
have to occur in order to climb the evolutionary stairs from amoeba to
man. Those transitional forms simply do not exist; they never have
existed. There are only gaps between the species. But the transitional
forms would have had to be there in order for evolution to have
occurred. It could not take place without them.
Even the evolutionists themselves avow
that these cross-species changes take place so slowly, that they are not
seen within a single lifetime.
"Evolution, at least in the sense
that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a
single observer."—*David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and
Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.
If the transitional changes occur that
slowly, then there should be vast numbers of transitional species living
today, as well as etched into the fossil record. But they are not to be
found. They do not exist; they have never existed.
The above statement by *Kitts indicates
that, although it cannot be seen within a single generation,
cross-species changes should be observed over a span of several
generations. Why then do the hundreds of thousands of paintings from
past centuries reveal man and animals to be just as they are today? We
can go back thousands of years into the artwork of the past, and find no
species change in man or animal. Five thousand years divided by 25 years
per generation is 200 generations from our time to the earliest
Egyptians. Five thousand years has produced no evolutionary change.
Yet we have only been speaking about the
ladder from microbe to man. What about the hundreds of thousands of
other ladders? For every species, a ladder of transitional forms leading
up to it should be found.
Billions upon billions of transitional
species should be engraved in the fossil rock and in nature today. Yet
we see none of this. Over a hundred years of frantic searching by
evolutionists has not produced even one transitional form! The
transitions cannot be found since they have never existed.
SUB-SPECIES RUNNING WILD—New
sub-species can be produced very fast,—and they are being produced
today! Gene reshuffling does this. When isolated for several years, they
sometimes no longer breed across sub-species,—yet they are still
sub-species and not different species. Here are some examples:
"A strain of Drosophila paulistorum
which was fully interfertile with other strains when first collected,
developed hybrid sterility after having been isolated in a separate
culture for just a few years . .
"Five endemic species of cichlid
[fish] are found in Lake Nabugabo, a small lake which has been isolated
from Lake Victoria for less than 4000 years . .
"In birds we have the classic
example of the European house sparrow (Passer domesticus) which was
introduced into North America about 1852. Since then the sparrows have
spread and become geographically differentiated into races that are
adapted in weight, in length of wing and of bill, and in coloration, to
different North American environments . . Yet it has been accomplished
in only about 118 generations (to 1980).
"By 1933 the sparrow had reached
Mexico City where it has since formed a distinct sub-species. R.E.
Moreau had concluded in 1930 that the minimum time required [by
evolution] for a bird to achieve that sub-species step was 5000 years;
the sparrow required just 30 years. As has been aptly commented:
" ‘We can here judge the value of
speculation compared with observation in analyzing evolution’ " (E.B.
Ford, Genetics and Maptation, 1976).
"Rabbits were introduced into
Australia about 1859; yet the wealth of variation now present there is
very extensive, vastly exceeding that apparent in the European stock
(Wildlife Research 10, 73-82, 1965)."— A.J. Jones, "Genetic
Integrity of the ‘Kinds’ (Baramins)," Creation Research Society
Quarterly, June 1982, p. 17.
The above facts explain why there is
such an abundance of so-called "species" in the world today.
In reality, an immense number of them are just sub-species.
"According to the late Theodosius
Dobzhansky, on our planet we have 1,071,500 species of animals, 368,715
species of plants, and 3230 monerans (blue-green algae, bacteria,
viruses). Sabrosky tells us that the arthropods constitute about 82
percent of all animal species; among the arthropods some 92 percent are
insects; and among the insects about 40 percent are
beetles."—Frank L Marsh, "Genetic Variation, Limitless or
Limited?" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1983, p.
There is far too much jumbling of
sub-species with species by the taxonomists. Scientists frequently use
the word "species" in a loose sense to include a multitude of
sub-species. Repeatedly, a sub-species is given a species name.
THERE SHOULD BE NO SPECIES—In fact, if
evolution were true, there should not be any distinct species at all!
There would only be innumerable transitions! Categories of plants and
animals can be arranged in orderly systems only because of the
separateness of the species. But if evolutionary theory is correct,
there could be no distinct species. Instead, there would only be a
confused blur of transitional forms, each one only slightly different
than the others. This is a very significant and important point.
"Why should we be able to classify
plants and animals into types or species at all? In a fascinating
editorial feature in Natural History, Stephen Gould writes that
biologists have been quite successful in dividing up the living world
into distinct and discrete species . . ‘But,’ says Gould, ‘how
could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory
[evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental
fact of nature?’ For an evolutionist, why should there be species at
all? If all life-forms have been produced by gradual expansion through
selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really
should just grade into one another without distinct
boundaries."—Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation
Science? (1987), pp. 121-122.
Another leading evolutionist also
wonders why distinct species exist.
"If a line of organisms can
steadily modify its structure in various directions, why are there any
lines stable enough and distinct enough to be called species at all? Why
is the world not full of intermediate forms of every conceivable
kind?"—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery, (1983), p. 141.
The facts that species exist at all,
that there are no gaps (no transitional creatures) between them, and
that living species are identical to those alive "millions of years
ago" form a major species problem for the evolutionists.
There is immense complexity within each
species, but a distinct barrier between species.
"In the last thirty years or so
speciation has emerged as the major unsolved problem . . [Over the
years, in trying to solve this problem] we are if anything worse off,
research having only revealed complexity within complexity . .
"More biologists would agree with
Professor Hampton Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, when he
says that speciation is ‘a major unsolved problem of evolutionary
biology.’ "—*Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983),
"Many species and even whole
families remain inexplicably constant. The shark of today, for instance,
is hardly distinguishable from the shark of 150 million years ago . .
"According to Professor W.H.
Thorpe, Director of the Sub-department of Animal Behavior at Cambridge
and a world authority, this is the problem in evolution. He said in
1968: ‘What is it that holds so many groups of animals to an
astonishingly constant from over millions of years? This seems to me the
problem [in evolution] now—the problem of constancy, rather than that
of ‘change.’ " —*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983),
If evolution is constantly producing
species, why are the species not changing into new ones?
THE LEBZELTER PRINCIPLE AND
HARDY-WEINBERG PRINCIPLE—Evolutionists really have to work hard to
find something validating evolution, in what they teach students in the
schools. For this reason, several states require that students memorize
a complex quadratic equation, called the Hardy-Weinberg principle.
Teachers say this mathematical formula proves evolution. A parallel one
is the *Lebzelter principle. So we will explain them both.
In 1932, *Viktor Lebzelter stated the
"When man lives in large
conglomerates, race tends to be stable while cultures become
diversified; but where he lives in small isolated groups, culture is
stable but diversified races evolve."—*Viktor Lebzelter,
Rassengeschichte de Menscheit (1932), p. 27.
Here it is in simpler words, when people
live, socialize, and select mates from a large group, their racial
characteristics are stabilized while within the large group a variety of
sub-cultures will develop. But when members only have a highly
restricted number of people to socialize with and intermarry among,
their cultural patterns will tend to be the same throughout the small
group, but racial oddities will develop.
That is true; and the cause, of course,
is close interbreeding, when people marry near relatives.
"The quickest way to expose lethal
traits [in the genes] is by intensive and continual
inbreeding."—*Willard Hollander, "Lethal Heredity," in
Scientific American, July 1952, p. 60.
"When a recessive gene arose by
mutation, it will only after some time occur in an double dose by means
of intermarriage—soonest by a marriage of cousins."— *G.
Dahlberg, quoted in Ernst Mayr Animal Species and Evolution (1963), p.
The evolutionists tell us that this
Lebzelter principle is another evidence of evolution, but it is no
evidence at all. Although this concept is indeed a useful one, it does
not help the Darwinists. Evolutionists declare that it is the small,
restricted groups (plants, animals, and people) which have produced the
new species. But there is no evidence that new species have been
produced. The Lebzelter principle only discusses interbreeding within a
Yet the Lebzelter principle does have
application to conditions just after the Creation and again at the end
of the Flood . . In the time of Adam and Eve, and again as the eight
members of Noah’s family left the Ark, there was only a small group
and there would have been a decided tendency to produce a variety of
racial stocks. As the people scattered after the destruction of the
Tower of Babel, they would have settled in new areas (China, Africa,
India, etc.), thus producing many restricted groups, and these would
have stabilized into distinct races, to the extent that they remained
separate from other groups. But, in all of this, no NEW species were
produced! Evolution had not occurred, only sub-species (among humans,
Now for the "Hardy-Weinberg
principle": Two scientists worked out an algebraic equation that
states the Lebzelter principle. And that is all there is to it; no
evolutionary proof here at all.
DARWIN’S BEQUEST—It is well-known
that *Charles Darwin had little to say about the actual origin of the
species—the origin of life in a "primitive environment,"
but, instead, focused his entire work on an attempt to disprove fixed
species. Yet, with the passing of the years, he became so confused
regarding the species question that he was no longer certain how species
could possibly change into one another.
In his will, he gave a bequest to the
Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, England, which was trying to prepare the
Index Kewensis, a gigantic plant catalogue which would classify and fix
all known plant species.
"Some botanists have commented on
the irony that the great evolutionist—who convinced the world that
species are unfixed, changeable entities—should have funded an
immense, definitive species list as his final gift to
science."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 236.
Ironically, *Charles Darwin’s last act
was money given to help categorize the separate species.
CONCLUSION—Here is how one author ably
summarized the situation:
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye
of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of
a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in
arrangement of proton and electron—and then maintain that all this
design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind
accident—such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than
any in the Bible.
"To regard man, with his arts and
aspirations, his awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions
and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so grand as that of
God, to regard this creature as merely a form of life somewhat higher on
the evolutionary ladder than the others,—is to create questions more
profound than are answered."—David Raphael Klein, "Is There
a Substitute for God?" in Reader’s Digest, March 1970, p. 55.
POSTSCRIPT: SOON THEY WILL BE
GONE—Interestingly enough, although the evolutionary problem is that
the species are not changing, mankind’s problem today is that the
species are disappearing!
"They [plant and animal species]
are vanishing at an alarming rate. Normally, [evolutionists speculate]
existing species become extinct at approximately the same rate as new
species evolve, but since the year 1600 that equation has grown
"Informed estimates put the present
extinction rate at forty to four hundred times normal. One estimate says
that 25,000 species are in danger right now. Another says that one
million could disappear from South America alone in the next two
decades. If current trends continue, some twenty percent of the species
now on earth will be extinct by the year 2000. Current trends will
"This awesome rate of extinction is
apparently unprecedented in our planet’s history. Many experts say it
represents our most alarming ecological crisis."—*G. Jon Roush,
"On Saving Diversity, in Fremontia (California Native Plant
Society), January 1986.
"Twenty years ago, species were
being silenced at a rate of about one a day; now, despite the efforts of
the [Nature] Conservancy and many other groups like it, the rate is more
than one per hour. Within 30 years, mankind may have wiped out one fifth
of all the earth’s species!" —*"10,000 Species to
Disappear in 1991," U.S. News and World Report, January 7, 1991, p.
COULD NOT DO THIS
Because the quail builds her next and
sets on her eggs on the ground, so they must all hatch at the same time.
Not until the entire dozen or so are laid, does the mother quail begin
setting. Why does she wait until then? Who told her to do this? However,
all the eggs do not develop at the same rate. Yet all hatch out at the
same time. Scientists eventually discovered the cause. The faster ones
click in their shells to the slower ones, and that causes the slower
ones to speed their development! Everything in nature is a continual
CHAPTER 11 - STUDY AND
ANIMAL AND PLANT SPECIES
GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A
1 - Thoroughly memorize
the eight classification categories (kingdom, phylum, class). To
whatever extent you study or work in the natural sciences, they will
come in handy all your life,
2 - Discuss the several
definitions by which a true species can be identified.
3 - There are several
names for a true species: species, true species, Genesis kinds,
baramins, biological species. Which one or ones do you consider
4 - Evolutionists point
to microevolution as a proof that evolution occurs. Why is so-called microevolution
not evolution at all?
5 - Write a paper on
6 - Explain the
difference between "lumpers" and "splitters." Which
of the two do you think causes the most confusion for those who are
trying to identify the true species?
7 - Explain the
sentence: "There is not an evolutionary tree; there are only
8 - Explain why gene
depletion would make it impossible for evolution to occur. Include a
discussion of de Wit’s comments on it.
9 - Why is selective
breeding of no use as evidence in favor of evolution? Why is it,
instead, definite evidence against evolution?
10 - Why is there always
a limit as to how far out offspring can vary, from the genetic average,
for that species?
11 - Why is genetic
drift an inadequate evidence for evolution?
12 - What is the
position of the cladists? Why did they take it?
13 - Did the research
work of Gregor Mendel help the theories of the evolutionists or ruin
those theories? Why?
14 - Give two reasons why the mule
is not the beginning of a different species.
You have just completed
Chapter 11 Plant and Animal Species Part 1
12 Fossils and Strata