Encyclopedia Vol. 2
S P E C I E S E V O L U T I O N
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a
significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able
to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact,
the member of biologists who have expressed some degree of
disillusionment is practically endless." *Michael Denton,
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the
fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant
of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems
will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students.
Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and
all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the
contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to
re-evaluate our basic assumptions. " *Director of a large
graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge
(1982), p. 26.
"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.
Evolution is based on change from one species to
another. In chapters 13 and 14, Natural Selection and Mutations,
we have found that there is no mechanism by which it can occur,
and In chapter 17, Fossils, we will learn that there is no past evidence
of such change.
But since the distinct plant and animal types are
such a crux in the entire controversy, 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.
ORIGIN OF LIFE
CHAPTER 15 - SPECIES EVOLUTION
BASIC ARRANGEMENT OF THIS CHAPTER
Species have not and cannot change into different ones
1 - Classification systems
2 - Facts about species
3 - Disproving species evolution
1 - Origin of the species unknown
2 - The experts are puzzled
3 - Classifying plants and animals
4 - Micro and Macro
5 - Population genetics fails to prove evolution
5a - Lebzelter principle
5b - Hardy-Weinberg principle
6 - Cladists against evolution
7 - Millions of years for one species
8 - Our family tree
9 - The creature that fits no category
Chapter 13, Natural Selection
Chapter 14, Mutations
WHERE THE BATTLE ISThe battle over evolutionary
theory finds its center in the species. This is where *Charles Darwin
attempted to fight it, but without success: Why are there distinct
species? *Darwin's theorized "evolving" should only have
produced a confusion of life forms with no separate species. Why has
cross-species change never occurred? Why can we not find how it could
"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
Epuilibria (1985), p. 33.
The problem of species has become a major unsolved
problem of science.
"But 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.
"More biologists would free 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),
In his book, Darwin never touched on the origin of the species, and
the material he gave on the evolution of the species was totally
"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.
For additional information see the appendix topic, "1
Origin of the Species Unknown, " and " 2 The experts are
Puzzled" in the appendix.
1 - IDENTIFYING THE SPECIES
PLANT AND ANIMAL CLASSIPICATIONSThe science of classifying
plants and animals is called taxonomy.
"Classification or taxonomy is the theory and
practice of naming, describing, and classifying organisms. " *W.
Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (1977), p. 98.
All plants and animals have been placed by
taxonomists in logical categories, and then arranged on several major
levels, which are these:
It should be kept in mind that there is no such thing
as a phylum or a 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 which 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
species (with some genera included, which should be labeled as species)
which count, for they only have any real, living existence.
"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
Here is an example of how classification works. This
is the classification of the house cat:
"PHYLUM Chordateall animals possessing
at some time in their life cycle pharyngeal pouches, a notochord, and
a dorsal tubular nerve cord.
"SUB-PHYLUM Vertebrateall those animals
that possess vertebrae.
"CLASS Mammaliaall those animals that
have internally regulated body temperature, possess hair, and suckle
"ORDER CarnivoraAll those mammals
whose teeth are adapted to a predatory mode of life, but which are not
"FAMILY Felidaeall those Carnivore with
retractile claws, lengthy tail, and a certain tooth arrangement.
"GENUS Felisthe true cats.
"SPECIES domestics[the domesticated
cats]." Wayne Frair and Percival Davis, A Case for Creation
(1983), p. 37.
If you go to the zoo, you will see a sign on one
cage, "Giant Panda," with the words, "Ailuropoda
melanoleuca" just below it. The first line is the common name of
this large black-and-white bear from China; the second line is its
"scientific name." These two-part Latin names (called
binomials or binominals) are understood by scientists worldwide. 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 nominclature in
Darwin recognized that there was no evidence that any
species had evolved from any other species. His contention that the only
practical solution 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, theory.
"Darwin wrote a friend in 1861, 'the change of
species cannot be directly proved, and . . the doctrine must sink or
swim according as it groups and explains [disparate] phenomena.
It is really curious how few judge it in this way, which is clearly
the right way.' A few years later he wrote that he was 'weary of
trying to explain' the point; most people could not grasp it." *R.
Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 436 (italics and brackets
Little wonder few could understand it. They saw
that Darwin was basically trying to prove an assumption (that species
evolved from other species), with more assumptions.
For additional information see the appendix topic, " 3
Classifying the Plants and Animals, " in the appendix.
THE GENESIS KINDBack 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 classification systems.
Since the Hebrew words used in Genesis for
"create" and "kind" are bare 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.
Another important term is the "biological species."
BIOLOGICAL SPECIESThe term, "biological
species," is increasingly becoming accepted as a basic
reference point by scientists. Although there are instances in which
obvious subspecies do not cross breed, biological species would normally
apply to those species which do not cross-breed outside of their own
kind. Here are some definitions of such a true species:
"Groups of actually or potentially
interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated
from other such groups." *Ernst Mayr, "Speciation
Phenomena in Birds" in American Naturalist, 74: 249.
"Species are groups of interbreeding natural
populations that are reproductively isolated from other groups." *Ernst
Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (1989).
"The largest and most inclusive. .
reproductive community of sexual and cross-fertizing individuals which
share in a common gene pool." *Theodore Dobzhansky, "Mendelian
Populations and their Environment" in American Naturalist,
"The sum total of the races that interbreed
frequently or occasionally with one another, and that intergrade more
or less continuously in their phenotypic characters." *V.
Grant, The Origin of Adaptions (1983).
"A genetic species is a group of organisms so
constituted and so situated in nature that a hereditary character of
many one of these organisms may be transmitted to a descendent of any
other." *George G. Simpson, "Criteria 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 question for decades.
Here is his approach to trying to relocate the "Genesis kind:"
"Originally created kinds are distinguishable
today in two ways: (t ) by the closely similar morphological characters
of members of a basic kind, and (2) by true fertilization when eggs and
sperms are brought together. In every known instance where true
fertilization occurs, the mates are sufficiently similar in appearance
to indicate membership in the same basic kind." Frank L. Marsh,
Variation and Fixity in Nature (1978), p. 122.
MICRO- VS. MACROEVOLUTIONEvolutionists point
to changes within the species and call that "microevolution,"
and then proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes
prove that there 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. Transformations across the species barrier never occur. New
varieties end new breeds is not evolution; it is only variation within
the already existing species.
For additional information see the topic, "4 - Micro and
Macro," in the appendix.
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
JOHN RAYJohn 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 Creator's
CARL LINNAEUSCarl 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, Systems
Naturae in 1735.
As was usual among scientists of his day, he used
Latin descriptive names to identify each class and order, which were
then subdivided into genera, and finally into species. As a result of
his lifework of investigations into the entire field, 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 categoriesnow 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 form 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 classificationsaw in all their
findings only evidence of creation, not evolution.
"Eventually, he [Linneaus] devised scientific names for the
roughly 4,200 species of animals and 7,700 plants then known.
Botanical names published before 1763 have no standing unless they
were adopted by Linnaeus in his Species Plantarum (1752) or Genera
Plantarium (5th edition, 1754). His System of Animate Nature
(1735) has gradually been expanded, until today it includes 350,000
plants and more than a million animals." *R. Milner,
Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 278.
RAY AND LINNAEUSAlthough the English
naturalist Ray (1686) and the Swedish taxonomist Linnaeus (1738) were
the first biologists to recognize the reproductive gap (the inability to
cross) as the basic mechanism in nature which separates the true
species, Linnaeus was the one to develop our modern system of
classification. Unfortunately, he frequently listed as separate species,
life forms which 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 which 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 sub-species categories.
THE TREE OF LIFE
Reproduced below is a page from an old biology
textbook. Notice the misleading wording: There is "constant
progressive departure from ancestral types" and, "of course,
only the main branches are shown."
The textbook illustration only shows the twigs,
because that is all there is!
This diagram is intended to suggest the origin of various animal
forms, with the constant progressive departure from ancestral typo, now
in one direction and now in another, like the branching of a tree. Of
course only the main branches are shown.
LUMPERS AND SPLITTERSThere has been a perennial
problem in regard to the "Jumpers" and "splitters".
There is a tendency for the taxonomiststhe experts who classify
plants and animalsto fall into one or the other of these two
The Jumpers place species together which should be
divided into sub-species. The splitters tend to put true species into
"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 produce new species! This would appear to prove evolutionary
claims, and indicate species cross-over as taken placewhen, actually,
two members of the same sub-species interbred.
An example of such a splitter would be the
taxonomist, *Walker, who lists seven species of cattleall of which
are in the same species. 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
cross-breed with several others.
FAMILY TREEEveryone 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?
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! In the
plant kingdom, the Compositae is merely a waste-basket 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!
In chapter 21, Similarities, you will find a number
of similarities never discussed by the classification experts. If used,
they would produce totally different "tree" relationships. Two
such examples would be aortic arch groupings and chromosome count
Evolutionists have tried to shoehorn species into
various "families" of related species. But there are many
creatures which have such unusual shapes, organs, or functionsthat
they fit into no particular pattern. The only reason the
classification systems work as well as they do is because only a few
surface distinguishing characteristics are used in the classification
For additional information see the topics, a
"8 - Our
Family Tree, " and "9 - The Creature that Fits a no
Category," in the appendix.
2 - FACTS ABOUT SPECIES
INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT SPECIESHere are some
facts about species and subspecies that will help you understand some of
the problems inherent in this Interesting field of plant and animal
1 - Chickadees.
The Carolina Chickadee (Parus
carolinus) and the black-capped Chickadee (parus atrlcapillus) 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 (Trltlcum
aestlvum 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
3 - Ladybugs. The ladybird beetle (Coccinellidae)
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 (Passerella melodia).
5 - Horses.
The horse (Equus caballus L) and
the zebra (E. zebra L.) were both classified by Linnaeus as
different species, yet they are only varieties of the horse kind, and
are generally cross-fertile.
6 - 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
7 - Cattle. There are several different
subspecies of cattle (Bos taurus L.). Although the
American bison (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 Gaffer) also interbreeds with
themyet the bison and cattle have been placed in totally different
8 - 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.
9 - Finches.
In the chapter on Natural
Selection and History of Evolutionary Theory, 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
subspecies of finches which originally came from South America, yet
Darwin called them different speciesand therefore a proof of
evolution. Those finches made a strong impression on his mind.
INCREASING SUBSPECIESMany different sub-species
exist for some life forms, 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 which 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, cabbage).
It was indeed strange that sub-species got *Darwin
off on the wrong track.
"We recognize the great powers of observation possessed by
Darwin, but we are amazed
that he did not observe the limits of variation. Variation, he
should have recognized, can produce
new varieties only within kinds already in existencea situation
which could never produce evolution. While tracing migration paths of
plants and animals [from South America to the
Galapagos], Darwin never grasped the fact that he was able to trace
those routes because the migrants were still bona fide members of the
same basic kinds to which their ancestors belong." Frank L
Marsh, Variation and Fixity in Nature (1976), p. 19 [italics his].
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 breed and apparently have young. In
some cases these are true species, and should have been classified as
such. But there are also instances in which breeding did NOT
occuralthough it appeared to take place! In true fertilization, the
male and female elements unite and produce young. But there are times
when non-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 great apes.
"There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between man
and any other mammal." *Edward Colin, Elements of Genetics
That which evolutionists call "microevolution,"
is nothing more than breeding within species and producing varieties
(subspecies); it is not evolution. Men have bred certain domesticated
animals for thousands of years, but all they have produced is variations
of those animalsnothing else. For example, a cow may 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. But they are all merely varieties of cattle.
Producing new breeds in animals is not evolution; producing new
varieties in plants is not evolution.
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 GENETICSIt 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 theory.
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 10, 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 ANCESTERSEvolutionists 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:
"What then are we to make of the
monotremes which are egg-layers, have no teeth and have a different
excretory system than the placentals? Or the marsupials which give
birth in the embryonic stage? Evolutionists interpret these
things as being evidence that the monotremes and marsupials are
'primitive' in comparison with placental mammals and exhibit signs of
reptilian ancestry (i.e., the egg-laying of the monotremes).
"But is this true? Of the earliest
(Cretaceous) fossil marsupial, the opossum, Michael Denton writes: 'It
was already at the [rock strata] level of living, primitive
mammals such as the insectivores or the Virginia opossum.' The
Australian zoologist, T.J. Dawson, wrote that the currently
held theory that monotremes and marsupials represent the earliest
stages of evolution and being on the way towards placentals, is
simplistic and now known to be misleading. He further wrote that
marsupials are not inferior to placentals . . [Monotremes and
marsupials] are not primitive and they hold their own in competition
with placentals in every respectdefense and attack, temperature
control, intelligence, adaptability, etc." *A. W. Mehlert,
"A Critique of the Alleged Reptile to Mammal Transition" in
Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1988, p. 10. [Italics his.]
MANY VARIATIONS POSSIBLEYes, variations are limited
by the species barrierbut how many potential variations are possible
within a given species? This is an important question.
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 2,017 zeroes. The number of atoms in
the known universe is only 108. 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 LIMITThen there is artificial selection. We
discussed this at length in chapter 13, Natural Selection, and
found it to be highly selective plant and animal breeding. In regard to
any given single factor, selective breeding may 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 crossover to a new species. The
genetic makeup within the chromosomes forms a barrier; a literal wall of
separation between one species and another. (For several scientific
quotations regarding this, see the selective breeding quotation
section at the back of chapter 13, Natural Selection.)
"What artificial selection and breeding
actually accomplishes is to rapidly establish the limit beyond which
no further change is possible. We wish to cite just two examples. In
1800, experiments were begun in France to increase the sugar content
of table beets, which at that time amounted to 6 percent. By 1878, the
sugar content had been increased to 17 percent. Further selection
failed to increase the sugar content above that figure.
"One worker tried to reduce the number of
bristles on the thorax of fruit flies by artificial selection and
breeding. In each generation, the average number of bristles became
fewer until the twentieth generation. After that, the average remained
the same, although he selected as before. Selection was no longer
effective; the limit had been reached.
"Similar experimental approaches have been
used to develop chickens that lay more eggs, cows that give more milk,
and corn with increased protein content. In each case limits were
reached beyond which further change has not been possible.
Furthermore, the breeders ended up with the same species of chickens,
cows, and corn with which they began. No real change had taken
place." Duane Gish, Evolution: Challenge of the
Fossil Record (1985), pp. 33-34.
LIMITS OF VARIABILITYThis IS a crucial factor. All
evolutionary theory pivots on whether or not there are such limits. 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
"pureline research" into limits of variability:
"Alfred Russet 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
"Johannsen'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
selectionby breeding from 'lower than maximum' producers."
*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p.
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 FITNESSSo then, a limiting wall will always
be reached, but 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, a 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." *D.S. Falconer, Introduction to Quantitative
Genetics (1960), p. 188.
GENE DEPLETIONThe scientific name for this loss of
fitness through adaptation is gene depletion. According to this
principle, selective breeding always weakens a speciesand 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 14, Mutations, we deal with
the generic load, that is 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 always 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 (genetic load).
The total picture is not one of evolving upward,
strengthening, improving, or changing into new and diverse species.
EVOLUTION WOULD WEAKEN AND NARROWIt is an astounding
fact that evolutionary theory, if true, could only produce ever weaker
creatures with continually narrowed adaptive traits. Consider this:
"A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit,
clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the
appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up
with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this
scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether
man could have evolved from ape-like animals,'.. the transformist
concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.' The
reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the
whole process of evolution from animal to man " ' . . would have
to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . .
man )should possess] a smaller gene-potential than his animal
ancestors! [I] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in
which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles
itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence,
it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved 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.]
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 descendent came from protozoa. All
that follows In the evolutionary ladder would have to have considerably
less genetic potential than protozoa!
How can evolutionary theory survive such facts!
Evolution ranks as one of the most foolish ideas of our time, yet it has
a lock-grip on all scientific thought and research. The theory twists
and warps all conclusions in an effort to vindicate itself. Just imagine
how much farther along the path of research and discovery we would have
been if, a hundred years ago, we had throttled evolutionary theory to
SELECTIVE BREEDINGSelective breeding occurs when
people thoughtfully select out the best rose, ear of corn, or milk cow,
and then through careful breeding, 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
(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 activity.
(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, and
although it may 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 organism.
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.
POPULATION GENETICSA 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 a species, 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 sub-species.
For additional information see the appendix topic, "5 -
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; only
changes across a species constitutes genuine 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 [population genetics] theory explains
nothing because it explains everything. It is my contention that a
good deal of the structure of evolutionary genetics comes perilously
close to being of this sort.
" . . The mother-lode [of information about
human races] has been tapped and facts in profusion have been poured
into the hoppers of this theory machine. And from the other end has
issuednothing. It is not that the machinery does not work, for a
great clashing of gears [research reports and evolutionary
conclusions] is clearly audible, if not deafening, but it somehow
cannot transform into a finished product the great volume of raw
material that has been provided. The entire relationship between the
theory and the facts needs to be reconsidered." *Op. cit.,
"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 Saifisnd, *N. Macbeth, "Population
Genetics and Evolutionary Theory" in Tuatara 26 (1983), pp.
A chapter closely related to population genetics is
the one dealing with Geographic Distribution (chapter 27). You will
also want to study the material on species chromosome counts, to be
found in chapter 21 (Similarities). It will provide you with another
clear disproof of evolutionary theory.
PIGEONS AND FINCHES
The common pigeon occurs in a remarkable number of varieties. Yet
they are all pigeons, and every biologist acknowledges them as such.
They are all members of the same species.
Yet Darwin's finches, which vary but little, are said by some
taxonomists to represent 14 different species!
GENETIC DRIFT"Genetic 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 subspecies
that have become separated from the rest of their species. Oddities in
their DNA code factors became more prominent, yet there was no change in
"Genetic drift was discovered by the American
geneticist Sewall Wright, who studied the mathematics of population
genetics. The gene podthat is, the total gene contribution of a
particular population to its offspringis greatly influenced by the
size of the population. In very small populations, such as those
isolated from their parent group, chance plays relatively a much
greater role in producing genetic change, sometimes leading to
non-adaptive changes. Although the reality of genetic drift has been
confirmed in laboratory experiments, its role in evolution is still
not clear. It may be of some importance in small populations that
later increase in size and may account for some of the puzzling,
persistent non-adaptive or neutral changes observed in diversified
wild populations." "Frank Rhodes, Evolution (1974),
You can see from the above statement that all that
"genetic drift" refers to is changes in a
"subspecies" 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. This is due to the fact that all the drift has been found to be
within species and never across them. The DNA species barrier forbids
such traps-species changes.
THE MALE/FEMALE REQUIREMENTInherent 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 traps-species would mean producing
not one new creature but two! Only recently was the extent of this
problem fully realized.
"Perhaps you have even heard the flippant evolutionary claim
that all it takes is two sets of human genes to make a human being.
But in 1984, researchers working with mice tried to fertilize mouse
eggs with equal sets of mouse genes from other females. They learned
what Scripture has said all alongthere's more to it than simple
chemical mechanics. For their trouble they got no mice. Scientists
have learned that there are very real differences between identical
chemical structures produced by males and females. They have also
discovered one of the purposes this difference serves; 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.." P.A. Bartz, Letting God Create Your Day, Vol. 2,
No.1 (1990), p. 17.
There are well over three dozen different, distinct subspecies of
dogs in the world. Yet they are universally acknowledged by scientists
to be but members of the one dog species.
ALTERNATE ORIGINS OF THE SPECIESBecause
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 had concluded that, since there was no
evidence now or earlier of any crossovers between speciesall of the
major groups of plants and animals must have independently originated
out of dirt and sea water!
"From all the tangible evidence that we now
have bean able to discover, we are faced 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.
But *Clark went further in his analysis. Ignoring the
fossil evidence indicting no transitional forms but only gaps between
species, he said that separate evolutions and origins had to have
occurredfor there were simply too many differences between the
various life forms. They could not possibly have evolved from each
*Clark's book shook up the scientific world. The
evolutionists tried to quiet matters, but about a decade later, '
Richard Goldschmidt published a different alternative view: gigantic
million-fold mutations must have occurred all at once, that suddenly
change 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 14, Mutations.)
THE CLADISTSWhat about the experts in classifying
plants and animals; what do they think about all this controversy over
species and ancestral relationships?
Scientists who specialize in categorizing life forms
are called taxonomists. A surprising number of them have joined the
ranks of the cladists.
Cladist comes from a Greek noun for
"branch." Cladists are scientists who study biological
classifications solely for its own sakefor 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
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 "anteater" and "descendent" mold. They
are true scientists; concerned with reality, not imaginings.
"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
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out
by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian
biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the
deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory
and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree.
But it seems to me that the theoretical framework 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 bade the progress of science." *Colin Patterson, The
Listener. [Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural
For additional information see the appendix topic,
"8 - Cladists Against Evolution."
THE SPECIES ARE NOT CHANCINGIf one species
cannot change into another, there can be no evolution.
But this should not be surprising, for 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. Those gaps are no surprise to us,
but they are agonizing for the evolutionists. In chapter 17, Fossils, 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. [Patterson is senior paleontologist at the British
Museum of Natural History.]
"Most species exhibit no directional change
during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking
much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually
limited and directionless." *Stephen Jay Gould,
"Evolution's Erratic Pace," in Natural History, April 1980,
"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 the
"Evolution is . . troubled from within by the
troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new
questions about the central mysteryspeciation 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 "micro-evolution," which is not evolution),
never changes across species ("macro-evolution," which is
"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 microevolution only!" Frank L. Marsh, "The
Form and Structure of Living Things," in Creation Research
Society Quarterly, June 1969, p. 21 (italics his).
The speciation problem is a gap problem. There are no
transitional species, as there ought to be if evolution was true. In
fact, there should not be any distinct species at all. (If evolution was
correct; there would only be innumerable transitions)
But, in great contrast, we find that 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 which would be in the fossil strata for
posterity to examine!
"Established species are evolving so slowly
that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be
occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave no
legible fossil record." *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
"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.
How can there be millions of species, when the
evolutionists tell us it takes a million years just to make one species?
At that rate, in a billion years only a thousand could have been made!
For additional information see the appendix topic, "7-
Millions of Years for One Species."
SUB-SPECIES CONTINUE TO BE PRODUCEDEvolutionists
require long ages for each species to be produced. For example, Zeuner
explains that the quickest pace that evolution can turn out new species
is only one in every a 500,000 years.
"There appears to be a fastest rate of
evolution of species under natural conditions, namely about 500,000
years per species-step." *F.E. Zeuner, Dating the Past
But evidence for new species does not exist. Although new species
have not been made before and are not being made now, sub-species are
continually being produced. This is done primarily by gene reshuffling.
And this making of new sub-species occurs with surprising rapidity. When
isolated for several years, they sometimes no longer breed across
sub-speciesyet 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 4,000 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 wind 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 subspecies. R. E. Moreau had
concluded in 1930 that the minimum time required [by evolution] for a
bird to achieve that [sub-species] step was 5,000 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 Adaptation (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 10,7382 (1965)]." A.J. Jones,
"Genetic Integrity of the `Kinds' (Baramins), " in Creation
Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 17.
The above facts explain why there are such an abundance of so-called
"species" in the world today. In reality, large percentage of
them are just sub-species.
HORSES, DONKEYS, AND MULES
The horse is a distinct species and the donkey is a
distinct species. A stallion horse bred with a female donkey will
produce a hinney, which is small and not too strong. A male donkey mated
with a mare horse will produce a mule, which is larger, stronger, and
has more endurance than the donkey, but retains its sure-footedness and
braying voice. From its mother, it inherits a large, well-shaped body
and strong muscles, as well as a horse's ease in getting used to
harness. From the donkey it also receives the quality of saving its
strength when it has to work hard and for a long time. Mules also resist
disease well. Properly cared for, mules can do as much work as horses,
but under harder conditions.
Mules are half-way between two species, so are
sterile. Rarely does a female mule give birth, but when that happens it
is because the mule was bred to a male horse or donkey. In such cases,
the offspring will be three-fourths horse or donkey; it will not be a
"According to the late Theodosius Dobzhansky,
on our planet we have 1,071,500 species of
animals, 368,715 species of plants, and 3,230
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,
"Generic Variation, Limitless or Limited?" in Creation
Research Society Quarterly, March 1983, p. 204.
There is far too much jumbling of sub-species with
species by the taxonomists. The word "species" is frequently
used by scientists in a loose sense to include a multitude of
"As for small animalsinsects, worms, and so
onnew varieties are discovered every day. A conservative estimate
would have it that there are 10 million species of living things
existing in the world today. If it is true that some nine-tenths of
all the species that have ever lived are now extinct than 100 million
species of living things have been found on Earth at some time or
other." *Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science
(1984), p. 762.
In contrast, we have the fact that the subspecies are
simply that and no more. All the Australian rabbits brought from Europe
are only variations of the European rabbit. Both naturalists and
paleontologists agree that the basic life formsthe true speciesdo
"Species do not originate. All they do is
remain in existence or become extinct." *G.H. Harper,
"Alternatives to Evolution," in Creation Research Society
Pages of quotations from evolutionary scientists will
be found in the back of chapter 17, Fossils and Strata, attesting
to the truth that there are only gaps between the species in the fossil
THERE SHOULD BE NO SPECIESAs mentioned earlier, there
ought to be no species at all Categories of plants and animals can be
arranged in orderly systems only because of the separateness of the
species. But if evolutionary theory was correct, there could be no
distinct species. Instead, there would only be a confused blur of
transitional forms, each one different than the others.
"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 could writes that biologists have been quite
successful in dividing up the living works into distinct and discrete
species. Furthermore, our modern, scientific classifications often agree
in minute detail with the 'folk classifications' of so-called primitive
peoples, and the same criteria apply as well to fossils. In other words,
says Gould, there is a recognizable reality and distinct boundaries
between types at all times and all places . .
" 'But,' says could, '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.
A leading evolutionist cannot understand why there are any species at
"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.
On one hand there is immense complexity within each
species, but an 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), pp.
*Taylor then goes on to cite two great species
problems: (1) If evolutionary theory be true, then why do separate
species exist at all? (2) Why are living species identical to those
alive "millions of years ago"? Here is his comment on the
first of these:
"First, 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, Grew Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 141.
But *Taylor's second problem is merely an extension
of the first: (1) Why are there distinct species today? (2) Why do these
distinct species extend all the way back as far as we can trace into the
"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 Behaviour 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
form over millions of years? This seems to me the problem [in
evolution] nowthe problem of constancy, rather than that of
'change.' " *G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983),
SPECIES NOT CHANGINGSo we have this third problem: If
evolution is constantly producing species, why are the species not
"Despite this, 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. And this
constancy is seen at higher levels too: birds vary widely in size,
shape, colouring, song and habits but are still substantially similar
to the birds of the early Tertiary.
"According to Professor W.H. Thorpe, Director
of the Sub-department of Animal Behaviour at Cambridge and a works
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 form 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),
SUB-SPECIES RUNNING WILDThere is abundant evidence that
additional sub-species are rapidly being produced. Hundreds of
subspecies of cichlids have been identified in certain African lakes.
The gene pool of the one cichlid species was large enough to allow for
these many sub-species variations. (*Taylor, below, refers to them as
"species," but they are really subspecies.)
"If you would really like to see the
speciation process running mad, I suggest you visit the great lakes of
AfricaLake Malawi, Lake Tanganyika and Lake Victoria in the African
Rift Valley. Each of the first two is some 350 miles long, a
broadening of the upper Nile; the last is almost rectangular and
nearly 200 miles from north to south, the world's third largest lake.
Each of these lakes contains more species of fish than any other lake
in the world and almost all of them belong to the family Cichlidae.
There are believed to be 126 species of cichlid in Lake Tanganyika,
and more than 200 in Lake Malawi, no species being common to both
lakes. They are bony, perch-like fishes, up to three feet in length,
with only one nostril and in some cases a bulging forehead.
"All these species vary widely in the
structure of their jaws and teeth, and are noticeably different from
cichlids elsewhere in this respect. One species, for instance, has
closely set teeth that form a scraper. Others have rows of fine,
movable teeth which comb large algae from the rocks. They avoid
competition by specialised feeding, living on algae, invertebrates,
plankton, fishes and molluscs, and even leaves. The teeth are
specialised for each of these foods. Some have evolved extraordinary
feeding habits . .
"Among their unusual characteristics is the
habit of carrying their egg, and subsequently the young, in their
mouthnot just one or two but sometimes forty a more. Both sexes
show this behaviour and the father often collects straying young in
his mouth and conveys them back to the mother, whereupon he spits them
out again." *G.R. Taylor Great Evolution Mystery (1983),
THE REPRODUCTION PROBLEM Evolutionary theory does not
need sexual reproduction, yet we have it. How could two of each
species-independent of each otherevolve? 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 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.
"Sex is something of an embarrassment to
evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue,
keeping it a closely guarded secret." *Kathleen McAuliffe,
"Why We Have Sex, " Omni, December 1983, p. 18.
"Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the
fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today." *Gins
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. However, evolutionary theorists
believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main
Darwinian insights." *Philip Kitchen Abusing Science: The
Case Against Creationism (1982), p. 54.
DARWIN'S BEQUESTIt is well-known that *Charles
Darwin had little to say about the actual origin of the
speciesthe 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 entitiesshould 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.
CONCLUSIONHere is how one author ably summarized the
"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 accidentsuch a per son 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.
For additional information see the appendix topics, "5A The
Lebzelter Principle, " and "5B The Hardy-Weinberg
POSTSCRIPT: SOON THEY WILL BE GONEInterestingly enough,
although the evolutionary problem is that the species are not changing,
mankind's problem 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 ap proximately the same rate as new species evolve, but
since the year 1600 that equation has grown increasingly lopsided.
"Informed estimates put the present extinction
rate at forty to tour hundred times normal. One estimate says that
25,000 Species are in danger right now. Another says that one million
could disappear form 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 probably
"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 speciesl"""10,000 Species to Disappear in
1991," *U.S. News and World Report, January 7, 1991, p. 68.
"Within the past 40 years, rain forests in
Brazil, Indonesia, Central America and Hawaii have shrunk from 5 million
to 3.5 million square miles. More than 25,000 square miles are lost each
year. If these forests disappear, as they will if destruction goes
unchecked, thousands of species of plants and animals will disappear
forever before they have even been discovered, named or studied." *R.
Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 383.
"As the human population shoots up to 10 billion
during the next century, the fate of thousands of species is sealed.
Since man has appeared on Earth, we have increased the rate of
extinction of other species by 1,000 percent." *Op. cit., p.
You have just completed
P E C I E S E V O L U T I O N