Can species change? To what degree can they change? This Is something of a perplex­ing topic. It is puzzling to Me evolutionists and, to some extent, to the creationists also. Throughout this sat of books many questions have been discussed and the answer have shown that Creation is the only valid explana­tion of the wonders In the sky above and In the world around us. But there is a question re­maining which It would be well to address.

 In regard to species, it is clear that (1) the DNA code controls hereditary traits, and (2) because of that code, it would be impossible for one spe­cies to change into another one. Sub‑species var­iations can and do occur, but the result is never more than a modification of the same basic spe­cies.

In addition, it is thought that traits passed on from one generation to another are thought to oc­cur only because of random hereditary gene shuf­fling, in no way related to environmental effects during the life of the individual.

Yet certain puzzles remain. The present writer would like to suggest what may be a new con­cept, yet which may provided needed solutions. Because this present section is speculatory, it has been thought best to place it at the back of the book, instead of at the end of chapter 15 (Spe­cies Evolution).

Three primary explanations have been put forth for subspecies variations:

(1) The DNA coding for a given species has lim­itations which cannot be exceeded. Yet within that encircling barrier, variations can occur. These al­ways occur randomly, without any input from the environment. The result is all the sub‑species var­iations observed everywhere on earth. The first view (DNA) speaks of variations which cannot go beyond an outer code barrier. R also assumes that DNA operates solely by random operation and only through heredity. Environment has no effect on the code arrangements produced.

(2) Environmental effects on the organism pro­duce all hereditary change. There are no limita­tions as to what these changes may be. This view is known as Lamarckism. h was popularized by 'Jean de Lamarck (1744‑1829) over a century before the DNA code was discovered. Character­istics acquired or developed during a creature's lifetime can be passed on to its descendants. Lamarckism teaches that hereditary changes are caused specifically and probably solely by envi­ronmental factors.

 There are a number of flaws in this theory. Two special ones are the limitations of the DNA code, and the fact that no traps‑species changes have ever been known to occur.

(3) 'Alfred Russel Wallace and 'Charles Dar­win suggested that random changes occur in the organism, which they called "natural selection." These changes were said to have produced every type of organ and species in the works.

In a later edition of his Origin of the Species, Darwin forsook natural selection and changed over to Lamarckism. It had become obvious to him that random changes would produce too many negative results, and so few positive results that both organs and species would rather quickly be destroyed rather than improved, if left to the tender mercies of random variations. This total re­liance on chance actions (by so‑called "natural selection"), as the sole means of evolution, later came to be known as "Darwinism. " Yet Darwin himself eventually abandoned the theory.

  (4) Many later evolutionists likewise abandoned Darwinism and theorized that random mutations‑rare and harmful though they may be‑must have caused the changes, with only small modifications effected by natural selection.

This mutation (neo‑Darwinist) view imagines that it is rare, destructive mutations which have produced all the astounding marvels we find in living species. (Saltation, or monster mutation theory, is only a more impossible variation of the basic mutation idea.)

Earlier chapters detailed reasons why the Lamarckism, natural selection, and mutation theories of evolution could not be correct. The errors in Lamarckism are discussed in chapters 13 and 29. The error of natural selection is covered in chapter 13. The errors basic to mutation theory are dealt with in chapter 14, and the hopeful monster the­ory in chapters 14 and 29.

But there are problems with the first view also. Consider the following:

(1) It is very correct that, as with every code in the world, the DNA code has limits. it only reaches out so far and can therefore include only so many possibilities of change. All of those possibilities would be included within a single "kind" or true species, and its modified subspecies. Because of this, aces‑species changes cannot occur. Each species code is so utterly complicated‑and so differentiated from the others‑that there is no way that one code could change itself into an­other one. And there is no way that any earthly intelligence could do it, much less chance. Ev­olution could never occur.

(2) But there are factors about those modified sub‑species which do not fit the other half of the definition: "DNA operates solely by random op­eration and only through heredity. Environment has no effect on the code arrangements pro­duced."

A classic example would be skin tone. The equation goes something like this: The closer peo­ple live to the equator + the longer they live there = the darker their skin color.

(1) That is an environmental effect, not a here­ditary one. (2) That is a specifically-caused effect, not a random one.

The problem is as simple as that. There is no need of accusing someone‑including the present writer‑of being a "Lamarckian;" what is needed is to solve the problem, wherever it may lead us.

Yet, after much, much thought, the present writer has developed a concept which appears to nicely answer to the needs of the problem. You may accept it or reject it; it matters not. At least a possible solution is available for those who are interested.

This view violates neither the facts of DNA as we know them, nor the species barrier. As long as that barrier cannot be crossed, evolution can­not occur; only sub-species changes.

Lamarckism itself is definitely in error, for two special reasons: (1) It teaches that in‑species changes can result from any kind of environ­mental cause, and produce any kind of hereditary effect, (2) as well as cross‑species change.

There are thousands of men who would wish their heads into growing hair if they could do so, but it cannot be done. There are those who have lost limbs who would like to grow them back. Con­versely, the descendants of those who have lost limbs will not have theirs missing. Many other ex­amples could be cited. Lamarckism is in error.

  It is impossible to "will" new organs to grow, or push one's thinking so hard that existing or­gans will decidedly change‑and then bequeath those changes to one's offspring. Lamarck's clas­sic example was his suggestion that giraffes grew long necks because they kept trying to reach up higher into the trees. Yet scientists today know that such a changeover would be impossible. Far more than a longer neck would be involved. Mas­sive changes in the heart, blood vessels, as well as very specialized organs would be required. Gi­raffes have highly technical blood pumping equip­ment and circulatory shutoff and by‑pass valves, which enable them to raise their heads 19 feet in the air to feed, and then lower them to the ground to drink water.

But why then do people living in the hottest, sunniest places of the earth have the darkest skin? Obviously, they are the ones who needed extra sun-screen, and, because of their location, their environment-their skin color gradually, over the centuries changed to a darker tone. The ex­perts tell us that, since the United States is hot­ter and sunnier than Europe, that within a few centuries the skin color of Caucasian Americans would uniformly be darker.

We know that Lamarckism is in error because it teaches that virtually any kind of environmental effect will produce hereditary changes, and, ul­timately, cross-species changes.

So, although we know that Lamarckism is an incorrect theory, yet there definitely are instan­ces in which creatures make sub‑species changes because of interaction with their environ­ment. Let us consider some examples.  

The now-deceased Gordon R. Taylor spent a lifetime trying to figure out this very problem. In his book, Great Evolution Mystery, this confirmed evolutionist discussed several examples of environment‑producing changes which were passed on via heredity to forthcoming genera­tions.

  Gordon Taylor discusses several of these changes. As an evolutionist, he is hoping that they may point the way toward means by which ev­olution could occur. But you will notice that, in each instance, only sub‑species changes occur­red.

'Taylor himself admits that, in spite of many un­usual sub‑species modifications, there is no ev­idence that one species has ever changed into another.

  "In the seventeenth century the British naturalist John Ray said that no species ever gave birth to another spaces, meaning that rabbits do not give birth to hares, nor owls to pigeons. That observation remains true. "‑'G. R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983). p. 79.

  "In all the thousands of fly-breading experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge."-'Op cit., p 34.

  But he notes that some very unusual in-species changes have also occurred: By switching altitudes, salamanders change the number of offspring and where they are produced.

  "In the early part of this century a young Vien­nese investigator, Paul Kammerer, was conduct­ing painstaking experiments with salamanders which seemed to some to show conclusively the existence of Lamardcian inheritance [environ­ment controls inheritance]. This was ironical, since Kammerer was a Mendelian [genetics con­trols inheritance]. Kammerer used two contra­sting animals in his first series of experiments: a black Alpine salamander which bears two off­spring at a time and does so on land, and a spot­ted salamander which produces from ten to fifty larval offspring at a time and these in water. Kam­merer brought up spotted salamanders in an Al­pine environment and black ones in a lowland situation. They switched roles, the Alpine one producing numerous larvae and the spotted one two live offspring. What was more astonishing, this pattern persisted in subsequent generations."‑'Op. cit., pp. 42‑43.

  Then *Kammerer used type of soil as the en­vironmental factor:

  "For the next eleven years Kammerer conti­nued his experiments, bringing up black and yel­low salamanders on yellow and black soil. You can guess what happened: the black ones be­came yellow, when on yellow soil; the yellow ones black. And this too persisted. His findings hav­ing been confirmed by another worker, Kam­merer received the prestigious Summering prize."‑'Op. cit., p. 43.

  But then ' Kammerer began working with Pro­teus, and discovered that in some environments it developed eyes, while in others it did null En­vironment can produce eyes!

  "These were not the only startling observa­tions bearing on inheritance made by Kammerer. He turned to the blind newt, Proteus. If Proteus is brought up in the light, it remains blind. But Kammerer tried raising them in red light, where­upon they developed eyes, showing shat the here­ditary infatuation for creating eyes had not been lost, only suppressed."‑ 'tap. cit., p. 43.

  That small newt probably had eyes at any ear­lier time, but then, under the environmental stress of continual darkness, the eyes disappeared. Yet they were still in the DNA code. When the envi­ronment changed back‑the eyes reappeared..

  *Schroeder partially changed the setting in which willow moth caterpillars prepared for pu­pation. The caterpillars adapted to this environ­mental change‑and some immediately passed the new trait on to the very next generations

  "Filly years ago, for instance, one Harry Schroeder conducted an intriguing experiment with the wilfovwrnorth caterpillar. This caterpillar places itself on a leaf and rolls the leaf round it­self before pupating, fastening it down with a web. Normally, it starts by drawing the tip of the leaf over itself, but Schroeder, with fiendish cun­ning, systematically cut off the tips of all the leaves on which caterpillars had taken up posi­tion. Sensibly enough, they responded by draw­ing the side of the WO over instead. When these caterpillars had produced another generation, Schroeder found that, of nineteen offspring. four drew the side of the leaf over, not the tip, when their time to pupate came around. It may be said that this was inheritance of an acquired behav­iour, not a structure."‑'Op. cit., p. 48‑49.

  'Taylor also wonders why creatures are born with what they will not need until later in life.

  ..Very conveniently the ostrich is born with calluses on its rump, breast and pubis, just where it will later press upon the ground where it sits. These callosities are well defined in the un­hatched Chick."‑'Op, cit., p. 3T.

  The environmentally‑caused factor of calluses passed on to future generations through the DNA code. It is likely that provision for the calluses were keyed into the code from the beginning. It is also possible that the calluses were actively present at birth in the very first generation when ostriches were first created.  

*Taylor was searching for answers. According to ' Darwin's theory, a creature developed fea­tures it needed for survival, yet Taylor expresses his dissatisfaction. He questions how that could be true since species can have so many varied features and yet all survive very nicely. For ex­ample, some sheep have home, some do not, yet all do equally well; some grazers are short‑necked and others are long‑necked; yet all obtain enough food.

In addition, Taylor asks why should character­istics continue in creatures which are not seem­ingly needed?

  "Again, within one square metre of ground a score of species of snail may be found. What ad­vantage can any one of them have? Persistence of unneeded characters is hard b explain. Op. cit., p. 181.

  Why do some armadillos have a fur coat while others do not? How can this be explained by ev­olutionary theory?

  "Another puzzling aspect of the question is why some creatures make an adaptation which seams, on the face d it, helpful, while other mern­bers of the genus nwnape perfectly well without it. For instance. one spades of Peruvian wma diuo, which lives high up, has evolved a fur coat, but other species living equally high have not. So where was the advantage?"‑ 'Qp. cit., p. 180.

  Evolutionists declare that jawless fishes were not very capable, so they changed into jawed fishes. But *Taylor wonders how that idea can be true since the jawless fishes have a survival rate equal to that of the jawed fishes:

  "Why, then, do we still find lampreys, which are jawless fishes, doing very well today? If pos­sessing jaws was such a wonderful advantage, why did not the jawless fishes realise how back­ward they were and succumb?

"These primitive vertebrates take us back to 500 million years ago; but a still more extraor­dinary example of failure to evolve is found in the bacteria. Since they reproduce themselves, in fa­vourable conditions, every twenty minutes, they might be expected b evolve faster than other organisrns‑but fossil bacteria going back three and a half billion years, to the threshhold of life itself, have been recovered and are virtually iden­tical with modern forms.

"There are really two problems here. First, why did some species fail to give rise to superior forms? Second, why, when they did give rise to superior forms, did not the inferior fame die out, worsted in the evolutionary straggle?"‑'Op. at, pp. 227.

  But, back again to our main point, 'Taylor notes another acquired characteristic that was passed on to descendants, although, again, the species itself did not change.

"Frederick Griffiths placed rats on slowly re­volving turn tables for periods of up to one and a half years. When the wretched animals were freed their heads constantly flicked in the direc­tion in which they had been rotated, and their eyes flicked also. This flicking automatism reap­peared in their progeny."‑'Op. cit., p. 49.

  Flagellella are long, whiplike projections that help small creatures push themselves through the fluid surrounding them. But there is a microscopic worm which may or may not have a flagella, ac­cording to the environment it is in:

  "If the little worm Naeqleria is placed in a strong salt solution it develops flagella; in a weak one it does not. So form is certainly dependent on external factors, at least in some cases."­'Op. cit., p. 243.

  Modifications were made in plants by changing the soil they were in. But these changes were then passed on to their descendants. As usual, no cross‑species changes had occurred.

  "Some of the most convincing experiments have been done with plants. For instance in 1962 Alan Durrant at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, induced changes in the flax plant by cultivating it with different types of fertiliser. Same plants became heavier and larger, others lighter and smaller. Astonishingly, these trends persisted for several generations. A few years later, J. Hill, at the Welsh Plant Breeding station, got rather similar results with tobacco plants, the flowering time also being affected. Durrant's work was carried forward by Chris Cullis and these lines of plants are still being propagated as I write, almost twenty years later."‑'Op. cit., p. 49.

  The plants were probably pre‑coded for differ­ent reactions to different environmental condi­tions. When placed in the different environment, a message was sent to the cell which was read into the DNA, and the offspring expressed the same modifications.

  *Waddington used an environmental factor to produce an effect which was inherited by later generations. Once again, no traps‑species change occurred.

  "Perhaps the most convincing, or anyway puzzling, expedrrentii; were carried out by Con• rod Waddington, of Edinburgh University, about 1940. He exposed fruit‑flies b heat‑shock and produced some mutant flies which lacked the us­ual cross‑veins in their wings. When he heat­shocked the next generation this mutation ap­peared more frequently, and as he continued with subsequent generations finally aces‑veinless flies were appearing even when no heat‑shock was administered. This looked so uncommonly like i‑amarckian inheritance that Waddington, as a highly orthodox biologist, was disturbed."­'Op. cit., pp. 49‑50.

  *Waddington did not use mutation‑producing radiation or chemicals. He only used heat. Yet traps‑generation changes were produced. The more typical breeding experiment is keyed to breeding for genetic variations, apart from en­vironmental factors:

  "An experiment with plants that is often held up as being particularly convincing was launched in 1903 at the Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station and continued until 1927. A population of corn was grown, the parent for the next generation always being the plants with ears closest: to the ground. At the start, the average height of ears above the ground ranged from 43 to 56 inches. At the end of twenty‑four years, the average had become a mere eight inches, and this trait bred true. As a check, plants with the highest ears were also selected and bred; in this case the average height rose to 120 inches‑10 feet­ by the end of the experiment."‑'Op. cit., p. 34.

  The corn experiment is more like what we are used to hearing about. This could be a simple se­lecting out from among a variety of genetic fac­tors, rather than the shock of a sudden new environment which affects later descendants, as we find in the newt, willow‑moth caterpillar, and turn‑table rats.

How should we relate all this what we already know about genetics and the DNA code?

First, can a new species originate, or can one species change into different species? No, it can never be done. The DNA code must be there in place to begin with, and only a super‑intelligent Person could have placed that code there to be­gin with. The limitations of the code forbid any cross‑species changes.

Second, can any species change its DNA? No, it cannot. Every last zillionth of a characteristic change possible to a given species had to be in the DNA code BEFORE the change could be made. The possibility of every possible change had to already be in the DNA. Whatever the pos­sible change may have been, the possibility of it had to be pre‑coded into the DNA before it was expressed.

Third, can a given species change its features and habits? Yes, it can. We have already con­sidered examples of that.

Fourth, could some of those changes be environmentally‑caused? (That is, during the life­time of the creature, something happened which caused a change which it then passed on to its descendants.) Yes, earlier in this chapter we have already viewed some instances. More will be cited below. An example would be one of the descen­dants of the first finches to the Galapagos Islands which began biting off a cactus spine, and then using it as a needle to poke into holes and pull out grubs which it then swallowed. That environmentally‑caused tool‑using trait was passed on to its descendants.

How can ve combine together those four points into a sensible, coherent, workable pattern? Bas­ically, how could all the changes be potentially in the DNA to begin with, and yet some of them be environmentally produced?

The answer is just that. All of the possible variations within a species were beforehand accounted for within the limitations of the DNA coding. The changes were all potententially in the DNA code to begin with. But the code provided for some of the changes to be influenced by en­vironmental factors! That sentence is the single addition to the standard concepts we have reviewed throughout these three books, in regard to DNA, its coding, and sub‑species changes.

On an adjacent page is an outstanding exam­ple of this principle in action: The Hawaiian sick­lebill is a small bird which is only found on the Hawaiian Islands. At some earlier time those Is­lands were colonized by birds, probably, finches from America. Because there were so many un­filled feeding niches available on the islands, these birds adapted over a period of time to a va­riety of foraging habits. Ultimately 22 sub‑species (8 of which are now extinct) developed. The sur­viving 14 are shown in the accompanying illustra­tion.

 HAWAIIAN HONEYCREEPER

At some earlier time, American finches migrated to the Hawaiian Islands.. Gradually, in accordance with variation ranges already in its DNA, this species of bird produced a variety of sub‑species to fill various empty ecological niches. Eventually 22 sub‑species were formed, of which 8 are now extinct. Illustrated below are the surviving 14. The bills are adapted to everything from nectar‑sipping and nut­cracking to grubbing beetles from trees.  

These birds are essentially identical in feet, legs, wings, body shape, and eyes. Their heads show slight variations, and their bodies vary slightly in size,‑but it is in their bills that the most striking differences are to be found.

These bills have adapted for everything from long, narrow bills for nectar‑sipping, heavy beaks for nut‑cracking, to bills adapted to grubbing beet­les from trees. Different feeding habits led to changes in bill shapes.

Applying the new principle, we can more eas­ily understand what happened here. The DNA of these birds was coded, not only for random var­iational changes,‑but also for environmental in­put data which triggered the DNA to make other variational changes.

In other words, if this new view be correct, the DNA is coded not only to send data out into the cell‑but also to receive information from the cell. But inherent within the code of each species, only certain environmental factors can trigger DNA var­iations that will cant' through to posterity. _

  This is vividly shown in the Hawaiian sicklebill illustration. Look at it again. The DNA was pri­marily coded to accept environmental change data in regard to the bill, and not the rest of the bird. Some of those birds could surely have used different shaped bodies, wings, legs, or feet. But no changes occurred there; only bill changes were possible.

  In this way, changes in the environment could affect the DNA‑and thus be passed on to the next generation‑only to the extent that the DNA had earlier been coded to accept such change­making input data. All those Hawaiian sicklebill patterns were already in the DNA gene‑pool before the parent birds ever flew to the Hawaiian Islands. The genetic pool of those finch bills was much larger than, for example, the genetic pool for their legs and feet. Yet the changed feeding habits could well use different legs and feet, as DNA in the nucleus are sent out to other cell par­ticles so that various things can be done. It is also known that messages are sent to the DNA to is­sue orders (information packets) that will enable more raw materials to be manufactured, assem­bled, or made into additional structures. So, al­though relatively little is known about how it is done, yet it is known that information is both sent to the DNA and from the DNA.

Because of this, not only can a given species be coded for summer and winter (brown coat in summer and white in winter), but also for various altitudes, light and darkness, and a variety of other changed environmental conditions.

  Such a concept is a far cry from Lamarkism, which teaches that any kind of in‑species here­ditary change can be made by any kind of envi­ronmental activity or effect, and that those environmental changes eventually result in new species.

The new view suggested here Is that environ­ment can only affect heredity to the extent that pre­coded DNA permits it to happen. In addition, all the alternate possibilities were already pre‑coded Into the DNA helix

This revised definition‑which offers a wider range of DNA functions‑appears able to solve a variety of otherwise puzzling facts, while agree­ing with genetic knowledge.

Scientists generally accept the assumption that hereditary changes based on environmental fac­tors are theoretically impossible. Yet they occur anyway.

As mentioned earlier, when people move loser to the poles, their skin becomes lighter. They need less sun‑shade. When people move closer to the hot, bright areas near the equator, their skin gradually becomes darker. Those who have lived in such areas the longest have become almost black. The same with the eyes; northern Euro­peans have tinted irises, and those in Africa have nearly black irises, for their environment requires more shading of the retina. They have built‑in surr glasses! Hair also becomes darker near the brightest areas of the globe. The top of the head thus is given better protection from sun‑stroke. What about the Eskimos, and other peoples liv­ing in Arctic areas, who have dark hair and eyes? Anthropologists recognize that they have moved there more recently. Eskimos have the appear­ance of Mongolians and migrated northward in more recent times, and from there went south and populated North, Central, and South America.

  There is a far greater range of possibilities within the DNA than we had before imagined. Re­call to mind Kammerer's salamanders which changed their hereditary manner of bearing young, because of environmental changes; and the willow‑moth caterpillar, which so fully adapts to a new environmental pattern‑forced on it by experimenters‑that it bequeaths the new pattern to its offspring!

  (1) In each of these instances, the gene pool within the DNA could permit these traits to be passed on to progeny. But the changes never in­volve more than slight modifications, which is far from a trans‑species change.

Likewise with the turn‑table rats and the blind newts which developed eyes; in each instance, it could be done because the DNA coding per­mitted it to be done.

Dogs trained as sheep dogs for generations will show a herding instinct which other canines do not have.

There are not only limits to the code of each species, there is also a range to that code. The first is breadth and the second depth. The limits to the side keep new species from being formed. But the rich quantities of potential code combi­nations within those limits provide for large numb­ers of sub‑species changes. Exploring the full range of the code produces mathematical geni­uses in people and nectar‑sipping bills in finches.

Over the years, Persian cats have been bred with shorter and shorter noses until many have noses so short the end is right between the eyes. But it would be useless to try to breed Persians with wings or three eyes. (1) If it is not in the DNA, it cannot be produced. (2) Only that amount of change for a given trait which is in the DNA for that species can be produced.

  This range of code possibilities can make two types of variations: (1) the kind of usual gene­shuffling changes which make you a little differ­ent than your parents and your children, and (2) codes already in place which await triggering by environmental factors to_ be set in place.

  The most remarkable example cited by 'Tay­lor was the blind newt, Proteus, which developed eyes when brought up in red light. Within the DNA of the Proteus were the trait factors for perfectly functioning eyed Normally, that newt never had eyes, but the coding for eyes were there anyway. Please do not imagine that the codes for com­plete, functioning eyes is any small thingl Those eyes were not MADE by the environment; they were already there in the DNA, even though not expressed in the head until needed.

The coding dictated that, when red a infrared light was present, the newt would develop see­ing eyes. Thousands of generations of blind, no­eyed newts might live and die, but the coding was there waiting for certain environmental condttions‑and then the eyes appeared!

But M all the observations and experiments,­there is always, always, no hint of a changeover from one species to another. Evolution never oc­curs. The DNA prohibits it. Evolution is something which has no real existence outside the imagi­nation of certain men.

What we have here is not "inheritance of ac­quired characteristics," but Inheritance of ex­pressed characterlstksl The characteristics were already in the DNA, and when a need arose for them to be expressed, then they could gradually enter the active inheritance factors. But they do not enter immediately.

Such an occurrence would take place if a Scan­dinavian moved to central Africa and he and his descendants remained there permanently. If, the same time, an African moved to Scandinavia and remained there permanently,‑two or three thou­sand years later, the skin color would be totally switchedl

In his book, 'Taylor also mentioned plants and animals that changed feather and leaf cokx, as well as other features, when moved from one cli­mate to another. This could help explain why species in one locality appear somewhat different than related species elsewhere in the works. No cross‑species change occurred; it was only a plant or animal expressing enough other facets within its DNA that it appeared to be a different sub‑species.

'Taylor mentions a bird which, when moved from one South Pacific island to another, changed colors. But then we know that when canaries are fed special diets, they change from yellow to orange, and when hydrangias are placed in acid soil they have blue flowers, while in alkaline soil pink flowers. Environmental factors, yes, but spe­cies change, no.

This concept would permit sub‑species environ­mental changes, if the traits for those changes have always been in the gene pool range of the DNA of that particular species.

There are several hundred sub‑species of cich­lids inhabiting several African lakes. Each sub­species has different feeding and nesting habits. Some are remarkably different in those habitsl Yet all are clearly cichlids, with only slight differen­ces in size, color, teeth, etc. The DNA permitted certain sub‑species changes so they could adapt to the various feeding and nesting niches in those lakes, but not many other changes.

A single species was brought into an isolated area, where there were many unfilled life niches. Sub‑species proliferated, and eventually there were many sub‑species, each living and doing things a little differently than the others. In the pro­case, some actual alterations in size, body struc­ture, and function occurred. Inherited differences in memory patterns even took place.

More examples of species change will be found in chapter 15.

(You have probably read about the remarkable experiment involving hydra. Under a microscope this microscopic worm‑like creature looks like a black arrow. It inhabits fresh‑water ponds. These small creatures were taught certain information, and then chopped up and fed to other hydras. By so doing, information in the brains of the chopped­up hydras was transferred to the other hydra which ate theml)

Factual, habitual patterns were actually trans­ferred by eating!  

As a result of special breeding, dogs, pigeons, cats, and chrysanthemums come in a wide vari­ety of sub‑species. Plant breeders have tried to produce a wide variety of every flower, but the mum was found to have a larger gene pool than most flowers, and so it has been transformed into a startling number of varieties.

  Another example of changes in structure as a result of environmental demands would be the un­usually large chests and lungs of the inhabitants of Nepal. The Nepalese live on the roof of the world, thousands of feet above the rest of us. Mount Everest is in Nepal. A lack of oxygen at that high elevation causes them to spend their lives breathing deeply.

(In contrast, there are examples of changed pat­terns through instruction rather than heredity: Jap­anese scientists spent years studying a certain ape native to a northern island in the Japanese island chain. The scientists threw rice on the sand. Most of the apes spent hours carefully pick­ing rice out of the sand, but one adult female scooped it up and tossed it into the ocean. The sand quickly dropped to the bottom and the rice floated at the top. She then scooped it back up and swallowed it.

(Trying to teach the other apes, she was suc­cessful with the young ones. Soon the other adult females adopted the new feeding pattern also. But the old males refused to be taught by women and children. They kept laboriously picking rice grains out of the sand.)  

This concept of environmental adaptation of species in accordance with gene pool limitations, may also help in explaining changes in species after the Fall (Genesis 3). Most American bears eat bees, honey, fish, animals, and whatever else they might find. Yet the ancestral bear would have been a vegetarian, with capacity in its gene pool for a carnivorous diet. The panda bear in China has continued down to the present time as a to­tal vegetarian. Yet in every other way, ft is bear­like.

In anticipation of the Fall, the Creator could have placed within the various creatures DNA coding factors needed to later survive under the radically changed environment they wouki en­counter after sin entered. That later changed en­vironment could then have brought forth the changes in the creatures.

An example of this would be the shark which can smell even the minutest quantity of blood in the water, the dolphin which can echo-locate, using underwater radar (sonar) to locate fish to eat, and the many fish which, sensing sideways water pressure, are alerted to instantly flee the approach of dangerous creatures coming toward them.

Why does the tiger have those large flesh­ripping teeth, when he was originally a vegetarian? In an earlier chapter, we mentioned a mammal which had a tooth which in earlier times disappeared,—and later reappeared! In foreknow­ledge of the Fall, the tiger could have had its DNA pre-coded so it could later adapt to larger teeth, a shorter gut, needed for a carnivorous diet. 

Knowing ahead of time that man would fall into sin, and the terrible consequences that would en­sue, the DNA of the tiger could have been pre-coded for such an eventuality when it was first made. (It is also possible that later modifications in its DNA could have been made afterward by the Master Codemaker.) Either possibility would explain many things we see about us.

 Fortunately, life as we now know ft will not continue on much longer. Satan claimed that God's laws could not be obeyed, but Christ died to forgive and enable men to do so. Erelong, the violence will be no longer exist. All of God's children throughout the universe will then be a peaceful, happy family. The lion will dwell with the lamb and misery and suffering will forever be ended.

 We might here mention that there is only one creature mentioned in the Bible which apparently had its DNA changed after the fall: the serpent. A major physical change occurred, for prior to the fall it would have had another means of locomo­tion: legs, or legs and wings; but afterward it could only crawl. At the Scopes Trial in 1925, Clarence Darrow asked William Jennings Bryan in ridicule, "How did the snake walk; on its tail?" 

But the Bible clearly states that a genetic change was made in the serpent. Before then, it must have had wings and legs, or legs alone. It is of interest that ancient legends from around the world speak, not only of a worldwide Flood, an Ark with eight people, and the Fall beforehand, but also of a tree of life and a flying serpent.

 There is yet another intriguing aspect to this: A divine hand not only provided the gene pool for each species, but, in foreknowledge of what post­Fall conditions would bring, also provided that that gene pool be wide enough to provide adaptive ability for each species under the dramatically changed conditions that would later bring oceans, deserts, tundra, swamps, etc.

Marine fish were given cleaner fish to protect them from parasites. The late ' Conrad Limbaugh of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography was the first to study them. A cleaner fish selects a place in the ocean to carry on its work, and then waits. Soon it watches as large, dangerous fish swim up and patiently wait in line for it to clean their sides, faces, and even inside their mouthsl

There are multiplied thousands of instances in which living creatures do wiser things than they could possibly have the native sense to do.

Why do the various cleaner fish, Pedersen's shrimp, and the La Senorita wrasse clean paras­ites from immense fish able to swallow them in one gulp? Why do the big fish not hurt them? Why do they know these little creatures will help them?

In the design chapters of this book (chapters 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36 and 40), you have found hundreds of astounding facts about the earth, plants, animals, and man which defy any explanation other than divine wisdom at work. There simply is no other answer.

What about the little frog, mentioned in chapter 20, which has the markings of a dangerous rat on its back? That frog never, ever sees its backs How does ft know to instantly turn its back on its predator‑and position itself in such as way as to frighten him off? There can only be one an­swer: God did it.

We have here no "watchmaker god," who created and then departed. We see here the hand of the Creator, who made His creatures and then Is continually guiding His vast creation. "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being." Acts 17:28.

There is the crab which keeps a small stone resting on sensitive hairs, enabling it to balance. If it loses that stone, it quickly picks up another, or, in some cases, secretes stony material to re­place it. How does the crab know to do that? How did it know to do it to begin with?

There is the bola spider which, instead of weav­ing a web, swings a tiny rope of spider thread around its head‑and then hurls it after its prey. How does it know to do that? Why does it keep doing it, over and over, even when it may not suc­ceed in accomplishing anything by doing so?

'De Witt discovered that orb‑weaving spiders never run out of raw material, nor end up with a surplus. They first figure out how much they will need for the circular web‑and then manufacture that amount of fluid. Then they begin work on the web.

Why does the Birgus latro crab climb out of the ocean, crawl over to a coconut tree, laborously climb it-saw through a hard coconut stem, drop the nut to the ground,-then climb back down, retrieve and enjoy it for lunch? How can it have the brains to carry out such a complicated operation?

Why does the larva of the caddis fly build a case for itself? If destroyed, it replaces it; if given too large a case by the experimenter, it adjusts it to the right size. It inherently knows just what to do. 

Where did that wisdom come from? It did not come from the caddis fly.

Why do baby bees, as soon as they emerge from the egg, know exactly what to do in the hive? At several different stages of their lives, they will have to perform different functions, yet they al­ways know what to do at the right time. Where did they obtain this wisdom, since none of the other bees spent a moment of time instructing the newborn?

Why can so many creatures know they must molt or die? How do they do it? Why is there such remarkable examples of protective coloration and "mimicry"? How can the birds know to track their flight over vast oceans, guided only by the stars and earth's electromagnetic field?

It was Infinite Wisdom --the hand of God ­which placed the knowledge needed by those birds within their DNA. There can be no other answer.

On and on it goes, lessons calling us to acknowledge our Creator, convictions pleading with us to worship and serve Him.

In conclusion, what name shall we give to this new concept introduced here? We could call it Pre‑coded adaptations, or the Inheritance of ex­pressed characteristics. Perhaps this view will be thought to be incorrect and discarded. If so, the puzzles remain and a theory agreeing with sci­entific facts is needed to explain them.