Species Evolution

“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.

WHERE THE BATTLE IS—The 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 occur?

“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), p. 141.

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 inadequate.

“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.


PLANT AND ANIMAL CLASSIPICATIONS—The 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 Systematic Zoology).

Here is an example of how classification works. This is the classification of the house cat:

“PHYLUM Chordate—all animals possessing at some time in their life cycle pharyngeal pouches, a notochord, and a dorsal tubular nerve cord.

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

“CLASS Mammalia—all those animals that have internally regulated body temperature, possess hair, and suckle their young.

“ORDER Carnivora—All those mammals whose teeth are adapted to a predatory mode of life, but which are not insectivores.

“FAMILY Felidae—all those Carnivore with retractile claws, lengthy tail, and a certain tooth arrangement.

“GENUS Felis—the 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 the 1750s.

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 his).

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.

THE GENESIS KIND—Back in the beginning, the law of the “Genesis kinds” was established:

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


In the same way, the birds, sea-life, and animals were each to reproduce “after their kind” (Genesis 1:20-22, 24-25). This principle was not to be violated. And this is what we find in the fossil record, and in the world today. The “Genesis kind” is generally equivalent to the species level, but sometimes the genus level. This variation is due to flaws in our humanly-devised 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 SPECIES—The 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, 84:401.

“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. MACROEVOLUTION—Evolutionists 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.


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 plants.

Through the centuries, as naturalists counted new varieties of creatures in the field, in the air, and in the sea, and as new areas of the world were explored, the number of identified species of animals and plants grew. By 1800 it had reached 70,000. Today there are several million. Two-thirds of them are animal and one-third are plant. The flowering plants and insects are the two largest single categories.

JOHN RAY—John Ray (Wray) (1627?-1705) apparently was the first scientist to formerly recognize the “species.” He prepared a large classification of all the species of plants and animals known in his time (about 18,600).

Ray was an earnest Christian who, in the wonderful structures of plants and animals, saw abundant evidence of a Creator’s hand.

CARL LINNAEUS—Carl von Linne (1707-1778) spent his adult life as a teacher at the University of Uppsala. At the age of 50, he latinized his name to “Carolus Linnaeus. ” The classification system of plants and animals developed by Linnaeus was to become the standard used today. He published it in his book, 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 categories—now or earlier. As a result of his studies, Linnaeus arrived at a firm belief in Special Creation and the fixity of species. He said, “We reckon as many species as issued in pairs 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 classification—saw 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 LINNAEUS—Although 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.


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 SPLITTERS—There has been a perennial problem in regard to the “Jumpers” and “splitters”. There is a tendency for the taxonomists—the experts who classify plants and animals—to fall into one or the other of these two categories.

The Jumpers place species together which should be divided into sub-species. The splitters tend to put true species into sub-species categories.

“Lumper species,” are also called “Linnaean species” because, back in the early 1700s, both Linnaeus and Ray pioneered the lumping of species. “Splitter species” are also called “Jordanian species” for the French botanist, Jordan, who initiated this approach in the early 1800s.

So today we find both Linnaean and Jordanian species scattered throughout the scientific lists of plants and animals. It is important to keep this in mind, for selective breeding of Jordanian species can produce new species! This would appear to prove evolutionary claims, and indicate species cross-over as taken place—when, 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 cattle—all 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 TREE—Everyone has seen paintings in museums and textbooks of our “family tree,” with its worms, birds, apes, and man shown in relation to how they evolved from one another. The impression is given that there can be no doubt that it really happened that way, for did not scientists prepare those charts?

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 comparisons.

Evolutionists have tried to shoehorn species into various “families” of related species. But there are many creatures which have such unusual shapes, organs, or functions—that 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 schemes.


INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT SPECIES—Here 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 classification:

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 sub-species.

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 sub-species.

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 them—yet the bison and cattle have been placed in totally different genera.

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 species—and therefore a proof of evolution. Those finches made a strong impression on his mind.

INCREASING SUBSPECIES—Many 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 existence—a 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 occur—although 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 (1946), pp.222-223.

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 animals—nothing 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.


Gregor Mendel

MENDELIAN GENETICS—It has been said that the foundations of evolutionary theory were laid by the work of *Charles Darwin (1809-1882), but that the principles which Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) discovered, as he worked with garden peas at about the same time that Darwin was writing his book, were the means of abolishing that 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  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 ANCESTERS—Evolutionists tell us that certain creatures are more “primitive” than others, and are their “ancestors.” But that is just theory. Consider but one example: the monotremes and the marsupials, which are supposed to be “primitive ancestors” of the mammals:

“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 respect—defense 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 POSSIBLE—Yes, variations are limited by the species barrier—but 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 LIMIT—Then 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  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 VARIABILITY—This 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 “pure—line 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 effect.

“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 selection—by breeding from ‘lower than maximum’ producers.” —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 376.

Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)—but no exit through that wall.

“Darwin’s gradualism was bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection was useless.” —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 46.

LOSS OF FITNESS—So 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 DEPLETION—The scientific name for this loss of fitness through adaptation is gene depletion. According to this principle, selective breeding always weakens a species—and never strengthens it.

“[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  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 NARROW—It 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 death.

SELECTIVE BREEDING—Selective breeding occurs when people thoughtfully select out the best rose, ear of corn, or milk cow, and then through careful breeding, produce better roses, corn ears, or milk cows. But please notice several facts in connection with this:

(1) “Selection” requires intelligence, planning, and consistent effort by someone who is not the rose, corn, or cow. Random action is not “selection.” Therefore “natural selection” is a misnomer. It should be called “random activity.”

(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 GENETICS—A related area is termed population genetics, and it is declared by evolutionists to be another grand proof of their theory. Population genetics looks at locations of species and variations within 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.

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 issued—nothing. 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., p. 189.

“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. 71-72.


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 sub—species 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 species.

Genetic drift

“Genetic drift was discovered by the American geneticist Sewall Wright, who studied the mathematics of population genetics. The gene pod—that is, the total gene contribution of a particular population to its offspring—is 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), p. 75.

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 REQUIREMENT—Inherent in the species quandary is the male and female element problem. It would be so much easier to bear young and, hopefully, produce new species, if everyone were females. But because it requires both a male and female to produce offspring, any possibility of going 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 along—there’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 SPECIES—Because of the inflexible nature of the species, *Austin H. Clark, a distinguished biologist on the staff of the Smithsonian Institution, wrote a shocking book in 1930. He had concluded that, since there was no evidence now or earlier of any crossovers between species—all 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 occurred—for there were simply too many differences between the various life forms. They could not possibly have evolved from each other.

*Clark’s book shook up the scientific world. The evolutionists tried to quiet matters, but about a decade later, ‘ Richard Goldschmidt 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 CLADISTS—What 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 sake—for the purpose of discovering relationship, apart from any concern to determine ancestry or origins. In other words, the cladists are scientists who have seen so much evidence in plants and animals that evolution is not true, that, as far as they are concerned, they have tossed it out the window and instead simply study plants and animals. They want to know about life forms because they are interested in life forms, not because they are trying to prove evolution.

Cladists are biological classification specialists who have given up on evolution. They recognize it to be a foolish, unworkable theory, and they want to study plants and animals without being required to “fit” their discoveries into the evolutionary “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 History, London.]

THE SPECIES ARE NOT CHANCING—If 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, p. 144.

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

All this is a most terrible problem for the evolutionists.

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

Evolutionists have reason to be troubled: all the evidence they can find to substantiate their claims is changes within species (so-called “micro-evolution,” which is not evolution), never changes across species (“macro-evolution,” which is evolution).

“Two very influential books in recent years have been the beautifully colored Life Nature Library volume, Evolution, by Ruth Moore and the Editors of Life, and the even more beautifully colored and produced volume, Atlas of Evolution, by Sir Gavin de Beer. The impressive demonstrable evidence which fills these volumes is 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 us!

“When we descend to details, we can prove that no species has changed [we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.” —*Charles Darwin, in “Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Vol. 2 (1887), P. 210.

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!

SUB-SPECIES CONTINUE TO BE PRODUCED—Evolutionists 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 (1948).

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-species—yet they are still sub-species and not different species. Here are some examples:

“A strain of Drosophila paulistorum which was fully interfertile with other strains when first collected, developed hybrid sterility after having been isolated in a separate culture for just a few years . .

“Five endemic species of cichlid [fish] are found in Lake Nabugabo, a small lake which has been isolated from Lake Victoria for less than 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.


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 mule.

“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 sub-species.

“As for small animals—insects, worms, and so on—new 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 forms—the true species—do not change.

“Species do not originate. All they do is remain in existence or become extinct.” —*G.H. Harper, “Alternatives to Evolution,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly 17(1):49-50.

Pages of quotations from evolutionary scientists will be found in the back of chapter Fossils and Strata, attesting to the truth that there are only gaps between the species in the fossil record.

THERE SHOULD BE NO SPECIES—As 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 all.

“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. 140-141.

*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 past?

“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] now—the problem of constancy, rather than that of ‘change.’ ” —*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 141-142.

SPECIES NOT CHANGING—So we have this third problem: If evolution is constantly producing species, why are the species not changing?

“Despite this, many species and even whole families remain inexplicably constant. For instance,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), pp. 141-142.

SUB-SPECIES RUNNING WILD—There 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 Africa—Lake 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.

Lake Tanganyika

“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 mouth—not 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), pp. 149-150.

THE REPRODUCTION PROBLEM —Evolutionary theory does not need sexual reproduction, yet we have it. How could two of each species-independent of each other—evolve? Yet this is what had to happen. The male and female of each species are forever uniquely separate from one another in a variety of ways, yet perfectly matching partners 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 BEQUEST—It is well-known that *Charles Darwin had little to say about the actual origin of the species—the origin of life in a “primitive environment,” but, instead, focused his entire work on an attempt to disprove fixed species. Yet, with the passing of the years, he became so confused regarding the species question that he was no longer certain how species could possibly change into one another. In his will, he gave a bequest to the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, England, which was trying to prepare the Index Kewensis, a gigantic plant catalogue which would classify and fix all known plant species.

“Some botanists have commented on the irony that the great evolutionist —who convinced the world that species are unfixed, changeable entities—should have funded an immense, definitive species list as his final gift to science.” —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 236.

Ironically, *Charles Darwin’s last act was money given to help categorize the separate species.

CONCLUSION—Here is how one author ably summarized the situation:

“Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron,—and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident—such a 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.

POSTSCRIPT: SOON THEY WILL BE GONE—Interestingly 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 continue.

“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. 202.

Explore posts in the same categories: Evolution Cruncher

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: