"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1107807500.782383.319790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Cindy wrote:

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95F3C970D91C2vicman@216.196.97.136...

On 04 Feb 2005, Cindy dropped trou, farted, whirled, then

shouted:

Because the problem is, one species can not evolve into

another.

They don't. But some share a common ancestor. Think of a

family

tree, one

that extends over a billion years. That's a LOT of years.

Every

single

generation brings about small changes in DNA. Over billions of

years, the

changes are many. Climates change, herds migrate and adapt to

new

conditions, natural selection weeds out survivors against new

predators.

Dogs don't give birth to cats. Dogs give birth to very

different

dogs. And the process continues. Endlessly.

Ok, as a Creationist I don't agree with the amount of years but I
think, we may basically be saying the same thing here,( or

something

similar) because I noted you said "some" share a common ancestor,

NOT

"all" share a common ancestor.

How I would describe the difference between my Creationist views

and

the theory of Evolution is that I see the beginning of life

starting

out as a forest of trees, all different, with a variety of

branches.

Each branch has in common the trunk and root, for example a

trunk which contains lions and tigers branches.

This tree went on to produce saplings which were slightly

different

then the Parent tree, but were still feline. I believe that some
tree's have a huge gene pool and so many varieties are possible,

such

as the Feline example. Different varieties of Finches also are

to

this huge genepool

Other trees have a smaller genepool and so you don't see much

variety

within that species.

It is my Understanding that the theory of Evolution does not

account

for a Forest, it says One tree gave birth to all.

Is this correct?

If not, I must be confused, where did all the tree's originate

from

again?

~ Cindy

the forest example can still apply to evolution. yes, there is one

tree

(or maybe 2 or 3 or 4 trees) that started it all. the trees spread

out

into forest, and some parts of the forest were cleared away by

changes

in the environment, leading to several separated forests. how do we
know that evolution follows this pattern? we can see the cleared

parts

of forest in the fossil record, which connect up all the forests

that

appear separate to us.

The facts do not support one tree.

Here are some as recorded in a section of one chaper from " The
evolution Cruncher":

Why the species barrier

This chapter is based on pp. 441-474 of Origin of the Life (Volume

of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this
chapter are at least 87 statements by scientists. You will find them,
plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.

Evolution is based on change from one species to another. In chapters
9 and 10, Natural Selection and Mutations, we have found that there

no mechanism by which it can occur; and in chapter 12, Fossils and
Strata, we will learn that there is no past evidence of such change.

The fact that all plant and animal true species are distinct types is
a crux in the entire controversy. So we will here devote a full
chapter to speciation. This material will help fill out the picture

what we are learning in other chapters.

DARWIN ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES-The battle over evolutionary
theory finds its center in the species. This is where *Charles Darwin
attempted to fight it, but without success. Even though he called his
first book by that name, he never did try to figure out the origin of
the species.

"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of the species in his
Origin of the Species."-*Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking
of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria,
(1985), p. 33.

*Darwin could not figure out why species even existed. If his theory
was correct, there would be no distinct species, only confused
creatures everywhere and no two alike.

"Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days,
gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his
evolutionary speculation and wrote: 'As by this theory, innumerable
transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them

in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead
of being, as we see them, well defined species?"-H. Enoch, Evolution
or Creation (1966), p. 139.

To make the situation worse, *Darwin did not know of one instance in
which a species changed into another.

"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot
prove that a single species has been changed."-*Charles Darwin, My
Life and Letters.

ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES UNKNOWN-(*#1/27 Origin of the Species Unknown /
#2/13 The Experts are Puzzled*) The problem of species has become a
major unsolved problem of the evolutionists, because they cannot
figure out where they came from.

"More biologists would agree with Professor Hampton Carson of
Washington University, St. Louis, when he says that speciation is 'a
major unsolved problem of evolutionary biology.' "-*G.R. Taylor,

Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 141.

"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

bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and
nature of species remains utterly mysterious.' Sixty years later we
are if anything worse off, research having only revealed complexity
within complexity."-*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p.
140.

1- IDENTIFYING THE SPECIES

PLANT AND ANIMAL CLASSIFICATIONS-(*#3/15 Classifying the Plants and
Animals*) The science of classifying plants and animals is called
taxonomy.

"Classification or taxonomy is the theory and practice of naming,
describing, and classifying organisms."-*Stansfield, The Science of
Evolution (1977), p. 98.

Taxonomists have placed all plants and animals in logical categories,
and then arranged them on several major levels, which are these:

Kingdom

Phylum

Class

Order

Family

Genus

Species

Sub-species

It should be kept in mind that there is no such thing as a kingdom,
phylum, class, order, or family. Those are just convenient names and
are like rooms in a zoo or botanical garden, each one with a

collection of plant or animal species. It is the species that are
alive; the room is not. The terms "phyla, classes, orders, families,"
and most of the "genera" are merely category labels. It is only the
true species which should count. This includes some of what is listed
as "species," and some life-forms called "genera," which should be
labeled as species.

"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]

PANTHERA LEO-This is how the taxonomists classify the lion.

PANTHERA LEO
http://evolution-facts.org/images/ev-cr-pix/EC376.jpg
CLICK For illustration

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

"PHYLUM Chordata-all animals possessing at some time in their life
cycle pharyngeal pouches, a notochord, and a dorsal tubular nerve
cord.

"SUBPHYLUM Vertebrata-all those animals that possess vertebrae.

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

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

"FAMILY Felidae-all those Carnivora with retractile claws, lengthy
tail, and a certain tooth arrangement.

"GENUS Felis-the true cats.

"SPECIES domestica-[the domesticated cats]."- Wayne Frair and

Davis, A Case for Creation (1983), p. 37.

SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR SPECIES-If you go to the zoo, you will see a

on one cage, "Giant Panda," with the words, "Alluropoda melanoleuca"
just below it. The first line is capitalized and is the common name

this large black-and-white bear from China; the second line is its
"scientific name." Scientists worldwide understand these two-part
Latin names (called binominals). The first word is the genus, and the
second is species. Sometimes the name of the discoverer or namer is
added as a third word. The Swedish naturalist, Linnaeus, invented

method of scientific nomenclature in the 1750s.

*Darwin recognized that there was no evidence that any species had
evolved from any other species. He decided that, instead of denying
the existence of species, the only practical solution for
evolutionists was, first, to classify plants and animals; second,
point to similarities between them; and, then, declare that therefore
one must have evolved from the other or from a common ancestor. From
beginning to end, evolution is just theory, theory, theory.

THE GENESIS KIND-Back in the beginning, the law of the "Genesis

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
bara and min, Frank Marsh, a careful research scholar in speciation,
has suggested the term baramin as an identifying name for this
"Genesis kind." (Min is used 10 times in Genesis 1, and 21 times in
the rest of the Old Testament.) It would be a good word to use, since
it is more accurate than "species," which can at times be incorrect.
Other names for the Genesis kinds, are the Genesis species, the true
species, and the biological species. The present author favors "true
species" as the term most easily understood.

BIOLOGICAL SPECIES-The term, "biological species," is increasingly
becoming accepted as a basic reference point by scientists. Although
there are instances in which obvious sub-species do not cross breed,
biological species would normally apply to those species which do not
cross-breed outside of their own kind. However, there are instances

which two sub-species of a true species no longer cross breed.

MICRO- VS. MACROEVOLUTION-(*#4/6 Micro and Macro*) Evolutionists

to changes WITHIN the species and call that "microevolution," and

proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that theorized
changes ACROSS species (which they term "macroevolution") must also

occurring.

But random gene shuffling within the species only produces new
varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. New
plant varieties and animal breeds never cross the species barrier.

New varieties and new breeds are not evolution; they are only
variation within the already existing species. There is no such thing
as "microevolution." Changes within the true species are not
evolution.

COUNTING THE SPECIES-*Aristotle could list only about 500 kinds of
animals; and his pupil, *Theophrastus, the most eminent botanist of
ancient Greece, listed only about 500 different 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.

Nearly all of these millions of so-called "species" consist of
sub-species of a much smaller number of original Genesis kinds, the
true species. For example, today there are many different
hummingbirds: but, originally, there was only one. Its gene pool
permitted it to produce many sub-species.

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

Ray was an earnest Christian who, in the wonderful structures of
plants and animals, saw abundant evidence of a 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, Systema Naturae, in 1735.

Linnaeus came to two definite conclusions: (1) Species were, for the
most part, the equivalent of the "Genesis kind." (2) There had been

change across the basic categories-now or earlier. As a result of his
studies, Linnaeus arrived at a firm belief in Special Creation and

fixity of species. He said, "We reckon as many species as issued in
pairs from the hands of the Creator" (quoted in *H.F. Osborne, From
the Greeks to Darwin, 1929, p. 187).

Men today may call themselves experts in taxonomy, but it is
significant that the two men in human history able to lay a solid
foundation for biological classification-saw in all their findings
only evidence of creation, not evolution.

LINNAEUS AND RAY-Linnaeus was the one who developed our modern system
of classification. Unfortunately, he frequently listed, as separate
species, life-forms that could interbreed. Some of these decisions
were based on ignorance, but nevertheless we live with the results
today. Thus, the true species are not always those that are listed in
the textbooks as "species." It is now recognized, by many qualified
biologists, that John Ray did better quality work; for he carefully
adhered to biological species in preparing his species categories. In
contrast, Linnaeus at times confused them by placing true species in
genera or sub-species categories.

LUMPERS AND SPLITTERS-There has been a perennial problem in regard to
the "lumpers" and "splitters." There is a tendency for the
taxonomists-the experts who classify plants and animals-to fall into
one or the other of these two categories.

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

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

So today we find both Linnaean and Jordanian species scattered
throughout the scientific lists of plants and animals. It is

to keep this in mind, for selective breeding of Jordanian species can
appear to produce new species! This would appear to prove

claims and indicate species cross-over as taken place, -when,
actually, two members of different sub-species, of the same true
species, have interbred.

When the Santa Gertrudis cattle were developed in the 1960s by
breeding zebu bulls with strains of Texas longhorns, Herefords, and
shorthorns, the result was a new sub-species; but some splitters
classify it as a "new species." Yet the Santa Gertrudis is merely
another type of the cattle species and able to crossbreed with

others.

FAMILY TREE-(*#8/7 Our Family Tree*) Everyone has seen paintings in
museums and textbooks of our "family tree," with its worms, birds,
apes, and man shown in relation to how they evolved from one another.
The impression is given that there can be no doubt that it really
happened that way, for did not scientists prepare those charts?

COMPARING THE FAMILY TREES-In reality, there are only twigs (actual
species) all over the ground. The rest of the "evolutionary tree" is
as imaginary as the two lower sketches, below.

COMPARING THE TREES
http://evolution-facts.org/images/ev-cr-pix/EC382.jpg
link to illustration

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

alike, they are therefore classified together. We are supposed to
believe that, because coral and jellyfish are together on the tree,
one evolved from the other! One is a hard-bodied creature; the other
does not have a bone in its body. In the plant kingdom, the

is merely a wastebasket category that includes all the flowering
plants that cannot be fitted in somewhere else. So therefore, they

supposed to have evolved from one another. This "tree" is a
classificationist's nightmare!

All it really consists of is separate twigs, with each twig a

species. Even *Richard Milner, a diligent evolutionary researcher,
admits the fact.

"Delicate twigs, burgeoning in all directions, is closer to our
current idea of evolutionary history."-*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of
Evolution (1990), p. 54.

2 - FACTS ABOUT SPECIES

INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT SPECIES-Here are some facts about species and
sub-species that will help you understand some of the problems
inherent in this interesting field of plant and animal

1 - Chickadees. The Carolina Chickadee (Parus carolinus) and the
black-capped Chickadee (Parus atricapillus) look just like each other
in every way, and freely interbreed. Yet they have different songs!
Although they have been classified as two different species, we have
here one species with two alternate gene factors.

2 - Wheat. Linnaeus classified spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L) as

different species than winter wheat (T. hybernum L). Yet they are

strains of the same wheat. They will cross and produce fertile
hybrids. They should have been classified as sub-species.

SUBSPECIES OF DOGS-Dogs, dogs, everywhere-and scientists agree that
they are all 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

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

intermediates between the others! So the experts finally got together
and reclassified them all as sub-species of but one species, the song
sparrow (Passereila melod=EDa).

5 - Foxes. The red fox (Vulpes fulva) and the Newfoundland red fox
have been categorized in different species, although the only
difference is a paler reddish coat and shorter tail for the
Newfoundland variety. Six taxonomists list 10 varieties of red fox,
while 2 others list one species (Vulpes fulva) and count 12
sub-species. All these foxes are actually in one true species.

6 - Cattle. There are several different subspecies of cattle (Bos
taurus L). Although the American bison (Bison bison L) and the
European bison (Bison bonasus L) have a similar morphology
(appearance), they will still generally crossbreed with cattle. In
addition, it has been discovered that the African buffalo (Syncerus
caffer) also interbreeds with them-yet the bison and cattle have been
placed in totally different genera.

7 - Corn. One expert (*Sturtevant) categorized 6 species of corn
(sweet, flint, flour, pod, dent, and popcorn), while other

acknowledge that they are all only varieties of one species.

8 - Finches. In the chapter on Natural Selection, we discuss *Charles
Darwin's finches (13, 14, 17, or 19; the count varies regarding this
look-alike bird), which he found on the Galapagos Islands. Although
about the same in size, shape and color, and together form a set of
sub-species of finches which originally came from South America, yet
Darwin called them different species-and therefore a proof of
evolution. Those finches made a strong impression on his mind.

9 - Platypus. (*#9/3 The Creature that Fits no Category*) This one is
so strange that it does not fit any category of animals.

"When zoologists examined a platypus for the first time, some
suspected a hoax, thinking that parts of different animals had been
sewn together. The platypus has the fur of an otter, the tail of a
beaver, the bill and feet of a duck, and the venomous spurs of a
fighting gamecock. Although the platypus is a mammal, it lays eggs

does not have nipples (milk oozes out of pore openings in the
abdomen)."-*Asimov's Book of Facts (1979), p. 135.

INCREASING SUB-SPECIES-There are many different sub-species in some
species while there are but few for others. A key factor seems to be
the ability of the creature to travel, whether by seed, spore, or in
person.

For example, the tiny fruit flies cannot travel very far, so there

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

maniculatus) with 66 subspecies.

In the case of animals that have been domesticated, such as dogs,
cats, cattle, sheep, pigeons, and chickens, there are many

as a result of selective breeding. The same holds true for cultivated
crops (corn, beans, lettuce, and cabbage).

There are instances in which sub-species generally do not breed

sub-species. The other extreme is instances in which animals above

species level will produce young from an apparent cross-breeding. In
some cases these are true species, and should have been classified as
such. But there are also instances in which breeding did NOT
occur-although it appeared to take place! In true fertilization, the
male and female elements unite and produce young. But there are times
when two different species have been bred and young have been
produced-in which no true breeding occurred!

This false breeding takes place when the presence of male sperm
stimulates the egg to begin production on a new life-form, but the
sperm is rejected because it is from a different species. The
resulting birth is known as parthenogenesis. Scientific analysis has
established that this false breeding across true species works in
exactly the manner described here.

It is significant that mankind can never successfully breed across
with any other species, including any of the 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.

One careful researcher (Frank Marsh) spent years tracking down every
report of crosses above that of true species. Each time he found them
to be hoaxes. One instance was of bird feathers sewn to a stuffed
animal skin. It made good copy for a newspaper article, so it was
printed.

3 - DISPROVING SPECIES EVOLUTION

MENDELIAN GENETICS-It has been said that the foundations of
evolutionary theory were laid by the work of *Charles Darwin
(1809-1882), but that the principles which Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
discovered, as he worked with garden peas at about the same time that
Darwin was writing his book, were the means of abolishing that

Everyone is acquainted with the illustration of the rough and
smooth-coated guinea pigs. It was the work of Mendel that formed the
basis for understanding the transmission of inherited

Mendel prepared the foundation for modern genetics. It was later
discovered that within the cell are chromosomes, and inside the
chromosomes are genes, and inside them is the coded DNA. (For more
information on this, see chapter 8, DNA.) Random shuffling of the
genetic code is what determines whether or not that baby guinea pig
will inherit a rough or a smooth coat from its parents. But either

he will remain a guinea pig. Because that tiny newborn creature is
locked into being a guinea pig is the reason why Darwin's theory
crumbles before the science of genetics.

PRIMITIVE ANCESTORS-Evolutionists tell us that certain creatures are
more "primitive" than others, and are their "ancestors." But that is
just theory. Consider but one example: the monotremes and the
marsupials, which are supposed to be "primitive ancestors" of the
mammals. Both have organs that are different than mammals and just as
complex. (For an excellent analysis, see A.W. Mehlert, "A Critique of
the Alleged Reptile to Mammal Transition" in Creation Research

Quarterly, June 1988, p. 10.)

MANY VARIATIONS POSSIBLE-Yes, variations are limited by the species
barrier,-but immense variations are possible within a given species!

*Francisco Ayala has calculated that, among humans, a single couple
could theoretically produce 102017 children before they would have to
produce one that was identical to one of their earlier children (not
counting identical twins, which came from the same egg and sperm).
That would be 1 followed by 2017 zeroes. The number of atoms in the
known universe is only 1080. So the number of possible variations
within any given species is quite broad. Yet all of them would only

variations within the same species.

ALWAYS A LIMIT-We discussed artificial selection in chapter 9,

Selection, and found it to be highly selective plant and animal
breeding. In regard to any given single factor, selective breeding
may, for a time, be carried out; but soon a limit in factor variety
will be reached. What limits it? It is the DNA code in the genes.

code forbids a cross-over to a new species. The genetic makeup within
the chromosomes forms a barrier, a literal wall of separation between
one species and another.

LIMITS OF VARIABILITY-This is a crucial factor. All evolutionary
theory pivots on whether or not there are such limits on how far you
can breed differences in a species. Can one species change into
another one? If there are definite limits forbidding it, then
evolution cannot occur. An evolutionary encyclopedia provides us with
a brief overview of the history of theory and "pure-line research"
into limits of variability:

"Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin had insisted that through
gradual, continuous change, species could (in Wallace's phrase)
'depart indefinitely from the original type.' Around 1900 came the
first direct test of that proposition: the 'pure line research' of
Wilhelm Ludwig Johannsen (1857-1927). What would happen, Johannsen
wondered, if the largest members of a population were always bred

the largest, and the smallest with the smallest? How big or how small
would they continue to get after a few generations? Would they

indefinitely' from the original type, or are there built-in limits

constraints?

"Experimenting on self-fertilizing beans, Johannsen selected and bred
the extremes in sizes over several generations. But instead of a
steady, continuous growth or shrinkage as Darwin's theory seemed to
predict, he produced two stabilized populations (or 'pure lines') of
large and small beans. After a few generations, they had reached a
specific size and remained there, unable to vary further in either
direction. Continued selection had no effect.

"Johnannsen's work stimulated many others to conduct similar
experiments. One of the earliest was Herbert Spencer Jennings
(1868-1947) of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, the

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

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

soon reached . . In fact, Pearl produced some evidence indicating

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

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

selection was useless."-*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990),
p. 46.

LOSS OF FITNESS-Not only is there a limiting wall that will always be
reached,-but as the researcher nears that outer wall, the subjects
being bred become weaker. The variations made within those borders do
not actually bring overall improvements in the corn, cows, and
chickens. All of the apparent improvement is made at the expense of
overall fitness for life. Gish explains why this is so:

"It must be strongly emphasized, also, that in all cases these
specialized breeds possess reduced viability; that is, their basic
ability to survive has been weakened. Domesticated plants and animals
do not compete well with the original, or wild type . . They survive
only because they are maintained in an environment which is free from
their natural enemies, food supplies are abundant, and other
conditions are carefully regulated."-Duane Gish, Evolution: Challenge
of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 34.

"Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps the best
demonstration of the effects of this principle. The improvements that
have been made by selection in these have clearly been accompanied by
a reduction of fitness for life under natural conditions, and only

fact that domesticated animals and plants do not live under natural
conditions has allowed these improvements to be made."-*O.S.

introduction to Quantitative Genetics (1960), p. 186.

GENE DEPLETION-The scientific name for this loss of fitness through
adaptation is gene depletion. According to this principle, selective
breeding always weakens a species-and never 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 10, Mutations, we mentioned the genetic load, mentioned in
the above quotation.

The original stock was strong, but as it branched out into variations
within its kind, it became weakened. That is gene depletion. In
addition, with the passing of time, genes are damaged through random
radiation and mutations occur. Such mutations are also weakening, and
gradually a genetic load is built up.

Thus we see that, on one hand, the farther the species strays from

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

with continually narrowed adaptive traits. A Dutch zoologist, *J.J.
Duyvene de Wit, explains that if man were descended from animal
ancestors, "man should possess a smaller gene-potential than his
animal ancestors!" (*J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the
Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), pp. 56, 57.)
-- end quote

~ Cindy