Chimps, Orangutans and Gorillas Evolved from a Common Ancestor on Noah’s Ark

When the Creation Museum in Kentucky opens back up on June 8 they will have a new exhibit on great ape origins.  There you will be able to learn how all gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees and all species of fossil apes including australopiths share a common ancestor no more than 4500 years ago.

Ken Ham has been promoting the new exhibit the past couple of days including recording interviews with the creators of the exhibit.  I was not surprised—though I expect that many visitors to the Creation Museum may be—by the radical nature of their proposed rapid evolution of all apes (except humans) from a pair of common ancestors. This is another example of their willingness to accept aspects of evolutionary biology usually called macroevolution.   We have discussed their hyperevolutionary hypotheses many times including our recently published peer-reviewed paper, Dissent with modification: how postcreationism’s claim of hyperrapid speciation opposes yet embraces evolutionary theory, were we illustrate how young-earth advocates have redefined the terms macroevolution and microevolution to advance their own view of the origins of biological diversity.

Looking at the images of the new exhibit shared on the Creation Museum website I was most intrigued by one image that included a timeline of the origins of apes and the “family tree” showing their relationships to each other (below).

A portion of the new display at the Creation Museum. The original image and additional information about the new exhibit can be found here: https://creationmuseum.org/blog/2020/05/28/new-ape-kind-exhibit-now-at-creation-museum/ 

Below are a few of my initial thoughts about the information from this portion of their new exhibit.

An imaginary original ape ancestor:  Look at their depiction of the “original great apes.”  Its an animal that appear to be adapted to walking equally on all four “feet.”  If it had a tail it could as easily be the ancestor of cats, dogs, bears or most any other carnivore.  Why doesn’t it look like an ape? All apes have a preference for walking on back feet and using front limbs for climbing as depicted in their images of all apes after the global flood.  As an aside, if they are going to imagine what an ape looked like, why not imagine them with tails like all other monkeys. After all, there is genetic and developmental evidence in apes that their ancestors had tails.  Answers in Genesis could hypothesize that prior to the Flood tails were common but that a genetic defect resulted in the loss of tails.

A lack of any evidence of great apes before the Noah’s Flood:  Notice that in their family tree of apes the original created ape on all fours experienced diversification into many lineages of apes before the Flood. All of the lines in this part of the family trees are dotted lines. This indicates that there is no evidence for any of these but rather they speculate that this must have happened just as they have speculated about what the original created common ancestor looked like.  Because of where Answers in Genesis believes the Flood/Post-Flood boundary is found in the geological column—usually somewhere about the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary—they can present no fossil evidence of the existence of any apes having existed prior to the Flood (the same is true for humans for which no pre-flood fossils are known). I would also add that there is no Biblical evidence of any ape species in the bible (humans excluded).  So they are speculating what the original ape looked like and that the first aped diverged into many types of apes before the Flood none of which we have discovered yet in the fossil record.  This is all speculation.

A massive bottleneck of ape diversity at the Flood:  If their speculation is correct that the original created ape diverged into many lineages of apes before the Flood in a period of just 1650 years (Creation to Flood), they then go on to insist that less than 4500 years ago every individual in all those speculative lineages was killed except two individuals representing just one of those lineages.  It would be from just those two individuals—the ape kind second Adam and Eve—that every fossil and living species of ape that we know of today were derived.  That is an impressive amount of morphological and genetic diversity from two individuals even though their display tries as hard as it can to diminish those differences instead highlighting their similarities.

Avoidance of controversial ape or human fossils:  I was interested to see where they would place Homo naledi, the recent South African fossil discovery, and other species of Australopithecus that they believe are not related to human beings. Instead these fossils are missing from the display. Maybe this is because other creationists organizations consider these fossils as possible ancestors of human beings rather than of apes.

Avoiding the upright walking stance of some ape:  They show all apes as walking on four limbs but this ignores the consensus view of anthropologists about Ardipithecus and species of Australipithecus and Paranthropus that they walked on two legs (bipedal).  So the whole group of apes toward the bottom of the display were more likely bipedal versus how the Creation Museum has chosen to depict them.  In addition there is abundant evidence that Homo naledi, which Answers in Genesis has repeatedly said is not a relative of human beings, walked on two legs.  So the range of locomotion for the ape family is far broader than they make it appear as exemplified by their deceptive depiction of Ardipithicus. It feels as if there are consciously attempting portray all of apes as similar as possible to give the impression that they have similar anatomy and are distinct from human beings.

Still unclear about how a “kind” is identified:  I watched Ken Ham’s video about the exhibit and have read the YEC literature about great apes and they still don’t provide a clear scientific or biblical method of distinguishing what species share a common ancestor—a kind of organism that God created—and which ones do not.  Sometimes the character of being able to hybridize is used as evidence of common ancestry but many times they lump species together for which no evidence of compatibility exists. At that point the criteria seems to be “they really look similar to me.”  For example, in an article (Mammalian Ark Kinds) on AiG’s website which reviews all the mammalian “kinds” Jean Lightner’s only evidence that great apes are a single “kind” is that “Hybrids have been documented between the two species of orangutans.”  That is no surprise. She doesn’t mention that hybrids between chimps and gorillas are unknown. She gives no reason that chimps, gorillas and orangutans should be considered the same kind other than implying that because secular scientists have placed them all into the same family they must be closely related.  However, those same scientists place humans into that same family but Lightner says that “this seems ludicrous.”

Ignoring genetic diversity?  A last observation would be that the display is centered around external morphology and anatomy. They spend time trying to show how color and hair differences are easily changed to produce different types of apes. What is not mentioned–at least that I have seen so far–is the tremendous genetic differences between gorillas, chimps and orangutans. The differences are not trivial.  The differences even between two species of chimpanzee dwarf the differences between all human beings even including neanderthals.  For two individuals to have spawned such large morphological and genetic differences in the space of a few hundred years (the time from Flood to Ice Age by the Creation Museum’s reckoning) is a pace of evolution that would shock any evolutionary biologists. It has no basis in any evidence collected from the natural world nor does the Bible provide evidence of such radical changes of God’s creation.

Comments

  1. How is it possible to recognise the resemblances between all these great apes and still fail to include the ape that the chimpanzee-bonobo kind (if I may use that word) most closely resemble?

    Like

    • In the video of Ham and the exhibit creators they explain very simply that anyone can look at an ape skull and tell it is totally different from a human-kind skull. Ken Ham says, its not hard so I’m not sure what your problem is:-)

      Like

      • Of course! Silly me!

        Like

      • Yes, Ham and other YECs often claim the differences between apes and humans are obvious, then blatantly belie this by often disagreeing among themselves on which hominds are “ape” and which are “human”. They also ignore the fact that biologically speaking, humans ARE classified as apes (members of the “great apes”), and more importantly, that there is abundant fossil evidence for humans having evolved from earlier primates. Indeed, they largely ignore the fact that in general, the farther back one goes in the fossil record, (that is, farther down stratigraphically), the less like modern humans the most human-like fossils appear. This is precisely what one would expect if humans evolved, and has no plausible explanation in the YEC view that humans are entirely separate creations.

        Like

  2. Daniel S says:

    Can we start the betting on how long it takes the great ape “kind” to absorb the monkey and baboon “kinds?”
    I mean, those generalized common ancestors start to look very similar to other animals, so why not?

    Also. Poor Australopithecus and Ardi, they made too many great strides to be treated like this.

    Like

    • Yeah the generalized common ancestor of apes really got me. Does anyone think that if they were to imagine what the common ancestor of baboons looked like they wouldn’t think they were the same “kind”? In our paper published last week we observe the same you did but with carnivores. AiGs own models of the feline and canine kind ancestor are so similar that if you lived back when they did you would naturally just call them species of the same kinds. The same is true for the ancestor of all the various carnivore families. They are just rediscovering nested taxonomic groups without connecting the dots as to why they are nested.

      Like

  3. Reblogged this on Peddling and Scaling God and Darwin and commented:

    Monkey business on Noah’s Ark

    Ken Ham regards the great apes (excluding humans) as evolving after the flood

    Hilarious

    Like

  4. Saltationism has always been the ignored pendant of gradualism/selectionism (darwinism), although many data point it out. Evotheists make the error that Darwinism is the only evolution theory.

    Like

    • Peer, Saltationism (ala “punctuated equilibrium”) is not contrary to natural selection, it just concerns the variable rate of evolution (on a geologic time scale) under different conditions. Nor is saltationism the way AIG proposes that all great apes except humans evolved after the Flood. Indeed, they have no plausible mechanism for how such hyper-rapid evolution occurred in a tiny time frame (hundreds to a few thousand years at most), especially since they often deny or downplay the role of natural selection. They toss around vague terms such as genetic “front loading”, without addressing how any original diversity within a “kind” would not have been largely destroyed during the severe genetic bottleneck after the Flood, when each kind was reduced to a pair of individuals, or at most 7 pair in “clean” kinds. Indeed, what would be seen in the animals debarking the Ark (as we have seen historically with bottlenecked species like cheetahs), is largely stagnant and uniform populations for many generations, the exact opposite of what AIG needs for hyperspeciation. Many YECs also claim “no new information” (genetically) is ever created, but this too is opposite of what they need, and contradicts what clearly occurs during evolution of new species and genera: the formation of many new alleles (variations of a gene). That many modern species have dozens more alleles for many traits than can be held in a pair of individuals means that many new alleles must have originated (evolved), and by any reasonable definition new alleles constitute new information.

      Like

      • No, saltationism it is not “punctuated equilibrium”. That is Gould’s Darwinism. If you want to discuss evolutionary theories, read into first.I have recommended your John A Davison several times. Start reading instead of propagating Darwinism, that ignorant & completely refuted 19th century prose.

        Like

        • Peer, I was trying to be generous in allowing that by referring to saltatation you were advocating a less severely erratic or “jumpy” form of evolution than some kind of “hopeful monster” idea. So rather than calling me ignorant and telling me I need to read more (in fact, I’ve read scores of books on evolution, creationism, and related subjects) please just clearify exactly what you meant by “saltationism” and whether or not you agree with AIG’s hyper-rapid speciation views? Either way, I stand by my comment’s that it’s not what AIG is advocating in their recent promotions, which seems to be an ever more rapid and dramatic form of evolution, without having a plausible mechanism for it, let alone support from the fossil record. Please also clarify what you mean by “Darwinism”, since different YECs use the term in different ways when they disparage it–sometimes implying a rejection of evolution in general, and other times apparently just rejecting natural selection as the main mechanism. Obviously the understanding of evolution among mainstream scientists has come a long way since Darwin, with ever increasing knowledge of genetics, population biology, and additional mechanisms besides natural selection being involved (such as genetic drift), but natural selection is still widely considered a major, if not the major mechanism by most. In contrast, YECs seem to be all over the map on whether natural selection is involved in evolution or to what extent, even though they need it and a lot more to drive their sketchy hyper-evolution model. So while bashing “Darwinism”, what exactly is your view on natural selection? If I recall correctly, in the past you talked a lot bout “TEs” and implied sudden and major genetic changes often took place, but whenever I asked what trigger or mechanism that would allow them to produce specific adaptations to specific environmental conditions, never got a straight answer. I also seem to recall you even denying that you were a YEC, but when I asked how old you believed the earth was, you evaded the question. Can you clarify all those things better now? I also seem to recall you kindly offering to send me your book, but not receiving a follow up when I accepted. Yeah, I guess I could buy it, but frankly, since your views evidently are not even accepted by a significant number of scientists, even in the YEC camp (unless you can show otherwise), it hardly seems like the most promising use of my time or money. Same goes for “John Davidson,” but so that people know exactly what you are recommending, can you cite the specific artilcle(s) or books by him that you want us to read. I for one don’t have the time to hunt back through old posts. Thank you.

          Like

        • rjdownard says:

          Peer, perhaps you could move beyond assailing “Darwinism” (which as the notions of common descent and the importance of natural selection are not only not refuted, they ARE the core of evolutionary thinking in 2020), you could simply explain some of the data. You can start with the reptile-mammal transition therapsids. Guide us through what (if any) design events you propose for them, and the chronology involved. If you can’t do that, it won’t be a surprise, as no antievolutionist has pulled off that task so far,

          Like

  5. rjdownard says:

    I was gobsmacked at that same chart when it was shown in Paulogia’s latest Ham & AiG’s video “Make a Monkey Out of Ken (feat. Gutsick Gibbon) – (Ken) Ham & AiG News” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD4tpeMG7V8&feature=push-sd&attr_tag=dGkU4_skhdKVkRpJ%3A6

    The implications of trying to cram too much diversity into a single Ark baramin aboard are spectacular indeed, and will get a section of Vol 2 of “The Rocks Were There”.

    Like

  6. Tyler H says:

    I can see why AIG would speculate that there was tons of lost species during the flood. After all, if YECs argue that “real evolution” results in a loss of genetic variability over time and the original Ark kinds had all diversified in about 200 years or so, just imagine what could have evolved in the antediluvian world where they had about 2,000 years to evolve. That actually makes your question about the similarity of the Ark kinds even worse: If God had such variety to chose from, why pick such similar forms? And where are all the fossils of the other breeds or populations that didn’t make the cut? After all, if the “ape kind” was just as varied in the antediluvian world as it appears to be based on the Cenozoic fossil record, there should be tons of fossils of them in Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks.

    I thought up a few ways YECs might try to solve this conundrum, but they also bring up new questions. Maybe Ark kinds are different than the original created kinds, so that several different Ark kinds could all be descended from a single original kind? For example, maybe God makes a “carnivoran kind” on Day 6 whose descendants diversified into the different “canid kind” or “felid kind” by the time critters start getting told to get on the Ark. This solves the bottleneck problem and answers a question that occured to me after looking at that Great Ape chart: If the ape kind on the Ark wasn’t exact same as the original ape kind that God created, why did those specific forms get chosen? Was there some sort of breeding program to preserve “breeds” of the original kinds? This may be too close to macroevolution for some, though it would help them explain why some kinds appear to be related.

    Alternately, maybe God had specific “archetypes” in mind when choosing Ark representatives. This could have helped support the sustainability of life in the immediate aftermath of the Flood. If you have a bunch of animals with similar niches running around, it’s not as big a deal ecologically if one taxon bites the dust. After all, predators had to hunt after everyone got off the Ark and if there are only two individuals of a kind then you theoretically only need to kill one to wipe out the entire kind. The only way to avoid a bunch of extinctions within the first few weeks after disembarking would be if Noah and family had enough food to keep carnivores fed until stable prey populations were established. Incidentally, I haven’t seen any work from YEC folk on how long it would have taken for various ecosystems and populations to recover after the Flood. What does environmental recovery look like when there aren’t any outside populations to feed in because every environment has been devastated? Seems like that would be an important question to answer, especially if they want to say the Ice Age happened a few hundred years later.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Tyler, your speculation on whether the Ark “kinds” were different from created kinds is interesting but don’t think it does anything to solve the bottleneck problem. No matter how similar or different an Ark “kind” was to a created kind, there woulds till be only pairs of animals for each kind on the ark. Each would have only a very limited number of alleles per pair (4 total for each trait). From that, AIG imagines lots of new species and genera rapidly evolving, and scores or more new alleles appearing for each new species and genus in the process, with no plausible mechanism to accomplish this, especially in such tiny time frames. Indeed, it severely contradicts what we know about genetics, what is seen in the fossil record, and what we see in species that become bottlenecked in historic times (even when the bottleneck is far less severe), which is many generations of low diversity and largely uniform populations –the exact opposite of what AIG needs.

      Like

  7. robert byers says:

    Yes there is a primate kind. Yet it need not only be the monkey types. It could be such smaller creatures that only vaguely now resemble the rest of the spectrum in primates. Its possible there was no ape on the ark but instead some ape ish small creature. Like how I see the civet cat as also in the cat kind and more likely closer to the original kind on the ark.
    Its always about spectrums of diversity in a kind. indeed we are in that spectrum of looking like primates or looking like some tiny primate ish critter. yet we were created differently obviously.
    So its likely there would be no fossils of primates found anywhere below the flood line/k-pg line. AIG does a great job in pushing YEC toward squeezing creatures into fewer and fewer kinds. I expect this to continue.

    Like

    • Robert, if it continues, then they are accepting more and more evolution, creating more and more contradictions with past claims. Many of their followers are going may become confused as YEC authors continue to rail against evolution, while simultaneously suggesting that countless new species, genera, and even families of animals evolved at break-neck speeds after the Flood. At any rate, if you’re going to lump scores of diverse primates and “primate ish” animals into the same “kind”, how does it make sense to exclude humans, especially while including hominids so similar to humans that YECs can’t decide whether they are “apes” or “humans.” I guess you can do so merely on the grounds of a narrow and rigid interpretation of genesis while ignoring all scientific evidence, which is what YECism has always been founded on, which even most Christian scientists find problematic.

      Like

      • To be more accurate, instead of saying “ignoring all scientific” evidence, I probably should have said “ignoring, dismissing, misunderstanding, or misrepresenting massive amounts and varieties of scientific evidence.”

        Like

      • robert byers says:

        Glen. why do you guys say its evolution. its not the mechanism of evolutionism. Nothing to do with mutations appearingly and being selected on. This would take too long and is impossible to imagine mutations arriving as needed. So its anothjer mechanism to be imagined within the glory of genetic complexity. One can see ecxamples today. the amazon, cichlid fishes, the fossil record. even humans must of changed within one or two centuries and then finished to what we have today.
        We humans are a special case. We must be within the biology blueprint but can’t have a body that represents us in our identity as Gods kids. So we uniquely are the only beings renting another creatures bodyplan. A creationist must draw this conclusion. All other creatures have thier own bodyplan especially on creation week. Then we simply have the best body for fun and profit.

        Like

        • Robert, your assertion that the mechanism of change can’t be natural selection because it takes too long is ironic, since many at AIG are suggesting that huge amounts of change took place in tiny time frames, with no plausible mechanism (other than natural selection). In the mainstream view, natural selection has millions of years to produce new taxa, and you think that’s not enough time, but AIG advocates huge amounts of time in hundreds of years, with no plausible mechanism, and you think the latter is more sensible? Really? You suggest an alternate mechanism must exist (indeed, I guess it must if AIG’s hyperevolution view is right), so why don’t you explain what it is? After that, you can also explain how their view matches the fossil record, which as far as I and many others can see, it simply clearly doesn’t.

          Liked by 1 person

          • robert byers says:

            Why ironic? The denied mechanism by us is not natural selection. Its selection on mutations. Evolutionism is nothing without happanchance mutations johnny on the spot. Instead we now see bodyplan changes must of been great and so bwe need a mechanism. its our intellectiual right not to know but within the glory of genetics/biology its easy to imagine its there. Then its hinted by many instances. The Amazon, humans, cichlid fishes in Africa, the fossil record. All shows the normal way is for great diversity in types of creatures and living together at the same time. no progression over time. So why not speciation is from a health of biology in a healthy area and not from competition in more poor areas. Every kid easily making its own species if there is a niche there. no problem.

            Like

            • rjdownard says:

              Robert, we get that you believe all these things. But we also see that you have never had evidence for any of it (hence your incapacity to discuss it). As for the fossil record, it so hilariously fails to match what you think it does (I know that directly in your incapacity to grapple with the reptile-mammal transition example, when you posted on my website) that you need to take note of the fact that, however fervently you believe what you do, it comes off as absurdly obtuse among people actually familiar with that fossil record.

              Of course nothing that is posted in back-and-forths here will change the data field one iota, so by all means compile a monograph on what you believe and persuade the scientists that your view is the correct one. That might be more amusing to watch than what you field on line, which is both tendentiously wrong and boring.

              Like

              • robert byers says:

                The truth is for the people and they can be persuaded. Evidence is within the discussion always. The fossil record supports creationism very well on its data. its evolutionists who can only look at the fossil record aFTER geology support is presumed. On its own the fossil record just shows diversity in creatures. No progression. that is a illusion from a non biological support namely geology.
                Oh yesah the reptile/mammal thing back in the day even more supports me as only this year I really realized theropod dinosaurs were flightless ground birds. Indeed those fossil creatures were not reptilkes or mammals but its a error of old time classification. They simply have traits that humans put into hard and fast categories. There are no mammals or reptiles. Just creatures with traits in spectrums of diversity.

                Like

                • Robert, since you evidently believe geologists don’t know what they are talking about, while you are brimming with brilliant new ideas, perhaps you can tell us where you studied geology (academically and in the field) and where we can find your published scientific papers refuting the accumulated knowledge of tens of thousands of geologists. Legitimate scientists don’t just imagine or “realize” major facts of geology and biology; they do extensive study in and out of the field to form and support their conclusions. I see no evidence that you’ve done any of that. Indeed, what I see from you instead is a constant stream of outlandish claims not even supported by other YECs. On the RationalSkepticism.org blog you go so far as to assert (starting with an odd redundancy): “This YEC creationist says there is not and has never been a thing or process called science.” That explains a lot. How do you expect any scientists (even in the YEC camp) to take you seriously if you deny the very existence or utility of science?

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • robert byers says:

                    its not about me or your opinion of me. Its on the merits. If we do a better job then the oldtimers then we do. thats real scientific progress. oNe can correct without dismissing previous researchers. tHis is the norm in science.Creationists have a great headstart because of fixed boundaries already defining options. Then one can do a innovative job. I offer hypothesis and evidence for my conclusions and debunk others likewise.

                    Like

                    • Robert, you’re right about one thing: it’s not about you, it’s about evidence and lack thereof. You say you have offered evidence for your conclusions, but all you ever offer here are outlandish claims and speculations which contradict lots of evidence. I asked you to tell us where we can find the scientific papers detailing your, but all we hear are ‘crickets.’

                      Like

                    • rjdownard says:

                      Robert, your arguments have no merit. But you do waste everybody’s time, including your own. While time is precious, there seems little doubt that even should you live to be 100, you’ll be no farther along, nor any more informed or informative, as you have been in the years previously. You are a crank, nothing more, nothing less.

                      Like

                    • Yo, Glen, other well-meaning friends; don’t feed the trolls. And don’t even try to argue with a perpetual motion machine

                      Like

                    • Paul, you’re probably right about not feeding the trolls (who would take deny being trolls of course), but part of me feels that if one let’s their BS go without even a brief reply, any new visitors here might think their remarks had some validity, and that we had rebuttal. Since everyone can see that’s not the case, and that Robert is a broken record without any evidence, I won’t try to engage him further. Peer at least tries to explain his misguided ideas a little, and apparently wrote a book (which he offered me and then declined to send), but is largely a broken record too, and seems to have disappeared since he first posted in this thread. If he resurfaces I’ll try to ignore him too, unless he posts something new and evidence-based (and I doubt anyone will hold their breath on that).
                      Last, let me add that it’s a shame more non-trollish YECs don’t participate in this blog, especially reps of AIG, since we often discuss their claims. I have to believe at least a handful do read it. I suspect they seldom post much because they know that unlike their usual YEC audience, they will be held to a higher standard and expected to fully support their assertions and speculations with evidence, as well as face a lot of counter-evidence.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    • rjdownard says:

                      Quite so, Paul. It may be presumed that the case of Robert is now closed, and no further troll feeding need be done. Nothing prevents Robert from writing his ground-breaking tome and persuading the scientists, except of course that his argument is cockamamie wrong and meaninglessly vague, which means that revolution is not a viable option for him. We can all predict Robert will be trawling for some new website conversation to haunt, though, where he will spin his wheels as he has here and elsewhere, to the advancement of no knowledge whatsoever apart from the actual science alluded to by those criticizing his vaporings.

                      Like

                    • I don’t know if Peer fits the definition of troll, but it seems curious that soon after he made his initial assertions, then told me I needed to read more, he disappeared without answering my follow-up questions. Likewise, it curious that so few YECs have even tried to rebut Joel’s article or answer the serious questions about AIG’s model that others have posted here. As I said, I suspect at least some YECs do read this blog, but apparently have no plausible answers. They probably realize their hyperspeciation model can’t withstand close scientific scrutiny, and probably confuses even many of their own followers.
                      By the way, during creation conferences I attended in the early and mid 1980’s it appeared that a number of YECS (Kurt Wise, Wayne Frair, and others) were already suggesting things foreshadowing AIG’s current claims. I recall Frair suggesting that turtles and tortoises might involve only one or two baramins, which would imply that a “kind” could be as broad as a taxonomic order. FYI, here is Frair’s 2000 article outlining his views on “Baraminology” and recommended terminology, and the history of the 1996/97 “Baraminology study group” that included himself, Wise, Nelson, Todd Wood, Ashley Robinson, and John Meyer. https://www.creationresearch.org/baraminology

                      Liked by 2 people

  8. Another problem I never hear YECs address is how and why these generic “kinds” stayed stable between creation and the Flood. If organisms were created with vast potential for hyper-rapid speciation, what stopped them from doing this right out of the gate at creation? How would there be any original “baramins” left for Noah to take onto the Ark?

    Like

    • I’ve asked and asked this question and get little response. But we can see just from this new exhibit the expectation that the original generic kind quickly diversified in the pre-flood world presumably into different lineages we would call species or even recognize as genera. To preserve the “kind” the ark only needed to preserve just one of these lineages but then doesn’t that destroy the idea of some sort of super generic kind with immense built-in variation that would allow it to adapt to future changes in environment? The variation would have sorted itself out from Creation to Flood such that what was brougth on the ark would have but a tiny fraction of the original variation I have seen a few suggest God miraculously preserved the original variation in one lineage and made sure that was the one that got to the ark but an explanation just made up to solve a problem.

      Like

      • “Another problem I never hear YECs address is how and why these generic “kinds” stayed stable between creation and the Flood.”

        This has also been addressed in my book. The short answer…they did not. The rapidly diversified. The potential to diversify used to be enormous. The better question would be, why did it halt? That is also described in my book. It halted because of saturation of the genomes or complete loss/inactivation of TEs (which I renmaed variation-inducing genetic elements). I have recommended several times to read my papers and book. In the Netherlands it was released in 2009, a prepub was published in 2007 and 2008 in J of Creation. And it is available in english since 2018.

        Like

    • rjdownard says:

      Oh, that’s not an option for them, Daniel. ALL the observed diversity seen in the fossil record, the stuff trapped by the Big Slosh, MUST have arisen from the very same created kinds made c. 4000 BCE, that would be preserved ultimately on the Ark. Meaning that vast fossil diversity had to be generated in only the 1600-ish years from Creation to the Flood (c. 2350 BCE). The absence of those forms in the post-Flood world is puzzling if the whole idea of the Ark was to PRESERVE them. A tally of the Ark Encounter has them accepting that over half of the Ark’s inhabitants went extinct.

      Though Flood Geology has been a going concern for half a century, and baraminology has been around for several decades, there has been no progress in working out the details of both the pre- and post-Flood speciation activity, or their biogeographic distribution (let alone what geography was around at the various stages, on which the critters would have frolicked).

      Like

  9. Another problem for AIG’s hyper-rapid speciation view is that as they accept more and more evolution, even to the family level, it begs the question of what exactly stops organisms from evolving even further? For example, what would prevent a relatively small number of early, rodent-like mammal taxa from evolving into all the mammal groups we see today (and in the fossil record)? They can no longer credibly say that in their young earth view, there is not ot enough time, since they now envision lots of evolution happening at break-neck speeds. They still insist that there must be limits to change, so that it always stays within each “kind” (whatever that is), but this seems to be based solely on a hyper-literal reading of Genesis rather than any demonstrated scientific evidence. Peer, beside the other questions we’ve asked, care to address that problem?

    Liked by 1 person

    • One other obvious problem with the creationist account. If there were hyperevolution in the few centuries between the Flood and Abrahamic times, why have we not seen further hyperevolution in the 3800 or so years that have passed since then?

      Liked by 1 person

  10. I noticed on AIG’s diagram that they omit some of the most problematic hominids for their view such as Homo erectus and H ergaster, which clearly show features of both modern humans and earlier hominids, and which some YECs call “human” and others “ape.” Indeed, they can’t include any members of genus Homo, or the genus as a whole, without raising the sticky question of why they also exclude humans from the chart. But as we know, the exclusion is not based on scientific evidence, but their doctrinal assumptions.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Just check out the HAR1F gene with its 118 nucleotide…chimp, gorilla and urangutan are monomorph, humans have 18 differences. The gene product is required for developing the human brain cortex. So, indeed the great apes stand out clearly and there is no evolutionary way to explain the differences in an evolutionary framework. It requires only one falsifiying observation for a theory to break down. There are 2700 HARs in our genome. Interestingly, humans have also around 1400 human-specific protein coding genes and a confirmed 150 microRNA genes. That suffices to completely overturn common descent. The data are better explained by the theory presented in my book Darwin Revisited.

    Like

    • Peter, over a year ago you offered to send me a copy of your book, but I’ve asked about that several times since, without reply. Are you reneging on the offer? I’d think about shelling out the >$30 for the book if it had any support from major creationist groups. Can you name any groups that endorse it? I’m also waiting for you to answer the important question of what would trigger specific adaptations to environmental changes if not natural selection, which you seemed to downplay in the past. Even if that is addressed in your book, please summarize it here. Thank you.

      Like

      • Glenm I asked for your email number but you never gave it. I can send you a pdf.

        pb

        Like

      • “Can you name any groups that endorse it?”

        CMI. They published four chapters in 2008 in the JoC.

        “I’m also waiting for you to answer the important question of what would trigger specific adaptations to environmental changes if not natural selection, which you seemed to downplay in the past.”

        Natural selection is merely differential reproduction and as such not the trigger. The trigger is the environment, which can be cold, heat, radiation, stress, etc. It triggers a cue of epigenetic changes and activity of TEs (VIGEs), which then generates variation in offspring. This can be in the form of pointmutations (in plants and bacteria) or regulatory adaptations in gene networks (all eukaryotes). VIGEs have been shown to respond in a specfic way to different sorts of stresses. Because of these variation-inducing genetic predispostion natural selection hardly plays a role. Biology is more like HUGO de Vries understood it. I am writing in the dutch tradition.

        Like

        • Peter, you said CMI published 4 chapters of your book. I supposed that could be considered an implicit endorsement of at least parts of it, but did they make any specific or supportive comments? Have AIG or other YEC groups supported it, or even individual geneticists? think you missed the point of my question about what triggers adaptation in your model. It’s not enough to say the environment triggers changes. The question is HOW it does that in an adaptive manner, especially if natural selection is not much involved, as you claim. You can try to dismiss natural selection, but it explains a lot and has been experimentally confirmed. In your model, by what specific process would genetic material change in an adaptive manner in response to environmental changes? How are new alleles formed? Are you still willing to send me your book, which you offered to do many months ago? Thank you.

          Like

    • Peer, you stress certain genetic differences between “humans” and “apes” but seem to disregard many key genetic commonalities, and compelling anomalies such as the apparent fusion of chromosome 2. Are you saying none of the points in the following summary about that are valid?
      http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
      Also, you’re talking about living apes. Why would you presume your argument applies to extinct hominids? And how do you account for the fossil record of hominids if we did not evolve? More specifically, how do you account for the fact that some hominids show so many intermediate features that even many YECs disagree on whether they are “human” or “ape.”? How do you explain the fact that, in general, the father back one goes (stratigraphically lower) the less like modern humans the most human-like hominids appear? That is just what we would expect if we evolved; but makes no sense in the YEC paradigm. If you disagree, how do you explain the paleontological evidence?

      Like

      • Glen, the alleged fusion of chromosome 2 has been negated by the presence of a functional 3-exon expressed RNA gene exactly in the middel of fusion site, the exons spanning the fusion site.

        Like

        • Peter, I don’t see how that would negate the numerous compelling lines of evidence for fused chromosome 2 listed in the link I left, or why the exon could not have evolved. Can you address at least some of the many points in that article? Can you answer my questions about the fossil record supporting human evolution?

          Like

        • rjdownard says:

          No, it hasn’t been “negated” by that, though that is the line Tomkins takes too. Though the likes of CMI like to think that as well, the regular geneticists haven’t bought on to that spin.

          Like

Comments or Questions?

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: