Biological Revolution

Looking at possible scenarios, what conditions might we expect to occur after the flood that would promote quick genetic change? We might expect harsh conditions. We might also expect low population numbers, isolation, low competition and low predation in an unpopulated world with open niches. All of these factors are the major causes for the rapid speciation rates found in island speciation.

The Ark carried two of a kind (if they were unclean) and seven of a kind (if they were clean). The clean animals were used by man for food and for sacrifices to God. So to have a few more of the clean animals around seems appropriate.

Two and seven of a kind are very low numbers for survival and remember, they are to survive in a world where the foliage, just after the flood, is just growing up for the first time. There are no fully mature ecological systems already in place. The whole world was probably extremely unstable Biologically.

We are also told that Angels led the animals into the Ark. They could have also helped led the migration from the Ark to repopulate the whole world. Who knows, there are many questions that are left unanswered. Did the animals migrate in small groups? Did they, from time to time separate into even smaller groups and thus go their separate ways? If these ideas are possible, then this process of distributing the animals after the flood could have taken many generations to complete.

The low numbers resulting from the spreading of the animals throughout the whole world could have lasted for quite some time. This would result in having small isolated groups of animals all over the world. Each population, having an extremely small gene pool. Thus they would suffer the same kind of genetic loss as is described today in isolated islands through sampling error of recombination. All of the conditions needed for island speciation were present in the Earth shortly after the flood.

Another feature of this speciation process, is that each group would lose a different portion of the original genetic material. Natural Selection would ensure that each group would be well suited to their new habitat. Thus, the various groups would start developing different behavior patterns and features that would distinguish them from other groups. So after awhile, they would start looking, acting, and living differently then they originally did. Thus the variation as seen today in the world, could have developed quite quickly.

Most examples of island speciation is the result of genetic loss. They lose the function of wings, eyes, etc. Even changes that are thought of as positive, the changing of bills on birds could also be a loss of certain genes or the modification and control of already existing genes. However, it is also true that major genetic changes such as: mutations, chromosomal aberrations, recombinations, viruses, et. cetera have also influenced the end result of speciation. This is a topic I wish to explore more fully in the future.

According to how I presently view things, the original precursor species had a powerful ability to adapt. However, once they adapted to their new environments through the loss of genetic material, they then lost that ability to adapt to other changes in the future.

Each species by adapting to its new environment, has committed itself to its new environment. The degree of that commitment is dependent upon how much genetic loss of variation was felt during the adapting process. In some species, like the cheetah, the DNA of one individual is so much like any other individual of their species, that they are essentially clones of each other (some do not think that the Cheetah will survive because of this genetic problem).

There seems to be a trade-off between increasing the survivability of a species to live in a specific locality, and being able to adapt to future changes in the environment. In today's world, man is often destroying habitats that contain animals, etc., that fill small finely tuned niches. Once that habitat is destroyed, the animals, etc., die. These animals are no longer able to adapt to the kind of changes in the environment that their predecessors had faced.

The question to ask: Are we forcing nature to change too quickly or have most species lost the ability to adapt to large changes as has occurred in the past?

Animal types or species are able to adapt to changes in their environment. However, there is a limit to their ability to adapt, thus they become unfit when natural selection forces them to the edge of survivability. When they reach that limit, that group becomes extinct. Evolution of course, suggests that genetic drift through the mutation process, increases genetic variability. Thus it is thought to reverse the lessening of variability found in the gene pool of a population due to the selective pressure of speciation. Mutations, and other genetic changes, according to the theory, allow a population to gain new adaptability for future changes in the environment by creating new vital genes that become useful to the species. Genetic drift is even thought to reverse the increase of entropy that is expected in closed systems.

The evidence is lacking; however, to show that new genes do arise from genetic drift to such an extent that the increase of entropy is reversed. It is true that Creationists believe that genes change and that genetic drift occurs. However, to actually produce a greater lever of "order" from random interactions (thus decreasing entropy as will be seen in later discussions) is what causes Creationists to object.

Entropy is a measure of disorder. The Evolutionist sees order and purpose as coming out of disorder. More specifically, the Evolutionists sees that the increase in entropy does not have to proceed if outside energy is added to the system constructively, thus allowing useful work to be done. So Entropy would be decreasing in the speciation process according to the Evolutionary viewpoint. Both natural selection and the processes that bring about genetic variability are seen as being able to produce a higher state of order than previous species. The progression of speciation is seen as a road of progress where better and better species evolve.

It is easy to see how those holding an Evolutionary viewpoint could use an extrapolation of the evolving speciation process to include the idea that all the species on our world had ascended from an initial simple cell. Hence the process of having new species evolve and form is called an evolutionary process.

Creationists would see disorder (entropy) as increasing since the original creation of our world. The original creation is viewed as the pinnacle of what is achievable, and that things have been running down hill ever since. With this view, speciation would be seen as a degradative process where genes and/or the function of genes is lost. At best, natural selection etc. may slow down the downward spiral as it would only preserve the strong individuals. The weaker individuals would not be able to survive as successfully. As time continues species would become more homozygous in nature as well.

It is easy to see that the question of entropy is extremely important in determining whether the evolutionary process of Evolution or the degradative process of Creation would prevail.

Before the flood I would imagine that genetic variability would have been much greater than today. Once the flood occurred, however, most of the gene pool was destroyed, life was allowed to continue using only a few individuals of each "Kind" to repopulate the Earth. Each Genesis Kind is thought to have been potentially the source of quite a number of modern species. So I would expect genetic variability to be much less today than before the flood.

It would be extremely interesting to eventually compare fossilized DNA with present day organisms. However the level of the degradation of the DNA itself prevents this possibility. The only types of fossil DNA which seemed to have been preserved are that of bacteria, blue-green algae, etc. These simple organisms are not thought to have experienced the same kind of conditions as the other animals experienced after the flood.

Gene mutations, genetic recombination and the changes in chromosome structure and number are usually thought to be sufficient to resupply a population with genetic variability. However, it must be realized that in a Biblical scenario, there is just not sufficient amount of time to allow for any great amount of change. This is especially true for mutations. In addition, Creationists question the ability of mutations etc. to actually be a powerful enough factor to generate new functional genes with new usable attributes. Indeed, most if not all mutations have proved to be a destructive force in the struggle for survival on this world.

If the time factor is much shorter than is realized by the scientific community, we might expect some indications in the speciation process that would warrant a shorter time.

• No time for random mutation activity. Instead most mutations are made by a enzyme mediated mutation process.
• Speciation might not be complete. If species are brought back together, they might mate as if they were of the same species.

Mutation activity is the subject of present research and will be reported to you at a later time.

The subject of speciation is a hotly debated topic even without the added factor of adding Creationary viewpoints to the mix. Dr. Karen Jensen who spent a little time in the Galapagos islands indicated to me through personal communication that researchers at the Darwin Station on Santa Cruz Island, the second largest Island of the Galapagos, brought finches from the various islands to the big aviary at the Station. She heard that almost all the different finches ended up interbreeding! So although they were morphologically distinguishable when separated, they were able to interbreed, and so their species designations are brought into question. If anyone finds documentation of this, I would be interested to hear from you!

So it seem, for whatever reason, the species barrier between the various Galapagos finches are weak.

This is the subject of on-going research. For the last six years or so, I have been studying evidences that the DNA code itself is degraded from what originally existed when God created the world. The research is not out yet; However, below you will find links to various topics that will help to introduce the research.

You will find some simularities to the subjects that are addressed on this page, but you will also find much added detail that make these pages more informative.

	Does the 2nd law of thermodynamics describe the change in entropy of living organisms which are the most complicated machines on Earth?.
	Pseudogenes most likely are the result of degradation. They have lost their original created function. So, If true, some parts of the cell might not have a purpose.
	What would be the nature of the degradation in organisms? Would Island Speciation throw some light on this question. The Bible seems to suggest a few definite ways that man has degraded.
	How do pseudogenes form? Links to both a creationary and an evolutionary review paper provides a proper background of the issues. Three research options are explored to explain the difficulties.

Various Questions Explained Concerning The Speciation of Man

 

The first question: What did Eve look like? It would seem that L and the daughters L1 etc would have some similar physical characteristics. I cannot find what they are. Any clues?

 

We have more to say on what Noah's progeny looked like than Adam and Eve's progeny. When God confused the languages at the tower of Babel, each family group, or each group that now had the same language, went off to their separate ways. At that point they migrated to different parts of the world and at times splintering off producing some related groups of people in the world.

In addition we know from genetic studies that these groups did not interbreed with each other for some time. It was probably because of the language differences that they stayed separate and distinct all those years. It's amazing but this possibility was even suggested at a scientific meeting by people studying the history of man in the field of Molecular Genetics. It was not a majority position but it was mentioned to the consternation of some present at the meeting. Because they right away recognized the possible Biblical connection to the idea that language differences could have kept the people groups separated throughout history since the tower of Babel.

Today, we can see the results of what happened, because we have all the people groups of the world for our study. They all come from the different original language groups that were formed at the tower of Babel. It is amazing to see how different each group is from each other.

So each group had offspring like themselves, and sampling errors were introduced because they were a smaller groups of people. Thus, each group in time, became more like each other, thus they formed what we consider today to be their own race of people.

The genetics of these people, before they divided at the tower of Babel, must have been quite different than today. In today's world, interbreeding Europeans, for example, have European-looking offspring. They are all very similar since the genetics of man has become much more homogeneous. In other words, the genes of man today are much more like each other. Thus there is less ability for us to produce the vast variability that could be produced by early man. Genes have been lost because of the same kind of genetic sampling errors as is found in Island Speciation which is discussed on this web page.

So, all these different shapes and sizes of mankind that are found in the world today, have originated from six people who were on Noah's Ark, the three sons of Noah and their wives. The ability to produce this kind of variability is just not with us today. The genetics of man today is too much like each other to produce the same kind of variability. The only way to produce greater variability. in today's world, is for different people groups to intermarry. Hybrid vigor is a benefit of such a marriage.

Because of the things that we can see in the human population today, and because of the type of speciation discussed on this page, we can surmise that the genetics of early man, was much more heterogeneous than today's population of people. So their must have been much more variability in the genes allowing the progeny of these early people to be quite variable.

Now, let's look at your question: Since Adam and Eve were the original pair in the Garden of Eden, I would surmise that their progeny could have been even more capable of variability than is now found in the progeny of Noah. The reason is quite simple. There could have been some sampling errors introduced into the genetics of man before the flood, and more specifically before Noah came to be. God's people were a small part of the population of the world before the flood. Thus there could have been some sampling errors induced into the genetics of the smaller group that followed God at that time.

I believe you should keep in mind these kinds of things as you try to determine what the physical characteristics of these early people actually were, before the flood. I think they could have been quite variable, which, if true, should make your job much harder to determine.

Donkeys and horses are different species and they have different numbers of chromosomes (I am using the term "species" as most scientists today would use the term. I'll tell you what I mean below). The horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62 chromosomes. When a male horse and female donkey are mated, the offspring is a mule and it has 63 chromosomes.

Now you are right that being able to breed does help determine a species. However, in this case there are complications. Because horses and donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes, and because the DNA is organized just a little differently, that means there are some problems. When the DNAs of the two animals come together, the DNA must be alike. They must be organized in the same way. This allows the DNA to organize and to line-up or pair-up with each other in the Biological process called Meiosis. (Look up Meiosis on the Web and see what they say.)

Obviously, if the two animals are of the same species, then the DNA will be organized in exactly the same way and they will have the same number of chromosomes as well. So they would have the same order and organization of genes and everything else that we don't know about.

However, if the DNA of the two animals are just a little different, then there can be a little difficulty when the DNA of the two animals tries to pair-up, thus aligning themselves to each other in the Meiosis process. If there is some trouble in getting completely aligned, then the offspring might have problems such as being infertile. This is what happens when a horse and donkey are mated. Now, there is a small number of mules and hinnies (mostly hinnies) that are even fertile but most are infertile.

Zebras and horses are also mated to produce a zorse. However, most zorses are sterile. In addition, zebras are also mated with donkeys to produce a zeekonk. Most zeekonk are also sterile. So, it seems that all three (horse, donkey and zebra) are closely related species. Not the same species but three different species that are very much like each other. They could be closely related species from a creationary perspective, in that they could all be from the same original species, from the Ark, that I would call a Genesis Kind (See below).

However, the mating of animals that are even more different than the examples we are looking at, the chromosomes will then have even more trouble coming together in the aligning process and in that case the offspring might not even be viable.

Now, scientists who study different areas of science, might at times, have a more difficult time discussing various things of science because the terms they use, might be different even though they might use the very same word. The different fields of science might never get together on a lot of things to ensure that all the terms were actually the same terms. So, to a certain extent, they just make their own terms.

The same problem can exist between creationists and evolutionists. You must realize that not all creationists think the same way. Now you may have misunderstood the author of that article. You need to go back and try for a clearer understanding of what was presented.

However some, I think, may possibly classify a species as those species or groups that came out of the Ark as a species. So a species could possibly be defined in reference to the time of the flood. Since that time, these animals have migrated in all directions and many of the animals have changed through the years. The animals in Asia will change differently than those in America. Today's scientists would classify them as different species but originally, they were one species that came out of Noah's Ark. This page describes this kind of species which I call a Genesis Kind.

So, you would probably not expect an evolutionist to agree with the reasons why a creationist might call the horse, donkey, and zebra a single species. Creationists and Evolutionists do not think the same way. Their terms might sound the same but they can mean different things. You need to read that article to find out what the man is thinking. Most likely, an evolutionist will not agree with the logic that the creationist made in determining whether they are all the same species or not.

So, the word species among some creationists may be different than the usual evolutionary scientist.

I personally use two terms.
1) Genesis Kind - I use to denote groups that originally came from the Ark. At that time they could fully interbreed.
2) species = I use today's understanding of being able to interbreed today. You must also realize that there are many reasons why two animals may not interbreed. It may be because their DNA is too different, it may be because they physically cannot come together anymore, and also, it may be because of behavior differences. They just can't get together. There have been arguments among evolutionists about these reasons of not being able to interbreed.

The horse, donkey, and zebra, I think, could have come from the same original Genesis Kind. I don't know for sure but it is a possibility and I am guessing that what the author was really saying is that horses, donkeys, and zebra are probably of the same Genesis Kind. (NOTE: The person who asked this question answered my e-mail saying that I was right. The article was describing "the same originally created 'kind' as specified in Genesis 1")

Some time ago, I found that horses actually have the genes for producing stripes just like the Zebra. But the genes are defective. They are pseudogenes. So horses could very much be related to zebra. That tells me that the two could indeed be from the same Genesis Kind; the same species at the time of the flood that came out of the Ark.

Another difference between horses and zebras is that zebras are very wild and they cannot be domesticated very easy at all. But horses adapt very easily to domestication. They have to be broken in etc. but the problems are nothing like what would be experienced with a zebra.