I recently read an article about research being done with flounders. The article discusses researchers in Finland how one species of flounder has turned into two separate species of flounder. The article cites this as evolution in action but is it? In this article, I’ll be examining the concept of evolution and speciation, which I touched on in a previous article.
What exactly do evolutionists mean when they say something is evolving? According to yourgenome.com “In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection.” Basically this means that, when evolutionists discuss evolution, they are talking about one species turning into another. Just so we are clear on terms, a species is “a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.” However, other factors are taken into account such as feeding habits, habitat etc. This is why, even though a wolf can interbreed with a dingo, they are considered separate species. However, if new species can form, is that evidence of evolution?
The answer to that depends on which type of evolution you are talking about. Evolutionists don’t like to tell you that there are at least six different types of evolution which must occur for their theory to stand. The first one is Cosmic Evolution, which pertains to the origination of time, space and matter. Second they must have Chemical Evolution, which is the formation of all the elements in the universe. Third they have to have Stellar Evolution, which is the formation of stars from those chemical elements. Fourth they have to somehow get past the Law of Abiogenesis and have Organic Evolution. Fifth they must have Macro-evolution, which is essentially monkeys to man evolution. Sixth they must have Micro-evolution, which is essentially the formation of new species. Thus the change from one type of flounder to another would fall under micro-evolution, or speciation. The other five have at no scientific background at all. Evolutionists know this, and thus when they present examples of evolution to children in textbooks, they invariably put forward examples of Micro-evolution.
Is Micro-evolution a problem for the Creationist? Absolutely not. The reason for this comes from the word “species.” That word is not found anywhere in the Bible. In fact the word was not introduced until the 1550s. When the Bible discusses animals, it discusses them based on the word “kind”. So what exactly is a Biblical kind? Within the Linnaean classification system, in most cases, a kind would fall roughly at the family level, just above genus. However, since evolutionary dogma has been so firmly accepted by science, how kinds fit into the classification system has not been studied at all so this is an estimate. For the Creationist, Micro-evolution is a mere change within the kind.
Isn’t change within a kind still a problem for Creationists? In order to answer this, you need to understand a bit about variability in genetics. Traits, such as hair color, eye color, skin tone and the like are inherited from both mom and dad. Each parent in vertebrates and some invertebrates has two copies of the information for a trait and they are not necessarily the same. Only one of these pieces of information is passed to the child from each parent and which one varies from child to child. Thus it is possible to get a child which has completely different hair color for example, from its parents. Over time, if someone were to take a group of individuals and only allow those with a desired characteristic to reproduce, a population would result which could not produce anything other than the desired trait, unless they were to reproduce with an individual from another population. Depending on habitat and other similar factors, this population could be said to be a new species. However, no new information has been added to the gene pool. Instead, information has been lost. Say that the animals in the population had developed a camouflage pattern, because most of the ones that had not, had been eaten by a predator. Essentially, the information for the non-camouflaged pattern has been weeded out of the population. Once that information is gone, it cannot regenerate from within the population. The new information has to come from outside. This is why Micro-evolution is no problem for the Creationist. It merely uses existing information and specializes that information down further into a given species. No new information is added. All the information needed for a flounder to split into two species was there to begin with.
While evolutionists can speculate about the Macro-Evolution of the Flounder, the evidence they have merely points to change within a kind. Flounders still produce flounders. No flounder has ever been observed to produce anything other than a fish. Evolutionists are welcome to believe that this is possible, but until it is observable, testable and repeatable, it is not part of science and is in fact a religion.