We’ve looked through “Darwin’s telescope” and found the evidence lacking. There are no studies that seriously challenge the traditional gospel understanding of the Creation.
Missing Egyptian Mathematical Text
The ancient Egyptians made several noteworthy advances. Among their greatest achievements is existing for thousands of years (although not continuously) as an autonomous, self-governed society. They also harnessed the powers of nature so that they could produce food, fuel, and shelter for a large civilization.
The magnificence of ancient Egypt was certainly the envy and talk of the nations. With all its magnificent buildings, colorful paintings, and grand statues, my guess is that Egypt was the Universal Studios of the ancient world. Not quite Disney, though, with all the pagan worship and animal sacrifices.
Many important individuals visited Egypt. The house of Israel sought refuge there around 1500 BC. Alexander the Great took a major detour on his way to dethrone Persian King Darius and visited Egypt around 330 BC. Of course, Mary and Joseph sheltered there with the baby Jesus around 1 AD.
Other important travelers visited Egypt around 600 BC. They were Greek scholars. Tired of mythological buffoonery, Greek scholars visited Egypt to acquire secular knowledge. They wanted to understand things in a rational-empirical way rather than a mythological way. Greek scholars turned their backs on the Zeus and Apollo that their ancestors worshipped, and turned instead to mathematics and philosophy for an understanding of the world. Because of their efforts, the sun set on mythology and rose on epistemology.
One Greek scholar who visited Egypt was Pythagoras. I imagine Pythagoras dressed in a well-worn, dirt-stained tunic, footsore and tanned, poring over mathematical scrolls in an Egyptian library. He must have been amazed at the abundance of their accumulated knowledge. How excited he must have been to discover so many mathematical texts. He was certainly anxious to bring that knowledge back home to Greece and share it with others. That is exactly what he did.
I wonder if Pythagoras noticed something while studying the ancient Egyptian records. I wonder if he noticed that none of their mathematical records predate what we call 1800 BC. If he did notice, maybe he approached an Egyptian librarian and whispered, “Uh, excuse me Abubakar. Do you happen to have any math scrolls that were written before 1800 BC? I searched the scrolls in the math section over there and found none that were written prior to 1800 BC. Was there are fire or something?”
The oldest mathematical texts in Egypt date back to 1800 BC. Mathematical texts prior to that period apparently do not exists. Yet Egyptologists have found plenty of other texts much older than 1800 BC.
What happened? Did Egyptian kids get tired of studying mathematics and create an uprising in which they smashed all the math texts? My nimble imagination has a difficult time conjuring up an image of Egyptian youth dancing around a large fire as they toss math clay tablets into the flames.
The reason we have not found math texts predating 1800 BC is because there were none. You can only write about that which you know. Prior to 1800 BC, Egyptians did not know very much about mathematics, other than the basics. Apparently there was no advanced mathematical knowledge that needed to be recorded; nothing that needed to be passed down from generation to generation. Mathematically speaking, there wasn’t anything worthy of preservation.
All that changed when a traveler named Abraham wandered into Egypt around 1800 BC. According to Josephus and the Prophet Joseph Smith, Abraham shared his knowledge of mathematics with the Egyptians. He did not just share the basics. He shared advanced mathematical knowledge worthy of preservation. This is why the archeological record repeatedly produces mathematical texts that were written after 1800 BC. With Abraham, the Egyptians finally had something worth writing about, mathematically speaking.
Trilobite Troubles for Darwin.
One day in the summer of 2013 I was driving on Highway 6 south of Delta, Utah. My family and I were on a geological adventure to the Trilobite Quarry. I wanted to give my kids a fossil hunting adventure that they would never forget. We turned off the highway and drove 20 miles of dirt road before reaching our destination.
The quarry is a teardrop shaped hill surrounded by mounds of broken, grey sedimentary rock. The scattered rock is Cambrian shale, an ancient sedimentary layer containing many complex fossilized creatures. This particular site south of Delta, Utah is famous for its abundant supply of trilobites, extinct arthropods that scurried across the ancient sea bed long ago. We were anxious to find our own treasure trove of trilobite fossils by breaking apart the sedimentary rock.
The Cambrian trilobites we hunted are unique in that they have a variety of advanced features like jointed limbs, heads, antennae, digestive tracts, and compound eyes. These complex creatures are conspicuously absent in layers predating the Cambrian layer. If the trilobites in the Cambrian layer evolved, there should be ancestral transitional fossils displaying gradual change in older layers. However no reasonable intermediate organisms linking Precambrian and Cambrian features have been found.
The fossilized creatures below the Cambrian layer are soft-bodied and small. Although there is an ongoing debate about their true nature,[1] what is clear is that these simple creatures bear little resemblance to more advanced, exoskeleton creatures found in the Cambrian layer.[2] Cambrian creatures like the trilobite represent a “quantum leap in organismal and ecological [complexity]” compared to Precambrian creatures.[3] This quantum leap in complexity—sometimes called the Cambrian explosion—indicates that Cambrian creatures have no apparent ancestors in Precambrian layers as evolution supposes.
The absence of fossilized remains bridging Cambrian and Precambrian creatures troubled Charles Darwin. He acknowledged the problem posed by the absence of transitional fossils in The Origin of Species:
To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. . . . [T]he difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.[4]
The problem of absent transitional forms is an ongoing concern. Not long ago researchers reported that despite continued efforts to explain the Cambrian explosion through evolutionary processes, the issue continues to generate “recurrent confusion.”[5] The absence of ancestral transitional fossils has recently been called “macroevolutionary lag,” appropriately named for the lack of evidence for macroevolutionary change linking Precambrian and Cambrian life forms.[6]
After two fun-filled hours of splitting rocks and examining trilobite fossils, we were ready to go home. Everyone’s bucket was full. Even my four-year-old daughter had filled her bucket with fossilized remains. These she found by searching through broken stones tossed aside by previous fossil hunters, a common occurrence at the quarry as people find increasingly detailed specimens.
After arriving home I searched through our fossils and located my best specimen, an unbroken two inch trilobite. I planned on giving it to my friend Marion Millett, a World War II veteran and former chairman of the BYU Geology-Geography Department who had in times past given my children spectacular fish fossils. I was going to thank him with a fossil find of my own.
When I handed the fossil to Marion, he smiled and slid his fingers over its rough surface. He talked with uncanny familiarity about the Cambrian layer and trilobites. As in times past, he amazed me with his knowledge of rocks and fossils. Then he held up the fossil and said, “You know, trilobites are nature’s best evidence against evolution.”
I was curious. “How so?”
He went on to explain how the trilobite was a very sophisticated creature that suddenly appeared on earth with little or no evidence of gradual development from lower species. Having never heard of such a thing before, I decided to investigate further. I searched the modern day “seer stone” called Google. It turns out Marion was right, and that the evidence is all in the eyes.
Trilobites possessed the most sophisticated animal eye lenses ever produced at that time.[7] Their eyes were a compound assembly of hundreds of lenses, suggesting that trilobite vision may have been superior to vision in modern animals.[8]
Given that the trilobite was once a common creature, one would expect ample evidence of transitional life forms detailing gradual development of the compound eye. However, adequate transitional life forms have not been found. The absence of adequate transitional life forms leads to one conclusion.
The trilobite eye did not evolve. It was designed.
Citations
[1] Erwin Douglas, James Valentine, and David Jablonski, “The Origin of Animal Body Plans,” American Scientist, 85 (1997), 126–137.
[2] Gregory Retallack, “Ediacaran Life on Land,” Nature, 493 (2013), 89–92.
[3] Kevin Peterson et al., “The Ediacaran Emergence of Bilaterians: Congruence between the Genetic and the Geological Fossil Records,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 363 (2008), 1435–1443.
[4] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th Edition (1872), Chapter 10.
[5] Simon C. Morris, “Darwin’s Dilemma, The Realities of the Cambrian Explosion,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society – Biology 361 (2006), 1069–1083.
[6] Erwin H. Douglas et al., “The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals,” Science, 334 (2011), 1091–1097.
[7] Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, 105 (1974), 72–73.
[8] Shawyer, Trilobite Eyes, 72–73.
6 Comments
Where Did DNA Information Come From?
1/23/2016
2 Comments
When Alma and Korihor debated the existence of God, Korihor demanded evidence of God’s existence. Alma responded “Thou hast had signs enough” (Alma 30:44) and went on to describe natural phenomena as evidence for Deity. He told Korihor that “the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator” (Alma 30:44). According to Alma, order in the natural world manifests an Intelligent Creator.
Arguments for the existence of deity based on order in nature are just as valid today as they were two thousand years ago. In fact the evidence is more abundant today than what was in Alma’s time. Today some of the most convincing natural evidence for intelligent creation is found in the living cell.
During the late 1800s scientists knew that the inside of the cell contained the foundations of life. They called the contents of the cell "protoplasm" -- a term still in use today. They thought that protoplasm was a homogenous jelly-like substance. The jelly-like protoplasm was believed to have formed from chemical reactions between common elements like hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen.[1] This explanation for the creation of protoplasm suited 1800s Darwinists because it involved simple, natural processes that fell within the limits of what evolution could produce.[2]
Thanks to technological advancements enabling us to see the contents of cells, we’ve learned that protoplasm is much more than a simple jelly-like substance. Protoplasm contains, among other things, sophisticated machines called proteins. Proteins carry out numerous processes, from regulating organs and their functions to receiving messages and catalyzing chemical reactions. Also there isn’t a one size fits all protein. Specific proteins carry out specific functions.
Proteins are formed from chains of amino acids. There are about 20 different kinds of amino acids that can be ordered in various ways. The high number of available amino acid sequences is what allows our bodies to produce thousands of different proteins needed for survival. Amino acids must be ordered a certain way for each and every protein. If they are not properly sequenced, a protein designed to carry out a specific function will not form.
How do chains of amino acids form into functional proteins? Does it happen by chance? No. An incredible amount of specific information is needed to properly sequence amino acids. Once functional proteins are created, even more information is needed to instruct them on what functions to perform. Where does this information come from?
The information for creating proteins comes from our cells' Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). DNA is a double-strand structure that looks like a twisted ladder. The two sides of the ladder are sugar-phosphate strands. The rungs of the ladder are made up of pairs of nucleotide bases called Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine. The information needed to form proteins and direct their function comes from these nucleotide bases. Specifically information is contained in the sequencing (ordering) of the nucleotide bases.
It may be helpful to think of sequencing in nucleotide bases in much the same way we think of sequencing in binary computer code. The sequencing of nucelotides contains information in much the same way that sequencing of ones and zeros in binary code contains information, except that the sequencing of nucleotide bases is much more sophisticated. Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates commented that “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”[3] DNA can last thousands of years.[4] Also, according to recent estimates, one gram of DNA can store up to 455 exabytes of data[5] which is roughly the equivalent of 455 million terabytes or 455 billion gigabytes. The storage capacity of one gram of DNA kicks butt on your 500 gigabyte or 1 terabyte X-Box.
Where did all this information come from? Who arranged all the nucleotides so that they contain specific information needed for survival? Could this information have evolved? There are no satisfactory explanations for how this information evolved through unguided processes.[6] DNA and the massive amounts of information it contains can no more evolve than the information stored in your X-Box can evolve. Unguided processes are incapable of creating lengthy sequences of detailed information. This sort of information is created by intelligent beings just as the information stored in your X-Box was created by intelligent beings.
Although information-rich DNA points to the existence of an Intelligent Creator, evolutionists won't concede the point. They won't follow the evidence to where it leads. A good example of resistance to the overwhelming evidence for intelligence comes from Francis Crick. Crick was a co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA. He reminded biologists of the need “to constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved,”[7] lest they come to accept design-based arguments. In typical Korihorian fashion, those who follow his advice continue to deny the existence of an Intelligent Creator although the evidence stares them in the face.
Fortunately some scholars have conceded that DNA information comes from an intelligent source.[8] In 1969, Dean Kenyon co-authored a book on how natural forces of attraction influence amino acids. His book was popular with evolutionists because it proposed an undirected mechanism for forming chains of amino acids. However a few years later, after acquiring more information on the characteristics of amino acids and proteins, Kenyon realized that amino acids chains could not self-assemble into proteins; rather they got their assembly instructions from DNA. Due to the massive amounts of complex and specific information provided, he concluded that the information came from an intelligent being.[9]
Citations
[1] Thomas H. Huxley, “On the Physical Basis of Life,” Fortnight Review, 5 (1869), accessed October 30, 2014, http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE1/PhysB.html.
[2] Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: Harper Collins, 2009), Chapter 1.
[3] Bill Gates, Nathan Myhrvold, and Peter Rinearson, The Road Ahead: Completely Revised and Up-to-Date (New York: Penguin Group, 1996), 228.
[4] Svante Paabo et al., “ Genetic Analyses from Ancient DNA,” Annual Review of Genetics 38 (2004): 645-679, accessed October 30, 2014, DOI: 10.1146/annurev.genet.37.110801.143214.
[5] George M. Church, Yuan Gao, and Sriram Kosuri, “Next Generation Digital Information Storage in DNA,” Science 28 (2012): 1628, accessed October 30, 2014, DOI: 10.1126/science.1226355.
[6] Meyer, Signature in the Cell.
[7] Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 138.
[8] Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), Epilogue.
[9] Meyer, Signature in the Cell, 237, 397–398.
In the early 1600s, Italian scientist Galileo Galilei received word that a Dutch lens grinder had made an important discovery in optics. The Dutchman discovered that when certain lenses were combined, distant objects were made to appear closer. Upon hearing this news, Galileo applied himself to the study of refraction and attempted to replicate the Dutchman’s discovery.
Galileo prepared a tube out of lead and fitted a concave lens at one end and a convex lens at the other. So effective was his telescope design that he had more built and sold them to interested persons. While others were mainly interested in using the telescope to view objects on land and sea, Galileo turned his telescope toward the heavens.
For more than 2000 years the heavens were believed to be perfect and unalterable. Contrary to expectations of the moon being smooth, Galileo observed a rough surface covered with cavities and jagged peaks. He also noticed that the sun wasn’t a flawless sphere. Rather the sun had dark, irregular blemishes (sunspots) that moved across its surface. And contrary to the belief that everything in the heavens revolved around the earth, Galileo saw small stars (moons) moving around Jupiter, and saw Venus progress through moon-like phases, an observation that could only be reasonably explained if Venus moved around the sun.
Because Galileo’s observations contradicted long-held philosophical and religious beliefs about the nature of the heavens, his discoveries were not widely accepted. Some argued that his observations were illusions created by his telescope. Others said that the rough surface of the moon was covered by a smooth, transparent material, thus preserving the traditional view of a perfect heavenly sphere. Even the leading philosopher at Pisa, Italy refused to look through Galileo’s telescope for fear of what he might find.
Evolutionists certainly feel that their theory is facing the same kind of resistance from religiously-minded folks that Galileo faced years ago. Some evolutionists believe that if religious people would only look at the evidence, they would realize that Darwin’s ideas are true. Then believers would join the ranks of those who declare with joy that our ancestors were knuckle-dragging hominids. This is a reasonable claim. Many rational and religious individuals have hopped on the evolutionary bandwagon after considering the evidence for evolution.
Are the rest of us who continue to reject evolution like the 17th century Italians who would not accept Galileo’s evidence? Are we like the Pisa philosopher who would not look through the telescope for fear of what he might find? Perhaps some of us are apprehensive about taking a close look at evolution’s evidence for fear of finding compelling evidence that contradicts our cherished religious beliefs.
In reality there is nothing compelling to be found. To make this point, let’s take a brief look at recent evolutionary science. Let’s peer through “Darwin’s telescope,” so to speak, and examine the evidence. A review of the facts will show that the current body of evidence does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that evolution is true, despite the fact that many have accepted it as such.
Fossil Record
To begin with, evolutionists typically point to the fossil record in the geological strata (ancient layers of dirt) as some of their best evidence. Researchers repeatedly locate simpler species in older, lower sedimentary layers and more complex species in newer, higher layers. This fossilization pattern seems to suggest that simpler species came before more complex species as evolution supposes. This observation is often cited as demonstrating change across life forms over time.
While convincing to some, it is important to note that this pattern of fossilization is not direct evidence of evolution. No one saw creatures evolve from one form into another before becoming fossilized in layers of sediment. No one was alive when our supposed fish ancestor(s) developed lungs, ventured onto land, and became an amphibian before being fossilized.
Concluding from fossilization patterns that one life form evolved into another over millions of years is what philosophers of science call an inference to the best explanation. An inference to the best explanation, or abduction as it is sometimes called, infers past events from facts or clues that were left behind.[1] Because past events were not viewed and are no longer observable, we cannot be certain about the exact nature of the events that left the evidence. This explains why Darwin’s description about what happened in the past is a probable, not a certain explanation. No one can be certain that the pattern of fossilization in the geological record resulted from evolution.
If the simple-to-complex pattern was not created by evolution, then how did it come about? There are other explanations for the fossil record. One alternative explanation is that the Flood caused much of the fossilized layering. Another is that the layering is the result of a sequence of increasingly complex preparatory species being brought to the earth by the Lord during the creation periods, an explanation addressed in the final chapter. Nevertheless, until the Savior returns and reveals secrets in the earth (D&C 101:33), we may be left to guess about how the fossilization pattern came into existence.
Biological Similarities
Another oft-mentioned proof of evolution is biological similarity between species. Different species resemble each other anatomically (e.g., two eyes, two forward limbs, one head, one heart). Species also appear to follow similar phases of embryonic development in the early stages of life. There are also genetic similarities between species (e.g., humans and apes are about 96% genetically similar), including shared genetic anomalies (i.e., mutations) and so called “junk” DNA (i.e., DNA for which there is no known purpose). According to evolution, humans are anatomically similar to other species because we came from the same ancestor.
In reality biological similarities exist because all life was created by the same Designer who apparently saw no need to reinvent anatomical structures each time a new species was created. The idea of common design is not entertained by science because it assumes intelligent creation, a notion expelled from science long ago.
Imperfections
People who vigorously oppose intelligent creation are keen to point out that if our bodies had been created by an omnipotent Deity, they would have no imperfections. If there is an all-powerful Creator, as the believers suppose, then surely He would have used His wisdom and power to design a more perfect body. But our bodies are not perfect. We are subject to diseases, maladies, and aging.
Supposedly we also have vestigial (useless) structures and “junk” (useless) DNA. A classic example of a vestigial structure is the tail bone. The tail bone seemingly serves no purpose to humans. Why would an intelligent being outfit us with vestigial structures? Evolutionists have an explanation for the tail bone: it is a structure left over from when our animal ancestors used tails to swing through trees.
Such criticisms of divine creation stem from ignorance about God’s purposes. The existence of seemingly unnecessary DNA and so-called vestigial structures is the result of mankind’s limited understanding of the Lord’s purposes, not the result of evolution. Isaiah 55:8 reminds us that His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways. We need not assume that God would create things in a manner consistent with mankind’s expectations. Neither should we assume to fully understand the manner and purposes of His creation. Moreover, saying that our bodies would be better built if we were created by Deity also reflects a lack of understanding about the Plan of Salvation. We were placed on an imperfect world with imperfect bodies so that we can grow and prove ourselves worthy of exaltation amid the toils of mortal life. The perfect bodies that evolutionists suppose we should have if we were created by an omnipotent being will eventually come, after the resurrection.
Best Evidence for Evolution
If the fossil record and anatomical similarities do not qualify as direct evidence for evolution, then what does? Direct evidence would be studies showing significant change through real or manmade evolutionary forces. Such evidence is the holy grail of evolutionary research. Researchers know this, which is why they’ve carried out several studies in an attempt to show that evolution can produce morphological change.
Evolutionists point to studies showing speciation as direct evidence for their theory. It is important to note that their working definition of speciation is usually the creation of a reproductively isolated population. Reproductive isolation refers to not being able to reproduce with other, similar creatures.
An example of reproductive isolation is the Californian salamander. Long ago a species of salamander in northern California split into two groups as it followed two southern migratory routes, one east of Central Valley and the other west of the Central Valley. The region west of the valley is coastal while the region east of the valley is forested. Different environmental pressures on both sides of the valley led to the evolution of different species of salamanders. Where the migratory paths of the two species merge at the south end of the valley, the two species do not interbreed successfully.
Is speciation in salamanders evidence of evolution? Yes, of the microevolutionary sort where changes occur within similar life forms. However, speciation resulting in reproductive isolation hardly qualifies as direct evidence for macroevolutionary change. No matter how often we come across different species of salamanders that do not successfully reproduce, the creatures are still salamanders. Compelling direct evidence for macroevolutionary change would be research showing one life form changing into a different life form. I call this the holy grail of evolutionary research. This research has been attempted.
In 2013, Casey Luskin, research coordinator for the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, thoroughly reviewed several research articles purported to provide some of the best evidence for macroevolutionary change.[2] The papers he reviewed were cited on a pro-evolution website called TalkOrigins. Luskin’s findings are revealing.
According to Luskin, only a small number of the studies showed minimal evidence of speciation in the sense of reproductive isolation. More importantly, not one study produced significant morphological change, the kind expected if evolution were real. When anatomical change was observed, it was very limited. For instance, in one study where artificially-induced reproduction pressures increased the number of hairs on the backs of fruit flies, no major anatomical changes were observed. The fruit fly was still a fruit fly. An increase in the number of hairs on the back of a fruit fly no more comprises a new life form than new hair growth on the back of a middle-aged man comprises a new life form, unless, of course, he is also going through a midlife crisis
Luskin also reviewed studies on bacteria. Bacterial studies are especially interesting because they enable researchers to observe numerous generations over a relatively small period of time, thus increasing the chances of identifying morphological change. In one study survival pressures were artificially placed on a population of bacterium through the introduction of a ciliate predator. Because larger size increased the chances of survival in the presence of the predator, larger bacteria were more likely to survive and replicate than smaller bacteria. The end result was a population of larger bacteria. However, the bacteria were still bacteria. Repeated failures to produce significant morphological change in bacterial studies led one prominent British bacteriologist to declare: “Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.”[3]
In all the studies that Luskin reviewed not one showed “significant morphological change.”[4] The absence of direct evidence demonstrating change from one life form into another remains just as much a challenge today as it has in the past. Indeed “we are in a situation today similar to that experienced by Darwin more than a century ago [wherein] differentiation of species is inferred from copious indirect evidence, but has not actually been observed.”[5]
Conclusion
Despite repeated attempts to replicate macroevolutionary processes, researchers have not demonstrated change across life forms. This means that it is perfectly reasonable to reject evolution as an explanation for the origins of species. Latter-day Saints need not feel “unscientific” for rejecting the idea that our ancestors were cave-dwelling hominids. A species has never been shown to evolve into a different life form as evolution supposes.
We’ve looked through “Darwin’s telescope” and found the evidence lacking. There are no studies that seriously challenge the traditional gospel understanding of the Creation.
Citations
[1] Commentary, Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, eds. Martin Curd and J.A. Cover (New York: Norton & Company, 1998), 1236–1237.
[2] Casey Luskin, Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change: A Response to TalkOrigins’ Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ (2012), accessed 10/30/2014, http://www.discovery.org/f/8411
[3] Alan Linton, “Scant Search for the Maker,” Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001, 29.
[4] Luskin, Specious Speciation, p. 37.
[5] Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Olga Pavlovsky, “Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophilia,” Nature, 230 (1971), 289–292.
Fromhttp://www.mormonsandscience.com/religi ... -blog.html
