• CSC Home Page
  • Order Book
  • Table of Contents
  • Preface
  • Endorsements
  • Part I: Scientific Case for Creation
    • Life Sciences
    • Astronomical and Physical Sciences
    • Earth Sciences
    • References and Notes
  • Part II: Fountains of the Great Deep
    • The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
    • The Origin of Ocean Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire
    • Liquefaction: The Origin of Strata and Layered Fossils
    • The Origin of the Grand Canyon
    • The Origin of Limestone
    • Frozen Mammoths
    • The Origin of Comets
    • The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids,and Trans-Neptunian Objects
    • The Origin of Earth's Radioactivity
  • Part III: Frequently Asked Questions
  • Technical Notes
  • Index

  • Previous Page
  • Next Page

[ The Scientific Case for Creation > (To locate specific authors, consult the index.) > 10.   Distinct Types]

10.   Distinct Types

a “[Contrary to Darwin and generations of subsequent evolutionists] there are discontinuities among [all] species.” Mark Y. Stoeckle and David S. Thaler, “Why Should Mitochondria Define Species?”, Human Evolution, Vol. 33, pp. 1-30, 2018.

u Using different words, the authors state that “Species will reproduce after their kind.”—a phrase repeated eleven times in Genesis.

b . And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.”  Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.  Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.

u “Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.” Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, December 1928, p. 539.

u “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution].” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 210.

u “The fact that all the individual species must be stationed at the extreme periphery of such logic [evolutionary] trees merely emphasized the fact that the order of nature betrays no hint of natural evolutionary sequential arrangements, revealing species to be related as sisters or cousins but never as ancestors and descendants as is required by evolution.” [emphasis in original] Denton, p. 132.

c . “... no human has ever seen a new species form in nature.” Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

  • Previous Page
  • Next Page

Updated on Sunday, September 01 09/01/19 20:22:27
Copyright © 1995–2013
Center for Scientific Creation
http://www.creationscience.com

(602) 955-7663