No evidence of evolution and ‘deep time’
There are many similar plants and animals found in eastern Asia and eastern North America, but not in the regions between them (fig. 1). These include arachnids, millipedes, wasps, freshwater fish, and over 150 different seed plants.1,2 Evolutionists try to explain this by saying that, many millions of years ago, the northern regions were warmer and eastern Asia and eastern North America were part of one continuous plant and animal distribution (fig. 2). Then, they say, around five million years ago, the climate cooled and the plant and animal life were separated (fig. 1).3
Some plants and fungi found in eastern Asia and eastern North America are so similar that they are classified as being the same species.4,5 Others have been assigned different species names but probably should not have been. For example, the Snake Mouth Orchid is named Pogonia ophioglossoides when found in eastern North America, and Pogonia japonica when found in eastern Asia (fig. 3). When grown under the same conditions, however, they appear indistinguishable (fig. 4).
The Sacred Lotus (eastern Asia) and Yellow Lotus (eastern North America) are classified as two different species, Nelumbo nucifera and Nelumbo lutea (fig. 5).6 However, their hybrid form is fertile, again indicating that they are really the same species.7
The remarkable similarities between the plants and fungi of these two regions present a serious problem for evolutionists and their belief in ‘deep time’. This is because, over millions of years, sister species, living on different continents and separated by huge distances over land/ocean, would be expected to evolve different characteristics. According to the theory of evolution, the ancestors of humans separated from other ape-like creatures around six million years ago. Between then and now, the evolutionary process allegedly gave rise to all the many changes that turned these creatures into the people we are today. It is difficult for evolutionists to explain why, over the same time period, the plants and fungi of eastern Asia and eastern North America did not evolve and change too!
The similarities between the wildlife of these two regions, however, present no problem for biblical creationists. This is because, according to the Bible, none of the habitats found on the earth today can be older than around 4,500 years, the time of the global Flood, recorded in Genesis 6-8. It is possible that a continuous plant and animal distribution grew up linking eastern Asia and eastern North America due to the warm climate that existed at high latitudes directly after the Flood (fig. 2). This region may then have been split into two by the ensuing Ice Age and also the rising sea levels following its waning, around 800 years after the Flood.8
Credit: Dan Molter
References and notes
- Wen, J., Evolution of the eastern Asian and eastern North American disjunct distributions in flowering plants, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30:421-455, 1999. Return to text.
- Quian, H., Foristic relationships between eastern Asia and North America: test of Gray’s hypothesis, The American Naturalist 160(3):317-332, 2002. Return to text.
- Xiang, Q. et al., Timing the Eastern Asian–Eastern North American Floristic Disjunction: Molecular Clock Corroborates Paleontological Estimates, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 15(3):462–472, 2000; cals.ncsu.edu/plantbiology/Faculty/xiang/Xianglab/www/Papers/XiangSoltis2000.pdf. Return to text.
- Ref. 2, p. 318. Return to text.
- Hongo, T. And Yokoyama, K., Mycofloristic ties of Japan to the continents, Memoirs of the Faculty of Education of Shiga University 28:75-80, 1978; libdspace.biwako.shiga-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10441/3581/2/SJ07_0028_076A.pdf. Return to text.
- botit.botany.wisc.edu/courses/systematics/family_index/Family_Pages/Family_N_O/Nelumbonaceae.html. Return to text.
- Xue, J. et al., Polymorphic chloroplast microsatellite loci in Nelumbo (Nelumbonaceae), American Journal of Botany e240-e244, 2012. Return to text.
- See Batten, D., ed., The Creation Answers Book, Creation Book Publishers, Queensland, Australia, ch. 16, 2009; creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf. Return to text.
Very interesting challenge.
Having been searching for sometime, I was unable to find definitive explanation on the determination of the 'k' constant in the abovestated formula.
The concept of half life is eaily understood, the explenation for the 'k' constant is, however, vaque.
Is it based purely on modelling of physics, or are there any substantial experiments done for the measurement of 'k'? In context, it can be argued that 'k' here and the 'k' for the oscillation of a coil spring to be similar, or not?
Would love it if you could direct me to some material re measurement of 'k'.
The parameter, k, in Dr Mat H's equation has nothing to do with the spring constant. It is related to the decay half-life. (Google 'half-life equation' to find the relationship.) Those who believe the earth to be billions of years old assume that the half-life (and k) will never change. However, in the DeYoung reference I give in my response to Dr Mat H., evidence is presented which challenges this view.
It is impossible to measure age. Age can only be inferred based on assumptions.
It is often said by creationists that there is no evidence for evolution and deep time. However this is based on their theology and not any scientific reasoning.
Not being a biologist, I won't go into the evidence for evolution but I will talk about the evidence for deep time. There is the obvious piece of evidence which is radiometric decay. The general equation is given by:
where N is the number of radioactive atoms at the moment and N_0 was the radioactive atoms at the beginning. This equation is based upon two experimental facts:
1) The decay of one atom does not affect the probability of decay of any other atom.
2) Decay is random.
From those two postulates one can derive the equation mentioned before. If one claims that the half life isn't constant then one should be willing to explain how the physics changes and what effects that change should give.
Likewise with ice cores, we know the affect of the weather on the layers of ice, we understand why ice layers can be used as a chronometer. You can claim that Uniformitarianism is assumed but conversely creationists do not give ANY reason why the laws of physics changed and what the affects are as a result of the change in physics.
I would also be interested in how non-Uniformitarianism and fine tuning go hand in hand. If the laws of physics now are allegedly balanced on a knife edge then why would a change in the laws of physics possible if all life isn't then not allowed?
Radiometric dating clearly has serious problems because significantly different results are obtained when using different isotopes, even on the same sample (see DeYoung, D., Thousands not Billions, ch. 7). This indicates that there is some factor that we do not understand. Often when rocks of known age are 'dated', completely wrong dates are given (see, for example creation.com/radio-dating-in-rubble). Analyses of Carbon-14 indicate a very young age for the earth (see creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend).
Probably the clearest indicator that radioactive 'dating' should be questioned is the discovery of preserved organic material in dinosaur remains taken from rocks 'dated' at more than 65 million years old (see creation.com/still-soft-and-stretchy). There are many other scientific observations that point to a young creation (see creation.com/age-of-the-earth).
If you search for 'ice cores' on our website (creation.com) you will find a number of articles which explain the problems with conventional ice core 'dating' (e.g. http://creation.com/do-greenland-ice-cores-show-over-one-hundred-thousand-years-of-annual-layers).