Share
A- A A+

Article from:

Creation  Volume 9Issue 3 Cover

Creation 9(3):18
June 1987

Free Email News
The Creation Answers Book
by Various

US $14.00
View Item
Universe by Design
by Danny Faulkner

US $14.00
View Item
God the Master Designer


US $10.00
View Item
Editor’s note: As Creation magazine has been continuously published since 1978, we are publishing some of the articles from the archives for historical interest, such as this. For teaching and sharing purposes, readers are advised to supplement these historic articles with more up-to-date ones suggested in the Related Articles and Further Reading below.

Tuatara—confined to its kind!

wikimedia.org tuatara

It looks like a lizard, but it croaks like a frog. It can go for an hour without taking a breath. And it is commonly said to live up to 300 years.1

There are many unusual features about this reptile called a tuatara, which is now found only on a few rocky offshore islands in New Zealand. It can withstand temperatures as low as 7 deg. C (45 deg. F)—which is the lowest temperature recorded by any reptile. In these cold conditions its movements become so slow it has been known to fall asleep in the middle of munching a mouthful of insects.

The tuatara can reach a length of 60 cm (two feet), and often shares its burrow with a bird—the petrel. When the female tuatara lays her eggs, they receive no attention from the parents, and can take 15 months to hatch. This is the longest incubation period known for a reptile. Growth rate is also slow; the tuatara doesn’t reach maturity until it is 20 years old, and it continues to grow until it is 50.

But the tuatara is best known to scientists for an even more amazing reason. It definitely has not evolved! Fossils of a creature virtually identical to the tuatara have been found in rocks which evolutionary geologists date at 200 million years old.2

Apart from the fact that these reptiles seem to have become smaller in size, they appear to be virtually the same today as they always have been.

While evolutionists believe mutations and natural selection have occurred to the degree required to bring about all the living things we see today from a first microscopic form of life, the tuatara is excellent evidence against this. It is good evidence for creation, for the tuatara has simply reproduced ‘after its kind’—just as Genesis says all creatures would.

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. Nature’s Kingdom, Deans International Publishing, London, 1984, p. 22; Encyclopedia of Reptiles, Amphibians and Other Cold-Blooded Animals, Octopus Books Limited, London, 1975, p. 119. Return to text.
  2. Attenborough, D., The Living Planet, Guild Publishing, London, 1984, p. 261. Return to text.

Give $5 for 5. Although this article may have only taken 5 minutes to read, it could have taken over 5 hours to write. Consider a $5 donation to support our ministry efforts. Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
David J., United States, 14 May 2015

Wouldn't it be possible that it didn't evolve because it was well enough equipped to survive in it's environment, and each mutated offspring died off and wasn't better than the original? I'm a Christian and consider myself a creationist, but a bit of healthy skepticism hasn't hurt anyone.

Warren Nunn responds

The following link should answer your question:

http://creation.com/dodging-living-fossils

John Z., Canada, 13 May 2015

Just as a point of clarification, while it is true that the reptile reproduced after its kind, and so has done what scripture indicated, it is not by itself evidence of no evolution. The evidence for no evolution is hard to come by in this case, but would have to be lack of possible descendants of other animal species from this reptile. In other words, they would argue that you could have the original, as well as offshoot types. Creationists also agree that the various kinds on the ark diversified or diverged into various strains or lines or varieties after leaving the ark. This is not to deny the significance of the existence of "ancient -dated" fossil types still alive today.

Don Batten responds

Please see, Evolutionists can’t dodge ‘Living Fossils’.

As for the lack of diversifying descendants, this is the general pattern of the fossil record; see That quote about the missing transitional fossils.

Jack M., United Kingdom, 13 May 2015

An interesting article, but taken in the round something doesn't add up.

Creationists, generally, don't believe in the absolute rule that things reproduce after their kind (in the sense that the tuatara is unchanged for 200 million years). They accept that the huge variety of canines on Earth have diversified from the small number on the Ark, and similarly for equines.

Okay, so some things (canines) have changed over the years and others (tuataras) have not. That's accepted by both creationists and evolutionists, and both offer their explanations.

It's not a differentiator between the two theories.

Don Batten responds

You have missed the point. Yes, creationists believe that creatures can change quite remarkbly, quite quickly, but within limits (Chihuahuas and Great Danes are still interfertile, still the same biological species). However, according to evolutionists such changes can be extrapolated over hundreds of millions of years to explain all the diversity of life, from microbes to mangoes, mongooses and mankind. In that context, how could anything remain the same for '200 million years'? There are thousands of such 'living fossils', with quite a number 'dated' as 500 million years or more. Such extreme stasis ('staying the same') is a huge problem for the evolutionary story. See Dodging living fossils.

Copied to clipboard
9849
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.