Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.
This article is from
Creation 32(4):12–13, October 2010

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

Bighorn horns not so big



Trophy hunters making the pilgrimage to Canada’s Ram Mountain, Alberta, home to the world’s biggest bighorn sheep, are being increasingly disappointed. Ram Mountain has long been a magnet for sport shooters of North America’s mountain sheep,1 but rams with the large horns so highly prized by hunters are now hard to find.

A world-class trophy ram is regarded as an extremely valuable commodity, with hunting permits being auctioned for very large sums. How large? One sport shooter paid over a million Canadian dollars in 1998 and 1999 for permits to hunt trophy rams in Alberta.

Evolution—the supposedly information-gaining process by which some primeval soupy ‘seep’ became sheep—is nowhere in evidence

But such is the decline in horn size of Ram Mountain’s rams, that in recent years hunters have gone home empty-handed, not having found any sheep with horns larger than the minimum regulation size.

Researchers who documented the decline in horn size over the past three decades say it is “an evolutionary response to sport hunting of bighorn trophy rams” (emphasis added).2,3 They noted that ram body weight has also declined, essentially confirming earlier suspicions that selective removal of large-horned rams was reducing the overall genetic fitness of the bighorn sheep population.4,5 By killing the largest rams “of high genetic quality” before they reach their breeding peak, the hunters have depleted the genes for big horns and fast growth. These “undesirable evolutionary consequences” of trophy hunting “will be extremely difficult to reverse”, say the researchers (emphasis added).2

It seems that once the genes for large size are lost, they’re gone forever

It’s not evolution!

To the extent that the researchers have observed that selective culling of large-horned rams at Ram Mountain has diminished the size of rams and their horns, with concomitant reduction in variety in the gene pool and a deterioration in the population’s “genetic fitness”, the researchers are correct. But these changes are not an “evolutionary response” or “evolutionary consequence” as they have nothing to do with evolution. Evolution—the supposedly information-gaining process by which, over millions of years, some primeval soupy ‘seep’ became sheep—is nowhere in evidence here.

John Sutton: geograph.org.uk

Instead, Ram Mountain’s bighorn sheep population has lost genetic information, not gained it. Note the researchers’ own admission that “such changes will be extremely difficult to reverse”. Indeed, despite the recent drop-off in hunting (because hunters could not find rams with horns larger than the minimum legal size), “horn size has not recovered”.3 This strongly parallels the “crash” of the cod fishery off the Canadian coast, where cod have failed to return to their former size despite the Canadian government’s closure of the fishery in 1992 in order to let it recover.6 It seems that once the genes for large size are lost, they’re gone forever.7

Hunting seems to have had similar impacts upon moose, too, which now have smaller antlers than was the case just a few decades ago. And selective ivory poaching is thought to be the cause of a dramatically increased frequency of tuskless elephants in many African populations.

Note that in all these instances the selection pressure is essentially an artificially-imposed version of ‘natural selection’. Neither such ‘artificial’ nor ‘natural’ selection is in any way ‘evolution’ as it can only favour certain genes over others, it cannot generate any new genetic information. Rather, selection (whether artificial or natural) can only operate on (i.e. cull out) genetic information that already exists.8 And that’s exactly what’s been happening on Ram Mountain.

References and notes

  1. The mountain sheep at Ram Mountain are classified as Ovis canadensis. Some mountain sheep elsewhere in North America are classified as Ovis delli. Return to text.
  2. Coltman, D., O’Donoghue, P., Jorgenson, J., Hogg, J., Strobeck, C., and Festa-Blanchet, M., Undesirable evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting, Nature 426(6967):655–658, 2003. Return to text.
  3. Whitfield, J., Sheep horns downsized by hunters’ taste for trophies, Nature 426(6967): 595, 2003. Return to text.
  4. Dey, P., Bighorn sheep suffering decline of the fittest, University of Alberta Express News, www.archives.expressnews.ualberta.ca, 10 December 2003. Return to text.
  5. FitzSimmons, N., Buskirk, S. and Smith, M., Population history, genetic variability and horn growth in bighorn sheep, Conservation Biology 9(2):314–323, 1995. Return to text.
  6. Catchpoole, D., Smaller fish to fry, Creation 30(2):48–49, 2008; Return to text.
  7. Similar selection pressures from harvesting of wild game species post-Flood (i.e. in the last 4,500 years) could also explain their often smaller size today compared to fossil counterparts. Return to text.
  8. See also: Wieland, C., Muddy waters: clarifying the confusion about natural selection, Creation 23(3):26–29, 2001. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Refuting Evolution
by Jonathan Sarfati
US $12.00
Soft Cover
The Greatest Hoax on Earth?
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
US $16.00
Soft Cover

Readers’ comments

Courtney K.
I didn't mean to be off topic. I guess my point was if their false assumptions didn't exist, maybe their efforts to protect animals' genetic diversity, whether it be bighorn sheep or cod, might be more effective, because there's more motivation to look. And similarly, they might put more research into figuring out how to correct DNA by looking at past DNA, and the DNA of relatives, once the technology is there to correct it. And even if that isn't there, trying out other methods. It's a frustration that also stems from other cases like this where they are less effective at science because of "vestigial structures," where they will remove it unnecessarily or not even research what it does. I hope that's more on topic.
Courtney K.
Is there any way to add genes back? CRISPR doesn't add genes, right? But I thought I saw a YEC woman scientist working on something like that. It is a little frustrating that these recuperation efforts (eg in Canada since 1992) aren't working because of false assumptions. But it's the majority view. I get a little frustrated as well when they date a fossil but don't test the DNA, when I know the dating isn't going to be right most likely. Maybe because they assume it won't be there. One time they found frozen penguins on Antarctica from a while back, but they didn't bother preserving it. All they did was carbon date, and it came back anywhere from 800 to 5000 years old. No DNA test, no effort to preserve it for possible cloning in the future, like they recently did with those horses. That's lost genetic diversity, but they probably don't see it that way :/
Don Batten
A bit off topic, but ... Currently it is not possible to safely add genes to a mammal. It can be done with microbes. It has been done in a hit-and-miss manner with plants for many years with the 'gene gun' technology that Dr John Sanford was involved in developing while at Cornell University (e.g. the insertion of the gene for the Bacillus toxin that kills boll worms in cotton).
And yes, when evolutionists have decided that a fossil or frozen animal is 'very old' they usually don't bother looking for DNA because they (rightly) expect that none will be present, if it is indeed as old as they think. The finding of DNA and other fragile organic compounds in 'old' fossils is strong evidence that they are not old. However, the DNA is often degraded to the point of being inadequate for 'resurrecting' an extinct species.
Steve B.
How can the mindless, unseeing, unguided thing called evolution even have a response? To respond to something one would conclude there is intelligence involved. What's the matter with these evolutionary scientist, where has common sense gone?
Aleksandar K.
This just goes to show that you can't convince (most of the) evolutionists to give up evolution. The people themselves describe a process opposite of what evolution is supposed to be and yet call it "an evolutionary response". Which means the only argument to prove against evolution to them is the same argument they made to prove in favor of evolution. It's like two different universes.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.