Snakes losing legs is not evolution!

Figure 1. Heat pits on the nose area of a python (top) and a rattlesnake (bottom).

Yet another case of devolution


Published: 7 January 2020 (GMT+10)


Evolutionary theory describes the origin of snakes very differently than the Bible. According to the Bible, the snake was “more crafty than any other beast of the field” made by God (Genesis 3:1). In Genesis 3:14 the snake has to move on its belly after God had cursed it, meaning that snakes could possibly have had limbs before the Fall. According to evolution, snakes are an order of reptiles which are related to all other species of animals, going back millions of years.

“Evolution for Skeptics” is a blog written by evolutionary biologist Christopher Emerling, who studies genomic adaptations in vertebrates at the University of Montpellier, France. He says he believes in God. His blog seeks to presents evidence for evolution to those in the broader religious community who are skeptical about evolutionary theory, such as biblical creationists. Emerling also claims to have been exposed to creationist teachings for most of his life. Nevertheless, as this article will demonstrate, there are serious shortcomings with his ideas about how claw gene ‘remnants’ supposedly point to legs in snake ancestors. The evidence for loss of legs in snakes makes better sense according to biblical creation.

What did the researchers find?

Emerling focused on the expression patterns of genes which code for keratin. Keratin is a structural protein, which is present in hair, nails, feathers and horns. He chose keratin because two genes, HA1 and HA2, are expressed almost exclusively in the claws of lizards. The HA1 gene is functional in lizards, except for a legless species of lizard, called the slow worm (Anguis fragilis). However, even in this legless species, the HA1 gene was present, but it was non-functional.

While the HA2 gene was not found in snakes, the HA1 gene was found in six of the eight snake species studied.1 In these species the HA1 gene was also found to be pseudogenized (its sequence was broken). In all six of the snake species, the same 8 base pair long segment was found inserted in the first portion (exon) of the HA1 gene.

Besides the HA1 and HA2 genes, Emerling also noted some genes in the taste buds and also the visual system of some snakes that are either absent or degraded. These genes include the taste receptors TAS1R1, 2, and 3. Two opsin photopigment genes (RH2 and SWS2) seem to be degraded in some snakes, and three light-associated genes (OPNP, OPNPT, OPN5L2) are thought to be absent from the snake species studied by Emerling.2 The degradation/loss of these genes corresponds to differences in the structure in the lens, iris muscle and structure of the retina compared to their presumed lizard ancestors.3 The loss of these genes is thought to be associated with a transition to activity in dim light.

How similar are lizards to snakes?

Some evolutionists, including Emerling, think snakes evolved from lizards by losing their legs. Is this true? Are there not other basic anatomical differences, which differentiate lizards from snakes, beyond the presence or absence of limbs? Indeed there are.

All lizards have an eyelid as well as a nictitating membrane, which is a transparent ‘third eyelid’ that can be pulled across the eye to keep the eye moist and protect from dust, whereas snakes lack these two structures. Snakes have fangs and a flexible jaw hinge, whereas lizards have flat teeth and immobile skulls. Some snakes have heat pits on their nose but they have no external ears (figure 1). Heat pits are sensory organs around a snake’s nose which sense thermal radiation. Lizards, on the other hand, lack heat pits but have external ears.

Snakes move by gliding using the bottom scales on their body. Lizards move by either twisting their stiff body or by using their legs. The tails of snakes are short and do not break off when grabbed. In contrast, lizards have longer tails that may break if another animal grabs it.4 These differences are listed in Table 1. This means that it is unlikely that snakes would have devolved from legless lizards, because lizards and snakes belong to different kinds of animals.5,6 In other words, the evolutionary narrative that snakes inherited degraded genes from lizards is false.

Table 1. Main anatomical differences between snakes and lizards

Characteristic Snakes Lizards
Eyelids no eyelids eyelids present
Nictitating membrane absent present
Teeth fangs (sometimes hollow) flat teeth
Jaw flexible immobile
Locomotion gliding on bottom scales twisting body and legs
Tails short, do not break off long, can break off
Sensory organs heat pits (many species); no ears external ears

What is the real origin of snakes?

Table 2 lists several species of fossil snakes, together with their estimated evolutionary age, as well as a note specifying whether they had limbs or not. Four snake species with an estimated evolutionary age ranging between 167 and 140 million years are all limbless, whereas evolutionary younger snakes have been found with hindlimbs, with the exception of Xiaophis myanmarensis.7 Of these snakes with limbs, the oldest, Tetrapodophis amplectus, had both forelimbs and hindlimbs (but see the update for 5 December 2006 here). Eupodophis, discovered in 2000, was found in sediments in Lebanon. It had a hind limb, complete with a femur, tibia and fibula (the upper leg and the two lower leg bones). Another species, belonging to the genus Najash had a sacrum8 and robust, functional hindlimbs positioned outside of its ribcage.9 Today some living snake species, such as boas or pythons even have small bones in their pelvic areas. This fossil trend (no limbs, limbs gained, then lost) completely contradicts the evolutionary concept of a gradual loss of limbs from a four-limbed snake ancestor.

Fossils of snakes with legs most likely formed during the Genesis Flood, so they could have arisen after Creation week. A possible creationist explanation is that God cursed the snake right after the Fall in such a way as to turn off certain genetic elements in its genome, which coded for limbs. As to which species of snake this might have been, we don’t know. Sometime later after the Fall, mutations could have switched these genetic elements back on. These elements could have been damaged by further mutations later on.

This may explain why the HA1 gene, mentioned by Emerling, is found in snakes, albeit in an apparently degraded, functionless form. The degraded HA1 gene is inactive, and thus, snakes with this inactive gene variant don’t have legs. The loss of legs most likely happened in both lizards and snakes, affecting the HA1 and HA2 genes, which are present in both animal groups.

Table 2. List of fossil snake species

Species Assumed evolutionary age (mill. of years)11 Morphology Geographical location
Eophis underwoodi 167 limbless Oxfordshire, England
Portugalophis lignites 157–152 limbless Guimarota, Portugal
Diablophis gilmorei 155 limbless Colorado, USA
Parviraptor estesi 145–140 limbless Dorset, England
Tetrapodophis amplectus 113 all four limbs Brazil
Haasiophis terrasanctus 100–94 hindlimbs Ramallah
Xiaophis myanmarensis 99 limbless Myanmar
Pachyrachis problematicus 98–94 hindlimbs Ramallah
Eupodophis descouensi 94 hindlimbs Lebanon
Najash rionegrina 90 sacrum and hindlimbs Rio Negro, Argentina

Is this proof of evolution?

The loss of limbs and wings have been documented in birds and also insects and have been shown to fail as evidence for evolution. Not only that, but loss of both taste buds and vision have occurred in snakes. ‘Limblessness’ is also not a trait that helps evolution because anatomical structures have been lost not gained. This is the exact opposite of what evolution needs to proceed towards creating new body plans. Genes as well as the multiple anatomical structures that they code for have been lost in these animals. Legs, taste buds and elements of the visual system were not observed to re-evolve.

It was rather surprising to read that Emerling did not make the obvious biblical connection when studying the loss of limbs in snakes. Genesis 3:14 says:

“Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.” (emphasis added)

This is the true origin of how at least some snakes came to crawl on their bellies, according to the Bible. Snakes are also known to ‘eat dust’. Therefore, the evidences from genetics as well as from body morphology and the fossils are all in line with the biblical account. Emerling’s article on snakes does not prove evolution, nor does it disprove the Bible, rather the opposite: it supports the historical events in Genesis as true.

Questions for evolutionists

Now that we have answered the questions posed by Emerling, we have some questions of our own for people who may be convinced of his evolutionary arguments:

  1. How does loss of genetic and anatomical structures provide evidence for (microbes-to-man) evolution?
  2. Based on evolutionary reasoning and the fossil record, snakes would have gained legs and then lost them. How do you explain these reversals?
  3. Why do you think snakes evolved from lizards if there are fossil snake species with legs?10 Wouldn’t it make more sense to say that older snake species with legs gave rise to modern legless snakes via loss of genetic elements?
  4. Snakes are very different from lizards. What kind of mutations are responsible for transforming lizards into snakes?

References and notes

  1. Dalla Valle, L. et al, Deleterious mutations of a claw keratin in multiple taxa of reptiles, Journal of Molecular Evolution 72(3):265–273, 2011. Return to text.
  2. Gene degradation wouldn’t necessarily mean that snakes devolved from lizards since such degradation could have occurred independently in both groups. Indeed, there is some evidence that opsin and light-associated genes show degradation in snakes. Return to text.
  3. Emerling, C.A., Genomic regression of claw keratin, taste receptor and light-associated genes provides insights into biology and evolutionary origins of snakes, Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 115:40–49, 2017 | doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2017.07.014. Return to text.
  4. Sodera, V., One small speck to man, the evolution myth 2, Bekaam Printers Pte Ltd, Malaysia, 2009. Return to text.
  5. Wood, T.C., Animal and Plant Baramins, Center for Origins Research Issues in Creation, No. 3, Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR, 2008. Return to text.
  6. Bell, P., Of snakes, lizards and mosasaurs, Creation 31(3):15–17, 2009; Return to text.
  7. Bell, P., Baby snake fossil further frustrates evolution, Creation 41(3):15, 2019. Return to text.
  8. A triangular-shaped bone formed from the fusion of vertebrae at the end of the spinal column between the two hipbones. Return to text.
  9. Apesteguía, S., & Zaher, H., A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum, Nature 440(7087):1037–1040, 2006. Return to text.
  10. Some evolutionists favour an aquatic origin for snakes, see ref. 6. Return to text.
  11. Evolutionary age estimates for some fossil snake species retrieved from Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

Think about E.
1-loss or gain are evidence of evolution. Loss of genetic or anatomical structures means evolution. Genetic material has a cost. Sometime, losing genetic material allow you to go faster in replication. Sometime anatomical structure is not advantageous. But your vision means intelligent design with anticipation, not evolution. It's okay to not be able to predict evolution. 2-Evolution. There is evidence of fish, snakes, moles... That have no vision. But their ancestors did. At some point, gained legs means that you have to live surrounded by gained legs. Snakes can live without legs, so losing legs is not a disadvantage. In some places, with some living creatures, losing legs become a advantage, even if it was a advantage to gain legs for their ancestors. There is no problem in not having legs. Imagine that legs become a disadvantage. You would think that mammals and lizards are going to die right? But evidence show that legs are and are not advantageous. Snakes, swift birds, dolphins, jellyfish and other have no legs. There is no superiority in having legs. Evolution is not the better, but the most adapted at a time in a specific environment. 3-I don't see the problem. Snakes and lizards have the same ancestors. At some point snakes separated from lizards, and after, those snakes loose their legs. The history is better that way. 4- Problem is, they had ancestors. If you are a white American Christian, it's easy to build your ancestors history from European Christians. It would be harder to build your history from African, Asian or Papuan. For snakes, maybe lizards might have gained/loss after the separation with snakes. Same for snakes. What kind of mutations explain the multitude of lizards species. And what mutations explain the multitude of snakes species.
Matthew Cserhati
Hello Antoine,
Thanks for your comment, however I do not think they convincingly prove evolution. We all know that a single celled organism, which allegedly arose out of the chemical soup is much smaller and less complex than a human being. So this means that macroevolution absolutely needs massive increases in genetic material and biological complexity. The loss of legs, eyes, wings, what have you all oppose evolution. If an organism loses genetic material, it may be able to replicate faster, but it doesn't help it at all towards increased complexity - just the opposite.
Losing legs is most definitely a disadvantage, because the minute such an organism is born, he becomes easy prey for predators. A similar thing is very common in species of rails, which are species of birds.
A man and woman from any two people groups on Earth can interbreed. The genetic difference between any two people groups on Earth is extremely small, less than 0.1%. Skin color is coded for by how much melanin is in your skin. It doesn't mean that Europeans have different genes than Africans, or vice versa. This article shows that people of medium brown skin color can give birth to a white colored girl. So this means that the different races did not evolve separately from one another. Racial mixing occurs all the time.
Glenn H.
KJV Isaiah 30
6 The burden of the beasts of the south: into the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent, they will carry their riches upon the shoulders of young asses, and their treasures upon the bunches of camels, to a people that shall not profit them.
The snake in Eden which represents Satan that old serpent of old called the devil and Satan who deceived the whole world is come down with mighty wrath because he knows he had but a short time. Not legs but wings.
It makes scence considering Lucifer was an exalted Angel and angels have wings. Besides that, God cursed the serpent to eat dust all the days of his life. So if he had legs he would be still eating dust before the fall so how would that be a curse if he already was eating dust? Somthing to ponder. Not to metion that most pagan cultures deplict serpents with wings. God clip Satan wings and now he is bound to this earth
John P.
What the KJV calls fiery flying serpents [Isaiah 30:6, Ed.] could also be pterodactyls or pterosaurs as these co existed with people, dinosaurs and other creatures. It indeed makes sense how Genesis tells how God cursed the snake after Eve was tempted.That is how it lost its legs, not as the evolution myth says.
Zach S.
I've always been curious as to how a rattle on a rattlesnake came to be. Is there any on ideas as to how? Thanks
Matthew Cserhati
The rattle is made of dried rings of the snake's skin. Every time the snake sheds its skin, another ring is added. The rattling noise is produced when these rings move back and forth and rub against one another.
István V.
Jó volt, nagyon szépen köszönöm! :)
[Ed: "It was great thank you very much"]
Chis M.
Are snakes with legs and lizards ever found in the same fossil layers? How close are they genetically? I mean I will say, I have spent a lot of time on this website but I don't think I've ever read about snakes with legs and I have to be honest, I'm struggling wrapping my head around this. I guess I could see why this would excite evolutionist because of how similar snakes and lizard are appearance wise. I guess I am just confused as how the heck a snake could have legs?! I've looked around this website and some article says not to use Genesis 3 for this and others, including this article, use it. And I am especially confused as why snakes would not have legs, then grow them, then lose them again? I assume the genetic information is already there, correct? I don't know, any help trying to understand this would be great!
Matthew Cserhati
Hello Chris,
The explanation is rather simple as to how snakes could have lost legs, then regained them, and then lost them again. It is covered in depth in this article, cited in our article. The order of fossil layers has nothing to do with the age of the fossil, rather the order of burial. Separating fossil layers by deep time is evolutionary thinking. Any fossil of a snake (with or without legs) would have been likely created during the Flood. This is because fossils don't form during normal conditions.
God created snakes (some apparently with hind legs) and He also created other reptiles with legs. However, since God cursed the snake (whatever the species might have been) in Genesis 3, that particular snake would have lost any legs it might have possessed. This could have happened possibly by mutating some regulatory genes (possibly Hox genes), which are responsible for the development of body parts, although we don't know for sure. These kinds of mutations happen quite easily and quite rapidly, since it is much easier to lose something than to gain it. Besides snakes, lizards and certain types of amphibians, such as the axolotl have lost their limbs due to deleterious mutations.
As to how the genetic information for legs were turned back on, this could be due to a so-called back mutation, which reverses the effect of a previous mutation. For example, some bird species have regained teeth. So, snakes regaining their legs is not impossible.
As to how similar snakes are to lizards genetically, mitochondrial DNA studies (i.e., Jiang, 2007) show that snakes and lizards are separate from one another and form their own clades. It would be an interesting idea to compare their gene content similarity, though. Also, chromosome morphology varies very greatly within snakes and lizards. For example, the sex chromosome configuration (which means whether the male or female has a differing sex chromosome, in humans males are XY compared to females who are XX) varies between different groups of snakes and lizards.
Michael S.
And with evolution we would expect exaptation. It seems to me no exaptation would be possible if the first snake species did not have any limbs. How then would they evolve the exact same types of bones found in all other reptiles such as femur and fibular? I suspect they will not find any ancestors with limbs. This is always the problem with evolution, it has two faces; when the patterns fit it's evolution, when the pattern doesn't (no limbs, limbs, no limbs), then it's the creationists' fault for not realising there's gaps in the record. They want the succession of things in an order to make sense but as soon as it doesn't make sense for evolution, you can't refer to it; have you noticed?

Example: I have found in the bottom layer, pennies, the middle, pounds, and the top cash notes, which I believe is an order, proving my order.

Objection: "But I found a pound in the bottom layer and no pennies as of yet, at P location."

Response: "That doesn't count, there's a gap".

So if the pattern we find favours an evolutionary progression it's valid but if it doesn't there's gaps. Heads evolution wins, tails creation loses.

Conclusion: It seems obvious your explanation is the better one, that a lack of morphology is only evolutionary "change" if we toy with the term, "evolution", when in fact that type of change can in no way represent macro change with information increase. So for me, I always thought that when I put a creation scientist's reasoning next to an evolutionist's like this guy, there was always a distinct lack of sense in the evolutionist's reasoning, sort of "backwards" reasoning. Like with this, "mitochondrial Eve", they do the same thing with that evidence, instead of admitting it favours the biblical account, they just give evolution a bible name. Lol.
Lassi P.
Hi. I think someone should give a responce to Glenn M's comment.

He seems to think that since Isaiah 30 speaks of 'fiery flying serpent' (in a context that clearly points to it being an actual flying serpent (i.e. a lizard or a snake) native to an area between Israel and Egypt), then both serpents – one in Eden, and one with the wings – are just metaphores of Satan.

Also he seems to be totally unaware of Josephus and quite a few other historical sources writing about the flying serpents.

He's logic fails also in that he claims that since God cursed Satan to lose his legs and crawl on his belly, the Devil now uses his wings(?!). But later he alludes to God cutting Satan's wings, so he's playing fast and loose here.

He claims that it would't have been a curce to cause the snake as an animal to eat dust because it allegedly allready did it. I gues he conflates here the use of the phrase 'all the days of his life' to an idea that the snake had eaten dust all the days of its PAST life, which seems like a desperate attempt to twist the linguistic rules to me.

I think Glenn's counterarguments to Csehartis article got unanswered because of his comment being a bit confused, but now that's my attempt for an answer to Glenn.
Philip Bell
This is not the place to elaborate further on interpretations of 'the serpent' in Genesis 3 since this article was chiefly about fossil snakes. For more on the serpent of Genesis 3, see Who was the serpent? Did a snake really speak to Eve? and The Serpent.
Regarding Isaiah 30:6 (and also Isaiah 14:29), as well as the KJV, other respected Bible versions translate the Hebrew similarly:
ESV: "flying fiery serpent" in both verses
NASB: "flying serpent" in both verses

Both the "flying" and "fiery" elements are there in the original Hebrew. We find the Hebrew for "fiery serpents" also in Deuteronomy 8:15 where the context is unquestionably speaking of a literal animal. And in Numbers 21:8, the same Hebrew word is used of the bronze image of a fiery serpent placed on a pole; logically, one makes an image of something that has a real existence. The context of Isaiah 30:6 is without question talking about literal animals, as you say.

The American Indians were also familiar with such creatures as these, see
Also, Did dinosaurs really rule the earth? has an interesting section discussing these flying reptiles: "Dinosaurs in literature, art, and oral tradition"

Chris M.
Matthew, Thanks for the response. One last question. Yesterday I read that birds on an island (rails?) had lost their wings due to a lack of predators. However, if I’m not mistake, the article talked about how the same birds wouldn’t be able to grow their wings back once their gone even if predators became a problem. I think they used ostriches for example. Why is it that a snake may be able to grow legs back but a bird can’t grow its wings back? Thanks CMI for all you do!
Matthew Cserhati
Hello Chris,
That is a good question. Just to clarify: when snakes 'regain' their legs, usually the legs are degraded due to accumulated mutations, they don't resemble their original form. As to why flightless birds have not been able to regain flight, we need to examine what kinds of genes are involved in the flight mechanisms of birds as opposed to the genes involved in limb development in snakes. It could be that a single Hox gene is involved in snakes as opposed to a host of genes in birds. Hox genes are known for the development of different body parts in animals. Even their position in the genome affects the positioning of different body parts in animals.
Edmond C.
Interesting that Chinese dragons look very much like limbed snakes. Dragons in other cultures look more like your typical dinosaurs. These creatures have taken on mythical properties as they have become legend, but I do wonder if they started out as real creatures. Perhaps even the flying parts of the legend came from these things leaping from trees or something of that nature, which might have been possible with limbs and the ability to possibly spring up their bodies. You could almost imagine such a creature springing itself in the tree tops and from the ground it appear as flying overhead.
Think about E.
I assume you are not racist. Are you aware of allele? It means same gene, but different expression. This explains human "races". Btw, you can interbreed two dogs from different races right? Is that wrong? You can also interbreed donkey with horse, or tiger with lion and many others, but for these examples, the living animal cannot reproduce after. Which means you have the specie's barrier that is appearing. But for "races", there is no barrier. If you really want to understand genetics problem, you can have a look at plants, they are very bad. They can be interbreed between different species, and give new species, like wheat and all the different species of wheat. If you cultivate the supposed ancestors of wheat (the first species) together, you might have naturally an interbreed. Like magic. But it's not, it's science, it's genetic. Races don't exist btw. Except for rabbit or dog competition. Do you have competition to select the most white human skin or the most blond human hair? No, right? So races for humanity means racism. For macroevolution (which only means microevolution during a longer period nothing else), have a look on bacteria. They are much more adapted than human. If you reproduce at the correct scale what we do to them to us (bath of antiseptic, swimming pool of antibiotic, washing machine to reproduce washing hand.), we would die without offspring at all. But how big is their DNA? We have massive genetic material and biological complexity compare to them. Are we more adapted? No! They are! Any increase in genetic material have rational explanation for all species on Earth. Mismatch during meiosis for eukaryotic. Repeated DNA sequences often lead to bigger repeated sequences that can mutate after. DNA synthesis is doing a lot of mistakes naturally.
Matthew Cserhati
Hello Antoine,
Microevolution does not lead to full-blown macroevolution. Random mutations are not capable of producing radically new genetic information. This article describes this in great detail. To transform the genome of a bacteria to the human genome would be like randomly changing letters in Edgar Allan Poe's Raven and expecting to get Tolstoy's War and Peace in Russian. Mutations happening in bacteria, such as antibiotic resistance also do not prove evolution. Neither do nylon-eating bacteria. Or, you can read through an one of our articles on natural selection.
Alexio G.
I have a question. If God made the world perfect without sickness etc, how did we get our immune system?
Matthew Cserhati
Hello Alexio,
Thanks for your question. The answer is quite simple. I believe Adam was created with an immune system. Remember, the immune system fights off microbes such as viruses or bacteria. Now, we know that 99% of bacteria and viruses are actually benign (there are a lot of so-called 'passenger' viruses in our bodies without our knowing it). Adam could have been created with such bacteria in his intestines. The appendix acts as a storehouse for benign bacteria, which help in digestion. However, a problem arises when bacteria travel inside the gut to places where they shouldn't be, e.g. into the bloodstream, or other regions of the intestines. Therefore Adam's immune system would have neutralized bacteria which may have gotten into other parts of the intestine. Also remember that bacteria do not count as sentient 'nephesh' life, as neither are plants, which were given to animals for food. Obviously, before the Fall God would have divinely protected Adam from getting any illnesses. Just as He would have preserved Adam from falling off a ledge and bruising himself. This article discusses the pre-Fall role of the immune system in depth.
Think about E.
Hi, Random mutation is not the only process of evolution. As I mentioned, repeated sequences often lead to bigger repeated sequences. Also, sometimes, you can have mismatch during replication. And many other genetics problems. I'm sorry that you don't consider wheat, soft wheat, durum wheat, spelled,... as examples of new species. They appeared just by Triticum and Aegilops interbreed. Interbreeds have been repeated many times for some of them, between different species, even different family. So if you don't take that in consideration, I would assume that, you might know a little about bacterial genetic, but nothing about vegetable genetic. But wheat species are coming from natural interbreed, those interbreed can be reproduce in laboratory, and it works. But it's between different family. For genetic amplification, there is multiple process. Antibiotic resistance sometimes comes from a plasmid. Sometimes it comes from genetic mutation (like efflux pumps, or just amino acid changes so the substratum become insensitive to the antibiotic). So please, do consider that antibiotic resistance is not only coming from existent genetic material, otherwise it means you're not aware of all the antibiotic resistant process and all the sanitory problems behind that. And you'll have to explain me the meaning of "A man and woman from any two races on Earth can interbreed", because so far, it just sounds racism to me as a French people. Races don't exist. Even barrier species is relative sometimes. So please, can you rewrite your first answer to my first comment without talking about human races? Otherwise I will assume that means you are racist. And I guess you are not aware of antifungal resistance and many others.
Matthew Cserhati
Hello Antoine,
If you are thinking about the process of duplication and divergence, we have written about that already in this article. And also here. Please read this article as well as the other ones we linked to on our website. The great majority of duplicated genes become deactivated afterwards. There is no proof that a gene which codes for, let's say, an alcohol dehydrogenase, mutates into a peroxidase gene. We'd have to follow the whole train of mutations step by step from one gene to the other. A Science article from 2004 describes how genome duplication is not a viable path for new species to arise.
As to Triticum and Aegilops as the result of plant breeding experiments, of course we realize that they are new species. They are just variants within a single plant kind. You can also read this article which describes variation with the different kinds of plants and animals that God created during Creation week. It also covers antibiotic resistance. As to antifungal resistance, the mechanism should be similar to antibiotic resistance. Plasmids cannot explain macroevolution, because bacteria get them from other bacteria. You have to demonstrate to me how plasmids arose in the first place to prove evolution.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.