From: Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Repeatable_Evo?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?lution_or_Repe?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ated_Creation=3F?= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:51:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00F3_01C3FE4D.6B15BEF0"; type="text/html" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3314.1001 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00F3_01C3FE4D.6B15BEF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: =?iso-8859-1?B?aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saWY=?= =?iso-8859-1?B?ZXdheS5jb20vbHdjL2E=?= =?iso-8859-1?B?cnRpY2xlX21haW5fcGE=?= =?iso-8859-1?B?Z2UvMCwxNzAzLEE9MTU=?= =?iso-8859-1?B?MjY5MSZYPTEmTT0yMDA=?= =?iso-8859-1?B?MTcwLDAwLmh0bWw=?= Repeatable Evolution or Repeated = Creation?
3D""=20
3D"Contact3Dhome=20
Headlines=20  |  Viewpoints=20  |  Media=20 & Culture  |  Health=20 & Wellness  |  Career=20 & Workplace  |  Apologetics=20
Log=20 In | Register=20 =
Science=20  |  Philosophy=20  |  Biblical=20  |  Religions=20 & Cults  |  Social=20 Issues  |  Tactics=20 =
Repeatable = Evolution=20 or Repeated Creation?  =20
Fazale Rana =

Any casual observer of nature = recognizes that=20 many creatures bear some resemblance to = one=20 another. Many species of frogs, lizards, = fish,=20 and other animals and plants from = different=20 parts of the world appear to be nearly=20 identical. This similarity has been the = pattern=20 throughout life=92s history. Recent = biological=20 studies have shed light on the nature of = this=20 physical resemblance and carry = significant=20 apologetic implications. Many species = that look=20 identical are, in fact, genetically = different,=20 and therefore unrelated. In accounting = for these=20 unexpected differences, evolutionary = biologists=20 have proffered inadequate explanations. = This=20 article will discuss a few of the many = recent=20 discoveries that continue to buttress = the case=20 for a biblical creator while continuing = to erode=20 the foundation for the evolutionary=20 paradigm. 
LifeWay=20 Recommends

=20

Darwin's=20 Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to=20 Evolution =

From=20 within the highest ranks of the = scientific=20 community comes a startling new theory = of=20 creation that not only contradicts = Darwinian=20 orthodoxy but opens the door to = theological=20 arguments biologists have dismissed and=20 ridiculed for more than a century. = 'Charmingly=20 convey(s) a sense of biochemistry's = hidden=20 beauty'.--'The New York Times Book = Review'. Line=20 art.=20 =

According to evolutionary theory, = organisms=20 that possess identical morphologies = (forms or=20 structures) must share a common = ancestry.=20 Evolutionary biologists, therefore, have = employed morphological = systematics=96=96the=20 study of the relationships among = organisms=20 according to physical = characteristics=96=96when=20 classifying species, and thus have = concluded=20 that similar groups share common = ancestry.=20 However, with the advent and widespread=20 application of molecular = systematics, in=20 which DNA sequences are used instead of=20 morphologies to determine biological=20 relationships, science now is beginning = to=20 identify an increasing number of = challenges to=20 the evolutionary classification. = Biologists are=20 uncovering numerous examples of = organisms that=20 cluster together morphologically=20 (structurally), and yet are=20 genetically distinct. Frogs, = lizards, or=20 herbs that appear to be identical are = actually=20 different at the genetic level. An = evolutionary=20 interpretation of this data, then, = demands that=20 the morphologically identical organisms = must=20 have evolved independently of one = another in=20 a =93repeatable=94 fashion.

The Contingent Nature of the = Evolutionary=20 Process

  The evolutionary = paradigm=20 cannot accommodate =93repeatable=94 = evolution. When=20 evolutionists observe a tree frog = ideally suited=20 for its environment, they assert that = natural=20 selection=96=96environmental, predatory, = and=20 competitive pressures repeatedly = operating on=20 random inheritable variations for long = periods=20 of time=96=96has led to this = relationship. Chance=20 governs the evolutionary process at its = most=20 fundamental level. Because of this, it = is=20 expected that repeated evolutionary = events will=20 result in dramatically different = outcomes. =20 The concept of Historical Contingency = embodies=20 this idea and is the theme of Stephen J. = Gould=92s=20 Wonderful Life:

 =93=85No finale can be = specified at the=20 start, none would ever occur a second = time in=20 the same way, because any pathway = proceeds=20 through thousands of improbable stages. = Alter=20 any early event, ever so slightly, and = without=20 apparent importance at the time, and = evolution=20 cascades into a radically different = channel.=94{1}

Gould=92s metaphor of =93replaying = life=92s tape=94=20 asserts that if one were to push the = rewind=20 button, erase life=92s history, and let = the tape=20 run again, the results would be = completely=20 different.{2}=20 The very essence of the evolutionary = process=20 renders evolutionary outcomes as = nonreproducible=20 (or nonrepeatable). Therefore, = =93repeatable=94=20 evolution is inconsistent with the = mechanism=20 available to bring about biological = change.

A Test for Evolution, A Test for=20 Creation

The idea of Historical Contingency = suggests=20 that one powerful way to discriminate = between=20 the =93appearance of design=94 that = results from the=20 evolutionary process and Intelligent = Design is=20 to determine if contingency is operating = in the=20 biological realm.{3}=20  If life is exclusively the result = of=20 evolutionary processes, then biologists = should=20 expect to see few, if any, cases in = which=20 evolution has =93repeated=94 itself. = This is simply=20 not the case. During the last six years = numerous=20 examples of =93repeatable=94 evolution = have come to=20 light as molecular data has been = increasingly=20 used in biological systematics. These = findings=20 demonstrate that the evolutionary = paradigm fails=20 the test of contingency. The discovery = of=20 morphologically identical, yet = genetically=20 unrelated organisms does, however, offer = powerful support for biblical creation. = These=20 examples of =93repeatable=94 evolution = include=20 anolis lizards, ranid frogs, cichlids,=20 sticklebacks, mangabeys, river dolphins, = and=20 Pericallis, an island plant.

Anolis Lizards

Anolis lizard species found on = the=20 islands of the Greater Antilles (Cuba,=20 Hispaniola, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico) = are=20 perfectly adapted to fit into six = distinctive=20 ecological niches.{4} =20 A species that is perfectly suited for a = particular ecological niche is termed an = ecomorph. Two examples of Anolis = lizard=20 ecomorphs found on the Greater Antilles = are=20 small lizards with short legs that live = on=20 fragile twigs, and large lizards with = large toe=20 pads that occupy the crowns of trees.=20 Morphological analysis of the = Anolis=20 lizards that populate the Greater = Antilles=20 reveals objectively recognizable groups = of=20 ecomorphs.{5} =20 Based on their morphological features = (or close=20 resemblance), members of the same = ecomorph=20 grouping from the different islands were = found=20 to be more closely related to one = another than=20 lizards from the same island.

Given the contingent nature of the=20 evolutionary process, therefore, it = would be=20 expected that each ecomorph evolved a = single=20 time from an ancestral species. Each = ecomorph=20 produced by a single evolutionary = sequence of=20 events would have then dispersed among = the=20 islands of the Greater Antilles. = However, when=20 this model was tested by comparing = mitochondrial=20 DNA sequences of the different Anolis = species,=20 it was discovered that lizards in the = same=20 ecomorph class were not related to one=20 another.{6} =20 This study concluded that it would have = taken at=20 least 17-19 separate evolutionary = pathways to=20 produce all the Anolis ecomorphs, if = natural=20 process evolution was the explanatory = agent.=20 Commenting on this work, biologists P.H. = Harvey=20 and L. Partridge, state, =93It seems = that as the=20 tape of life has been replayed in = separate=20 islands, there has been a remarkable = amount of=20 convergent evolution.=94{7}

Ranid Frogs

Ranid frogs=96=96 comprised of over = 1000=20 species=96=96are common throughout the = world. These=20 frogs have adapted to a wide range of = lifestyles=20 and habitats.  Two of the Ranid=20 subfamilies, Rhacophorinae (tree = frogs)=20 and Tomopterninal (burrowing = frogs) are=20 found both in Madagascar and on the = Indian=20 sub-continent of Asia.  They are = nearly=20 indistinguishable in their = morphological,=20 physiological and developmental = characteristics=20 and form two groups of ecomorphs.

Frogs, specifically, and amphibians, = in=20 general, cannot migrate through salty=20 environments. Therefore, it has long = been held,=20 from an evolutionary standpoint, that = the tree=20 frogs and burrowing frogs evolved prior = to the=20 separation of the = Madagascar-Seychelles-Indian=20 tectonic plate from Gondwanaland (the = earth=92s=20 one land mass prior to tectonic = separation). It=20 is believed that this tectonic plate = drifted=20 away from Gondwanaland about 130 million = years=20 ago, separated to form Madagascar, and = finally=20 attached onto Eurasia to form the Indian = sub-continent. Some tree and burrowing = frogs=20 were passively carried along and became = isolated=20 from one another.

Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA = analyses of=20 Madagascar and Indian Ranid frogs = demonstrate,=20 however, that the evolutionary = explanation is=20 untenable.{8} =20 DNA sequence analysis clusters these = ecomorphs=20 based on geography not = morphological=20 features.  In other words, from an=20 evolutionary perspective, burrowing = frogs and=20 tree frogs in Madagascar and India = must=20 have evolved independently. This = same study=20 has also identified examples of = =93repeated=94=20 evolution for Ranid ecomorphs located in = Sri=20 Lanka and India.{9}=20 Even more amazing, researchers conclude = from the=20 DNA sequence analysis that the larval=20 characteristics of several Madagascar = and Indian=20 ecomorphs are also identical. This means = that=20 the complex developmental pathways and = larval=20 lifestyles must have evolved=20 independently on several occasions to = produce=20 the same result=96=96if the data = is viewed=20 from an evolutionary perspective.{10}

Cichlids

Cichlids=96=96freshwater fish that = are widely=20 diverse in form, color and = habits=96=96are scattered=20 throughout the Southern Hemisphere. {11}=20 Numerous examples of cichlid ecomorphs = have been=20 recognized in lakes Victoria, Malawi and = Tanganyika of East Africa. An = evolutionary=20 explanation would postulate that each of = the=20 ecomorphs evolved a single time and then = was=20 independently isolated in each lake = after water=20 levels subsided, causing a single lake = to split=20 into three geographically separated = lakes.{12}3DCichlids=20

Sequence analysis of mitochondrial = DNA,=20 however, indicates that the ecomorphs = found in=20 the three East African lakes must have = evolved=20 independently, multiple times, assuming = an=20 evolutionary explanation.{13},{14},{15},{16},{17}=20 Also, researchers have noted the = independent=20 emergence of ecomorphs for cichlids in = two lakes=20 in Cameroon.{18} =20 Even more striking is the recent = recognition=20 that multiple independent origins = occurred for=20 ecomorphs within different regions of a = single=20 lake, Tanganyika.{19} =20 That is, from an evolutionary = perspective, some=20 cichlid species in Lake Tanganyika are = viewed as=20 separate, morphologically = indistinguishable=20 species that =93evolved=94 in exactly = the same way=20 multiple times.

Like the cichlids, scientists believe = the=20 sticklebacks species found in British = Columbia=20 evolved several times independently to = produce=20 the same ecomorphs. The same two = stickleback=20 species, bulky benthic (bottom-dwelling) = feeders=20 and streamline open-water feeders, live = in=20 isolated lakes near the Pacific coast of = British=20 Columbia. The standard evolutionary = explanation=20 maintains that these two species evolved = from=20 one marine stickleback species, became = trapped=20 and isolated in the lakes after sea = levels=20 changed, and then independently = populated the=20 lakes.{20}=20 Mitochondrial DNA analysis provides = results=20 contrary to the most plausible = evolutionary=20 explanations.{21}=20 These results indicate that the = stickleback=20 species from the same lake have a = greater degree=20 of genetic similarity than do = morphologically=20 identical species from different lakes. = From an=20 evolutionary viewpoint, therefore, = stickleback=20 ecomorphs in the isolated lakes must = be=20 the product of =93reproducible=94 = evolutionary=20 events.

A recent breeding experiment affirms = the=20 previous conclusion.{22} =20 In a laboratory environment, researchers = discovered that corresponding ecomorphs = from=20 different lakes attempt to interbreed = with one=20 another, while eschewing the different = ecomorphs=20 that share their lakes. This result is=20 interesting in light of the biological=20 definition of a species.  = Biologically, a=20 species is considered to be an = interbreeding=20 population of individuals. The = willingness of=20 the same ecomorphs from different lakes = to=20 interbreed points to just how profound = the=20 similarity is among the stickleback=20 ecomorphs=96=96both morphologically and=20 behaviorally. 

Mangabeys

Mangabeys are large Old World monkeys = found=20 in Africa. Morphological similarity has=20 traditionally led biologists to place = all the=20 mangabey species into a single genus,=20 Cercocebus. Baboons, drills, = mandrills,=20 and geladas are closely related to = mangabeys.=20 Earlier molecular studies and = mitochondrial DNA=20 sequence analysis challenged the = morphologically=20 based classification that places = mangabeys into=20 a single group.{23},{24}=20 These studies indicated that the single = mangabey=20 genus should have been separated into = two=20 groups, and that the nearly identical = mangabey=20 morphologies must have evolved = independently two=20 times. Recent nuclear DNA analyses have=20 confirmed that mangabey morphology = =93evolved=94 on=20 two separate occasions, when viewed from = the=20 evolutionary paradigm.{25}

These results not only support two=20 morphologically indistinguishable = genera,=20 Cercocebus and Lophocebus, but also = indicate=20 that the strong morphological = similarities of=20 drills, mandrills and baboons must have = evolved=20 independently as well. Nuclear DNA = sequence=20 analysis aligns drills and mandrills = with the=20 mangabey genus, Cercocebus, and baboons = and=20 geladas with the mangabey genus, = Lophocebus.{26}=20 Inspired by the results of the molecular = studies, two biologists have recently = recognized=20 subtle morphological differences in = dental=20 features and in the arm and leg bones of = the=20 Cercocebus and Lophocebus mangabeys.{27}=20 However, these skeletal and dental = differences=20 are so slight that without the = supporting DNA=20 sequence data it is questionable if = these=20 differences would have been recognized = at all,=20 let alone accepted as significant.

River = Dolphins

Unlike other marine mammals (whales,=20 porpoises, and dolphins), river dolphins = live in=20 freshwater, river environments. There = are four=20 extant river dolphin species. Three of = these=20 species live exclusively in freshwater = and one=20 (the La Plata dolphin) lives both in = estuaries=20 and coastal waters. The freshwater = dolphins=20 inhabit the Ganges and Brahmaptura = Rivers of=20 India, the Yangtze River of China, and = the=20 Amazon River.

River dolphins share similar and=20 characteristic morphologies. The most=20 commonplace view among biologists is = that the=20 river dolphins emerged from a single=20 evolutionary pathway. Mitochondrial and = nuclear=20 DNA sequence analysis now demonstrates=20 otherwise.{28}=20 In other words, if the DNA = sequence data=20 is interpreted within an evolutionary = context,=20 the four river dolphin species must have = evolved=20 the same characteristic features = independently=20 and repeatedly.

Pericallis

Pericallis, a genus of plants = related=20 to sunflowers, are found in the = Macaronesian=20 archipelago (Azores, Canary Islands, = Cape Verde,=20 Madeira and Selvagens) off the west = coast of=20 Africa.{29}=20 Of the Pericallis species found = in the=20 Macaronesian islands, six are woody and = nine are=20 herbaceous. This is not surprising, = since many=20 island plants are woody variants of = mainland=20 herbs or soft-bodied plants.

The most reasonable evolutionary = explanation=20 for the origin of Pericallis woodiness = is that=20 it evolved on the mainland and found its = way to=20 the Macaronesian islands. However, = nuclear DNA=20 sequence analysis betrays this = explanation by=20 revealing no genetic similarity. When = examined=20 employing evolutionary assumptions, = therefore,=20 the data indicates that Pericallis = woodiness=20 musthave evolved on at least two = separate=20 occasions.{30}

Evolutionary Attempts to Account for = Repeatable Evolution

In isolation, each case of = =93repeatable=94=20 evolution can be viewed as an oddity and = poses=20 no real threat to the =93truth=94 of = biological=20 evolution. However, the many cases of=20 =93repeatable=94 evolution=96=96in which = entire=20 organisms seem to evolve independently = and=20 reproducibly=96=96simply doesn=92t = follow, given the=20 nature of the mechanism available to = drive the=20 evolutionary process, chance. Biologists = who=20 embrace methodological = naturalism=96=96the notion=20 that only natural explanations can be = used to=20 account for phenomena in the physical = and=20 material world=96=96do indeed regard the = occurrences=20 of =93repeatable=94 evolution as = unexpected and=20 remarkable. However, their philosophical = predisposition does not allow them to be = open to=20 the possibility that a Creator is = responsible=20 for the repeated occurrences of = ecomorphs found=20 in nature.  These morphologically=20 indistinguishable, yet genetically = distinct=20 ecomorphs can be properly considered as = one of=20 the many fingerprints that the Creator = has left=20 on His creation. In fact, if a single = Creator=20 was responsible for life, one could = anticipate=20 seeing repeated examples of the same = blueprint=20 throughout the biological realm. One = would=20 expect that a single Creator would reuse = successful designs over and over = again.

Given the examples cited previously,=20 evolutionary biologists cannot seem to = account=20 for =93repeatable=94 evolution. One = attempt at=20 explaining this phenomenon is to = attribute=20 =93special=94 capability to the forces = of natural=20 selection.{31}=20 Since organisms are perfectly suited for = their=20 ecological milieu, and therefore more = likely to=20 survive to reproductive age, it is = thought that=20 the forces of natural = selection=96=96competitive,=20 predatory, and environmental=20 influences=96=96repeatedly =93channel=94 = the=20 evolutionary process down the same = pathway to=20 produce the same organisms. This = explanation for=20 recurrent evolution neglects the fact = that=20 selective forces are nothing more than a = blind=20 filter. Natural selection can only = operate on=20 traits made available by random changes = in the=20 population=92s genetic makeup. It is not = likely=20 that these changes would be repeatable, = given=20 the complexity of genomes, nor that they = would=20 occur in the same historical = sequence.

Additionally, it is unlikely that the = factors=20 that made up an organism=92s ecology = would be=20 identical throughout time. Changes to = the=20 ecological environment in Madagascar, = for=20 example, would not be identical to the = changes=20 in the ecological environment in India. = The=20 components of natural selection are = influenced=20 by chance and by history. Therefore, = natural=20 selection would not be expected to guide = separate evolutionary sequences and then = produce=20 morphological traits in an organism that = somehow=20 remarkably converge.

One well-known experiment with = bacteria has=20 led evolutionary biologists to conclude = that=20 natural selection can direct the = convergence of=20 features in the evolutionary process.{32}=20 These experiments demonstrated that = bacterial=20 populations subjected to identical = environments=20 achieved similar fitness (a measure of = the=20 ability of an organism to survive) = regardless of=20 chance, mutational events, and history. = However,=20 the conclusion drawn from these = experiments does=20 not support such a directive role for = natural=20 selection for two reasons.

First, fitness is different from=20 morphological characteristics. Fitness = describes=20 the capability to survive independent of = the=20 organism=92s features. It is not = surprising that=20 natural selection converges on optimal = fitness=20 in mathematical modeling or when = characterizing=20 the response of bacteria to = environmental=20 stress. Yet, it does not follow that = convergence=20 to optimal fitness explains the = improbable=20 convergence of morphological features. = Second,=20 what is true for bacterial communities = (single=20 cell organisms that are morphologically=20 nondescript, comprised of large = population=20 sizes, and short generation times) is = not=20 necessarily true for the advanced = multi-cellular=20 organisms that have been shown to = display=20 =93repeatable=94 evolution.{33}=20 The population and reproductive = characteristics=20 of these advanced, complex organisms = preclude=20 their capability to evolve.

Another attempt to account for = =93repeatable=94=20 evolution within the evolutionary = paradigm is=20 based on inherent biological and = developmental=20 constraints.{34}=20 The idea is that these constraints only = allow=20 certain variations to occur in the = evolutionary=20 process.  When evolution occurs, = then, it=20 can only produce a limited number of = ecomorphs,=20 therefore the same ecomorphs result = repeatedly.=20 This explanation falls short. = Developmental and=20 inherent biological constraints would = have no=20 =93knowledge=94 of the environmental, = predatory, or=20 competitive pressures facing the = organism.=20 Therefore, one would not expect there to = be=20 ecomorphs. In the face of this = explanation one=20 must ask, =93Why do we see organisms = that are=20 perfectly suited to their ecological = niche?=94 The=20 universal occurrence of perfect = adaptation is=20 inconsistent with any limitations on = biological=20 variation.

Conclusion

Prior to the influence of Charles = Darwin=20 (Origin of Species was first = published in=20 1859) scientists viewed the nature of = the=20 similarities among organisms as due to = the=20 variation of a fundamental design or=20 archetype.{35}=20 This =93blueprint=94 for life was = acknowledged as=20 having come directly from the mind of = God.=20 Organisms classified within a particular = grouping were viewed as variations of = the design=20 provided by the Creator.

When the tide began to shift toward = Darwinian=20 evolution, however, biologists came to=20 understand the relationships among = organisms as=20 reflecting descent with modification = from a=20 common ancestor. The ancestral species = that gave=20 rise to a group of related organisms = replaced=20 the archetype, and natural selection = operating=20 on random biological variation replaced = the=20 creative hand of God.

As both evolutionists and = creationists seek=20 to account for the features found in the = biological realms, different predictions = flow=20 consequentially from these explanations. = Chance=20 and a historical sequence of events = control=20 biological evolution, at its essence. = One would=20 expect therefore, few, if any, instances = in=20 which the evolutionary process would = repeat=20 itself. On the other hand, if a single = Creator=20 were responsible for life on earth, one = would=20 expect to see recurrent design = throughout=20 nature.

The widespread availability of = molecular=20 systematics now allows scientists to = test these=20 two interpretations of nature. As = molecular=20 systematics is used increasingly to = characterize=20 the relationship among = organisms=96=96both living=20 and extinct=96=96numerous examples of=20 morphologically identical and = genetically=20 distinct groups are being uncovered. The = widespread occurrence of repeatable = evolution=20 cannot be accommodated within the = evolutionary=20 paradigm. Any attempt to account for = this=20 phenomenon from a naturalistic = standpoint=20 violates the very nature of the = evolutionary=20 process or has implications that are=20 inconsistent with what biologists = observe in=20 nature.

The evolutionary paradigm fails in = the face=20 of the discovery of =93repeatable=94 = evolution while=20 biblical creation gains support from = this=20 phenomenon. What is interpreted as = =93repeatable=94=20 evolution=96=96morphologically = indistinct and=20 genetically unique organisms=96=96is = what one would=20 expect if a single Creator has generated = life=20 throughout earth=92s history. As time = goes on,=20 scientists expect to see more examples = of=20 =93repeatable=94 evolution. Each new = discovery of=20 this phenomenon weakens the evolutionary = paradigm and strengthens the case for=20 creation. 

References

  1. Stephen = J. Gould,=20 Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and = the=20 Nature of History (New York, NY: = W.W. Norton=20 & Company, 1989), 51.=20
  2. Gould, = 48.=20
  3. John = Cafferky, =20 Evolution=92s Hand: Searching for the = Creator=20 in Contemporary Science (Toronto, = Canada:=20 East End Books, 1997,) 66-69.=20
  4. Jonathan = B. Losos and=20 Kevin de Querioz, =93Darwin=92s = Lizards,=94 Natural=20 History, December /January, = (1997/1998):=20 34-37.=20
  5. Jonathan = B. Losos, et=20 al., =93Contingency and Determinism in = Replicated=20 Adaptive Radiations of Island = Lizards,=94=20 Science 279 (1998): = 2115-2118.=20
  6. Losos, et = al.,=20 2115-2118.=20
  7. Paul H. = Harvey and=20 Linda Partridge, =93Different Routes to = Similar=20 Ends,=94 Nature 392 (1998): = 552-553.=20
  8. Frankly = Bossuyt and=20 Michel C. Milinkovitch, =93Convergent = Adaptive=20 Radiations in Madagascar and Asian Ranid = Frogs=20 Reveal Co-Variation Between Larval and = Adult=20 Frogs,=94 Proceedings of the National = Academy=20 of Sciences, USA 97 (2000): = 6585-6590.=20
  9. Bossuyt = and=20 Milinkovitch, 6585-6590.=20
  10. Bossuyt = and=20 Milinkovitch, 6585-6590.=20
  11. Melanie = L.J.=20 Stiassny and Axel Meyer, =93Cichlids of = the Rift=20 Lakes,=94 Scientific American, = February=20 (1999): 64-69.=20
  12. Erik = Verhegen et.=20 al., =93Mitochondrial Phylogeography of=20 Rock-Dwelling Cichlid Fishes Reveals=20 Evolutionary Influence of Historical = Lake Level=20 Fluctuations of Lake Tanganyika, = Africa,=94=20 Philosophical Transactions of the = Royal=20 Society of London B 351 (1996): = 797-805.=20
  13. Stiassny and Meyer,=20 64-69.=20
  14. Verheyen et al.,=20 797-805.=20
  15. Axel = Meyer et. al.,=20 =93Monophyletic Origin of Lake Victoria = Cichlid=20 Fishes Suggested by Mitochondrial DNA=20 Sequences,=94 Nature 347 (1990):=20 550-553.=20
  16. John C. = Arise,=20 =93Flocks of African Fishes,=94 = Nature 347=20 (1990): 512-513.=20
  17. Axel = Meyer,=20 =93Phylogenetic Relationships and = Evolutionary=20 Processes in East African Cichlid = Fishes,=94=20 Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8 = (1993):=20 279-284.=20
  18. Ulrich = K.=20 Schliewen, et. al., =93Sympatric = Speciation=20 Suggested by Monophyly of Crater Lake = Cichlids,=94=20 Nature 368 (1994): 629-632.=20
  19. Lukos = Ruber et.=20 al., =93Replicated Evolution of Trophic=20 Specializations in an Endemic Cichlid = Fish=20 Lineage from Lake Tanganyika,=94 = Proceedings of=20 the Natural Academy of Sciences, USA = 96=20 (1999): 10230-10235.=20
  20. Elizabeth Pennisi,=20 =93Nature Steers a Predictable = Course,=94=20 Science 287 (2000): 207-208.=20
  21. Eric B. = Taylor and=20 J.D. McPhail, =93Evolutionary History of = an=20 Adaptive Radiation in Species Pairs of=20 Threespine Sticklebacks = (Gasterosteus):=20 Insights from Mitochondrial DNA,=94 = Biological=20 Journal of the Linnean Society 66 = (1999):=20 271-291.=20
  22. Howard = D. Randle,=20 et. al., =93Natural Selection and = Parallel=20 Speciation in Sympatric Sticklebacks,=94 = Science 287 (2000): 306-308.=20
  23. John E. = Cronin and=20 Vincent M. Sarich, =93Molecular Evidence = for Dual=20 Origins of Mangabeys Among Old World = Monkeys,=94=20 Nature 260 (1976): 700-702.=20
  24. Todd R. = Disotell,=20 et. al., =93Mitochondrial DNA Phylogeny = of the Old=20 World Monkey Tribe Papionini,=94 = Molecular=20 Biology and Evolution 9 (1992): = 1-13.=20
  25. Eugene = E. Harris=20 and Todd R. Disotell, =93Nuclear Gene = Trees and=20 the Phylogenetic Relationships of = Mangabeys=20 (Primates: Papionini),=94 Molecular = Biology and=20 Evolution 15 (1998): 892-900.=20
  26. Harris = and=20 Disotell, 892-900.=20
  27. John G. = Heagle and=20 W. Scott McGraw, =93Skeletal and Dental = Morphology=20 Supports Diphyletic Origins of Baboons = and=20 Mandrills,=94 Proceedings of the = National Academy=20 of Sciences, USA 96 (1999): = 1157-1161.=20
  28. Insa = Cassens et.=20 al., =93Independent Adaptation to = Riverine=20 Habitats Allowed Survival of Ancient = Cetacean=20 Lineages,=94 Proceedings of the National = Academies=20 of Sciences, USA 97 (2000): = 11343-11347.=20
  29. Kathryn = S. Brown,=20 =93Why Woodiness?,=94 Natural History,=20 December/January (1999/2000): 74-77. =
  30. Jose L. = Panero, et.=20 al., =93Molecular Evidence for Multiple = Origins of=20 Woodiness and a New World Biogeographic=20 Connection of the Macroneasian Island = Endemic=20 Pericallis (Asteraceae: Senecimeae)=94 = Proceedings=20 of the National Academy of Sciences, USA = 96=20 (1999): 13886-13891.=20
  31. Losos, = et. al.,=20 2115-2118.=20
  32. Michael = Travisano=20 et. al. =93Experimental Test of the = Roles of=20 Adaptation, Chance and History in = Evolution,=94=20 Science 276 (1995): 87-90.=20
  33. Hugh = Ross, =93How=20 Speciation =93Rules=94 Rule Out = Darwinism,=94 Facts=20 for Faith 1, no. 2 (2000): 56-57.=20
  34. David = B. Wake,=20 =93Homoplasy: The Result of Natural = Selection, or=20 Evidence of Design Limitations?,=94 = American=20 Naturalist 138 (1991): 543-567.=20
  35. Michael = Denton,=20 Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, = MD:=20 Adler & Adler, 1985,) 93-117.=20


About the=20 Author

Dr. Fazale = =93Fuz=94=20 Rana is the vice president of = science=20 apologetics at Reasons To = Believe, an international,=20 interdenominational ministry established = to=20 communicate the uniquely factual basis = for=20 belief in the Bible as the wholly true = Word of=20 God and for personal faith in Jesus=20 Christ.


=A9 Reasons To Believe = 2003=20



=A9 = 2001-2003   LifeWay=20 Christian Resources
 =20 =
=
Articles   | =   Products=20
Advanced=20 Search
=20 =20 =20 =20

Have questions relating = to=20 apologetics? Ask our=20 staff!
Suggested=20 Resources
Scientific=20 Apologetics Resources
 =B7  Darwin=20 on Trial
 =B7  The=20 Creator and the Cosmos
 =B7  Darwin's=20 Black Box
 =B7  Designer=20 Universe: Intelligent Design and the = Existence=20 of God
 =B7  Icons=20 of Evolution: Science or = Myth?
 =B7  Fingerprint=20 of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries = Reveal the=20 Unmistakable Identity of the=20 Creator
 =B7  Science=20 and Faith: An Evangelical = Dialogue
 =B7  The=20 Soul of Science : Christian Faith and = Natural=20 Philosophy
 =B7  The=20 Genesis Question: Scientific Advances = and the=20 Accuracy of Genesis
 =B7  Mo= re=20 = Products...
 
Living
 =B7