Tree of Life Blog

Engaging Culture with the wisdom and power of Christ!

Tag Archives: Science

How Did the Turtle Get Its Shell? (from http://www.crev.info/)

0

How Did the Turtle Get Its Shell?   07/10/2009    


July 10, 2009 — The cover story of Science this week is about turtle evolution.  The caption on the cover illustration, which compares the skeleton of a turtle, chicken and mouse, reads, “The turtle body plan is unusual in that the ribs are transformed into a carapace, and the scapula, situated outside the ribs in other animals, is found inside the carapace.  A report on page 193 explains the evolutionary origin of this inside-out skeletal morphology.”  So let’s walk outside-in to this issue and see if the promised explanation can be found.
    The title of our entry is the same as Olivier Rieppel (Field Museum, Chicago): “How Did the Turtle Get Its Shell?”  The first thing we learn from Rieppel is that there are two opposing camps among evolutionary biologists: the transformationists and the emergentists.  The first group sounds like old-style Darwinians: “The classic transformationist approach sees morphological evolution as a result of natural selection working on variation manifest in reproducing organisms.”  The emergentists, by contrast, look for variations in embryonic development.  This difference determines what members of either paradigm are looking for to explain the unique skeletons and shells of turtles.  Transformationists look for adaptations in the adult form that might have been passed on to the progeny.  They might look for incipient plates in the skin, for instance, that could have ossified over the generations, then fused into a shell.  Emergentists, instead, would observe the developmental stages of turtles to look for clues about their evolutionary history.  That’s the approach members of the Laboratory for Evolutionary Morphology at the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Japan took in their scientific paper in same issue of Science.2
   

A key player in the story was the fossil turtle Odontochelys announced last year (see 11/29/2008), which had a plastron (front shell) but no carapace (back shell).  Scientists back then were debating whether the fossil was a missing link or a specialized turtle derived from pre-existing fully-formed turtles.  This team acknowledged the debate: “It cannot be ruled out that the carapace of this animal merely underwent a secondary degeneration,” they said; “however, if it really possessed the precarapacial dorsal ribs as reconstructed (Fig. 4), the evolution of the turtle body plan would be consistent with the embryonic development of the modern turtle.”  This means that their hypothesis about turtle evolution depends on accepting one side of the debate.
   

As for how the skeleton of a pre-turtle vertebrate could have undergone the spectacular modifications required, in which the scapula bones dived inside the rib cage (instead of remaining outside as in all other vertebrates), and the ribs fused to the carapace, forming a complete circle and ridge connected to the plastron, the authors looked to turtle embryos for evidence.  Rieppel summarized their research:

Nagashima et al. observed that during early development of the Chinese soft-shelled turtle Pelodiscus sinensis (see the figure), translocation of the ribs to a position outside the shoulder blade involves folding of the lateral body wall along a line that defines the later formation of the carapacial ridge.  This folding restricts rib growth to the horizontal plane of the carapacial disk and also maintains the shoulder blade in its superficial position relative to the folded body wall.  This organization is thought to characterize ancestral turtles.  Some muscles that develop from the muscle plate that is associated with the folding body wall even retain their “ancestral connectivities” in the adult.

Since there are no ancestral turtle embryos to observe, how can they think about what characterized them?  Here’s where they tied in their story with Odontochelys.  Rieppel continues:

Nagashima et al. hypothesize that in this ancestral turtle, the carapacial ridge was differentiated only along the side of the trunk, remaining incomplete anteriorly and posteriorly.  Only later during the evolution of turtles would the carapacial ridge be completed, causing the anteriormost trunk rib to grow across the shoulder blade and localizing the latter inside the ribcage.

So the researchers would not only have to take the emergentist view from the start, they would also have to assume that Odontochelys was a missing link instead of a specialized form.  This stacks two assumptions on top of each other.  It even sounds a bit like Haeckel’s discredited “Biogenetic Law” (also called the Recapitulation Theory) that asserted, “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”  The authors almost said that, in fact.  Watch for that word recapitulate and see how they used it:

Odontochelys reconstructed by Li et al. resembles the embryonic modern turtles in some respects (Fig. 2, A and E, and Fig. 4), and this animal may represent an ancestral state.  The Odontochelys-like, ancestral pattern is still retained in the first rib in modern turtles (Fig. 4, right).  Although it remains to be seen whether latissimus dorsi of Odontochelys was shifted rostrally (Fig. 4, middle), its pectoralis would have established a new attachment to the dorsal aspect of the plastron (Fig. 4, middle).  Thus, the developmental sequence of P. sinensis may not wholly recapitulate the suggested evolutionary sequence of turtles.  Nevertheless, the above suggests that the dorsal arrest of ribs can now be assumed to have taken place by the common ancestor of Odontochelys and modern turtles, and in the latter, the completed CR would have allowed for emergence of the carapace (Fig. 4, bottom).  The modern turtles have acquired their unique body plan by passing through an Odontochelys-like ancestral state during embryonic development.  Our embryological study may help to explain the developmental changes involved in both the pre- and post-Odontochelys steps of turtle evolution, from an evolutionary developmental perspective.

So although they couched their Biogenetic-Law explanation with the disclaimer that the developmental sequence (ontogeny) of modern turtle embryos “may not wholly recapitulate” the ancestral evolutionary sequence (phylogeny), they turned right around and depended on Recapitulation Theory to explain turtle evolution.  They said, “The modern turtles have acquired their unique body plan by passing through an Odontochelys-like ancestral state during embryonic development.”  This would only make sense, of course, “from an evolutionary developmental perspective” – i.e., the emergentist view of evolution, which may itself be a recapitulation of Haeckel’s view.


1.  Olivier Rieppel, “Evolution: How Did the Turtle Get Its Shell?”, Science, 10 July 2009: Vol. 325. no. 5937, pp. 154-155, DOI: 10.1126/science.1177446.
2.  Nagashima, Sugahara, Takechi, Ericcson, Kawashima-Ohya, Narita and Kuratani, “Evolution of the Turtle Body Plan by the Folding and Creation of New Muscle Connections,” Science, 10 July 2009: Vol. 325. no. 5937, pp. 193-196, DOI: 10.1126/science.1173826.

This entry should not be entitled, “How did the turtle get its shell?” but rather, “How did the evolutionist get its tall tale about how the turtle got its shell?”  The BBC News called this a “spectacular insight into turtle evolution.”  National Geographic contorted this story with the line, “Turtles Have Shells Due to Embryo Origami,” and said “The findings shed light on turtle evolution.”  *Sigh.*
    It is really quite shocking to see slipshod Haeckelian logic employed by today’s evolutionists, and for Science to publish it, knowing that the popular media will gobble it whole and barf it out for the public (see next entry).  Stephen Jay Gould would have been appalled.  Recapitulation was tossed into the dustbin of Darwinism decades ago.  There is no reason even from an “evolutionary perspective” to expect modern embryos to retain any memory of their assumed evolutionary past, or to think that adult forms are somehow more evolved than the embryo is.  Stephen Jay Gould argued that the adult is actually a degenerate form of the embryo (neoteny), not a more advanced stage.  That’s the reverse of what the Recapitulation Theory paradigm teaches.  Besides, one can’t explain that modern turtle embryos are recapitulating their evolutionary past without assuming the very thing one needs to prove.  Yet here it is: Haeckel Recapitulation Theory Biogenetic Law Nonsense popping up again in Science.
    Worse yet, the emergentist view of evolution is little more than a restatement of the Stuff Happens Law (09/15/2008 commentary).  Something weird happened in a pre-turtle vertebrate embryo, things got shuffled around, and presto! the turtle was born.  Why?  Stuff happens.  If you need more convincing that the evolutionary just-so story “How the Turtle Got Its Shell” is summarized by “Stuff Happens,” look at prior attempts: 11/22/2008 piece, “Turtle Vaults Over 65 Million Year Evolutionary Hurdle,” where the explanation amounted to, “We have no idea.”  In the 10/09/2008 entry, the scientists said, “Exactly why turtles evolved their shell remains a mystery.”  Check out the 07/03/2002 entry, where some evolutionists tried to convince readers that the chickens and turtles are sisters despite their radically different skeletons.  Coming up with that idea required contorted attempts at card stacking.  Conclusion: evolutionists are clueless about why these amazingly-adapted, completely-formed animals are the way they are.
    The observational facts do not allow for stories about turtle evolution.  There are no fossil pre-turtles.  If scientists want to stick to empiricism, they cannot appeal to unobservable entities like some mythical common ancestor of turtles.  The evidence only permits them to state scientifically that “turtles have always been turtles.”  Why not leave it at that?  Answer: evolutionary religion requires them to insert turtles into the great chain of being known as Turtle Cosmology.
Next headline on:  Terrestrial ZoologyEvolution

Evolutionists – Impossible to Embarass Them (Henry Morris)

0

“And He spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?” (Luke 6:39).

Creationists have often pointed out that evolution is unscientific because it can never be proved by science to be true. It is not happening at present and without a time machine, they can never be sure that it happened in the past. Regardless of how much an organism looks like it had been intelligently designed, evolutionists (without even sounding embarrassed) will insist that natural selection has the power to make it look like it was designed, even though it wasn’t. Furthermore, no matter what fossil they find out of its accepted place in the evolutionary “record,” the evolutionists can “explain” how it got there.

The recent discovery of the intact flesh of a Tyrannosaurus rex with its “blood vessels—still flexible and elastic after 68 million years—and apparently intact cells”1 is a case in point. It would seem impossible for such soft structures to be preserved intact even for 6800 years, but evolutionists accept it on faith.

Similarly, Silurian fossil ostracodes supposedly 425 million years old have been found recently in England virtually identical to their modern-day counterparts and containing “a jaw-dropping amount of detail,”2 but this discovery does not faze evolutionists. They still believe it was buried 425 million years ago!

On another front, one would think that geophysicists would be embarrassed by their repeated failure to find the so-called Mohorovocic Discontinuity (except by inference from seismic waves) at the boundary between the earth’s “crust” and “mantle.” Since the supposed evolutionary history of the earth is theoretically related to this “Moho,” scientists have been trying to confirm its existence, along with the assumed nature of the mantle, by drilling deep holes in the crust. This has been going on since the early sixties without success, the latest such attempt having failed earlier this year.

The Bible long ago prophesied that it was not possible that the “heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath” (Jeremiah 31:37). Nevertheless: “Undaunted, oceanographers are ready to try again.”3

On the heavenly front, the same unembarrassed evolutionary cosmologists will evidently continue trying to “explain” the evolutionary history of the cosmos. Theories abound, and change frequently, the rising favorite being “string theory,” involving multiple dimensions of space and even multiple universes of space/time. However, as one evolutionary astrophysicist admits: “. . . the universe unveiled by the hellishly complex mathematics of super-string theory is not even remotely close to what string theorists anticipated.”4

Another cosmologist insists, however, that “string theory possesses a virtue for which many physicists are willing to accept these seeming absurdities: It can reconcile quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theory of gravity.”5 But then he admits that “the theory itself continues to grow more complicated and mysterious.”6

Its main virtue is that it can explain the cosmos without God. As Gardner insists, “. . . the fundamental credo of science is that deep mysteries like these will someday, if only in the distant future, succumb to rational explanation.”7

And what about human evolution? A recent statistical study of the genetics of human populations revealed,

the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for a randomly mating population would have lived in the very recent past. . . . In particular, the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models.8

The writer avoids mentioning the “Adam and Eve” explanation, of course. Nevertheless, he also notes that: “And a few thousand years before that, . . . the ancestors of everyone on the earth today were exactly the same.”9

One would think that analyses such as this, made by evolutionists on the real data of genetics and human populations would be embarrassing to evolutionists who commonly postulate an approximately million-year history of human existence on earth. But even if there were people living all during the past million years, how come they all kept the same genetic makeup until just a few thousand years ago? The Biblical record would seem at least relevant to the discussion!

Then there are the recent research findings by ICR scientists and others working on the RATE project that have
uncovered many new evidences that the earth is young, including the ubiquitous presence of radiocarbon in coal beds and even in diamonds. For years, of course, creationists have been pointing out that no real evolution has taken place during the several thousand years of human history and also that there are no legitimate series of transitional forms in the fossil beds of the past, plus the negative effects of mutations and the testimony of the laws of thermodynamics—all of which seem to make any macroevolution extremely unlikely, if not impossible.

Yet evolutionists continue to control the scientific and education establishments, insisting that total evolution is a scientific fact and creation is religion, so only evolution can be allowed to be taught in public schools and colleges. They gloat over the alleged fact that “an unprecedented 14 percent of Americans tell pollsters that they are atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, or simply disinterested in religion.”10 Even if this figure is assumed to be correct, it still leaves 86% of the population who believe in God.

And they express surprise that so many people have somehow come to believe in creation despite all the brainwashing in schools. The editor-in-chief of the premier magazine Science, recently moaned in a lead editorial that:

Alternatives to the teaching of biological evolution are now being debated in no fewer than 40 states. Worse, evolution is not the only science under such challenge. In several school districts, geology materials are being rewritten because their dates for Earth’s age are inconsistent with scripture (too old).11

A few evolutionists do seem to have at least a glimpse of why we object to their insistence that evolution be considered a scientifically proven fact. The following commentary on evolutionary science was in a recent issue of Geotimes.

Evolutionists have “Physics Envy.” They tell the public that the science behind evolution is the same science that sent people to the moon and cures diseases. It’s not.

The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic. Because evolution took place in history, its scientific investigations are after the fact—no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification, nothing at all like physics. . . . I think this is what the public discerns—that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science.12

Another evolutionist makes an interesting admission. He says: “Contrary to their public image, scientists are normal, flawed human beings.”13 They are as capable of prejudice, covetousness, pride, deceitfulness, etc., as anyone.

Evolutionists can’t seem to comprehend why most Americans still believe in God, creation, and the Bible, despite having the “fact” of evolution dogmatically taught to them throughout their school years. The fact is that there is an abundance of objective evidence that the Bible really is the Word of God. It is not just a book of religion as they argue, but a book of factual history. Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead and Jesus Christ really did confirm the truth of the Biblical account of origins. Creationists do not believe in the Bible just because they are ignorant of science.

Peter says that “we have not followed cunningly devised fables. . . . We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed . . .”
(II Peter 1:16,19). And the apostle Paul, prophesying of the humanists of “the last days” said that they would be “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (II Timothy
3:1,7) because “they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (II Timothy 4:4).

A creationist scientist justifiably might think of the Psalmist’s caustic commentary on the ancient idol-making pantheistic evolutionists:

Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: . . . They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them (Psalm 115:4,5,8).

Endnotes

  1. Erik Stokstad, “Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects,” Science (vol. 307, March 25, 2005), p. 1852.
  2. Erik Stokstad, “Gutsy Fossil Sets Record for Staying the Course,” Science (vol. 302, December 5, 2003), p. 1645.
  3. Richard A. Kerr, “Pursued for 40 Years, the Moho Evades Ocean Drillers Once Again,” Science (vol. 307, March 18, 2005), p. 1707.
  4. James N. Gardner, “Fundamental Cosmological Understanding Eludes Us,” Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 28, July/August, 2004), p. 51.
  5. Adrian Cho, “String Theory Gets Real—Sort of,” Science (vol. 306, November 26, 2004), p. 1461.
  6. Ibid., p. 1462.
  7. James N. Gardner, op. cit., p. 52.
  8. Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph T. Chang, “Modeling the Recent Common Ancestry of all Living Humans,” Nature (vol. 431, September 30, 2004), p. 562.
  9. Ibid., p. 565.
  10. Promotional brochure published by the Council for Secular Humanism.
  11. Donald Kennedy, “Twilight for the Enlightenment?” Science (vol. 308, April 8, 2005), p. 165.
  12. John Chaikowsky, “Geology v. Physics,” Geotimes (vol. 50, April 2005), p. 6.
  13. David Weatherall, “Conduct Unbecoming,” American Scientist (vol. 93, January-February 2005), p. 73.

An Oxymoron (Ray Comfort)

0

“Dear Ray, Why is it so difficult for you to accept the fact of evolution when it has been universally accepted by the scientific community, and 99.99% of people who dedicate their lives to studying it? Why do you refuse to acknowledge that there are many very very serious bible believing Christians who claim to know God but also accept the fact of evolution? Why is it so difficult for you to think that if your God existed, he might be working through science instead of directly violating it? It merely makes the story of Genesis One allegorical, describing man’s relationship with Jehovah rather then a literal account of how the world was made. Why, Ray, why, you constantly attack scientific discourse with a bumptious attitude, yet you do not let us know the real reasons for it, why?” Mojo

Let me deal with your questions one by one. First, I strongly contest your 99.99%. You are saying that only .01% who study evolution don’t believe it. I think you greatly exaggerate your figures. Still, never forget that there was a time when 100 % of the scientific community thought that the earth was flat. The majority must be right is a fallacy. Only God is right all the time.

Second, no Bible “believing” Christian accepts evolution. Such a thought is an oxymoron. To believe evolution means that the “Christian” doesn’t believe the words of Jesus, when He said, “In the beginning God made them male and female” (see Matthew 19:4). To believe that God made mankind through the process of evolution means that you don’t believe Bible.

Here’s a question for you: Why do Darwinian believers insist on hiding behind the cloak of “science,” when their theory isn’t scientific in the slightest? It’s nothing more than a pseudo science–a fairy tale for grownups, believed by the gullible, and created by the imaginations of secular speculators.

Here’s the bottom line: When anyone comes to know God through the new birth (see John 3:3-5), the issue is dead in the water. I can never convince you that Genesis is the truth, but you can know the truth yourself through repentance and trust in Jesus Christ.

If you are interested, read John 8:31-32.

Atheists confuse God with the Bible
When I said to a believer in the theory of evolution, “Your trust is in fallible man. My trust is in infallible God,” other atheistic believers in evolution replied:

“You trust the Bible, which was written, edited, compiled, interpreted, and preached by fallible man. That is all.”

“No. Your trust is also in something you believe happened long ago that was written by fallible men: The Bible. Then you throw in the subjective feelings that you interpret as a personal relationship with an infallible God.”

“You have trust in a book, written by men, assembled and edited and copied by men, none of them even claiming to be infallible.”

These atheists are mixing apples and oranges. God is the Creator. The Bible is a compilation of 66 books. They are two distinct entities. It’s like thinking that President of the United States is the Constitution. One is a written document, the other is the political leader of our country.

Christians of the first few centuries didn’t have a “Bible” as we know it. Most people of that time couldn’t read. The New Testament hadn’t been compiled, and there was no such things as the printing press. Those who were Christians were converted to Christ through the spoken message of the Gospel. They heard that they had violated God’s Law and that because of their crimes against a holy God, they were justly headed for Hell. But they also heard that God was rich in mercy to all that call upon Him, in that He provided a Savior. Jesus of Nazareth had paid the fine so that guilty sinners could have their case dismissed. Those who repented and put their trust in Him alone for their salvation received everlasting life as the gift of God.

They were saved by the power of God not by reading and believing the New Testament. Their trust was in Him, not in the Bible (again, which didn’t exist as we know it nowadays).

The contemporary Christian has the same experience. But we have the added blessing of having an Instruction Book that tells us what we experienced through our conversion, and how to live now that we have come to know God.

Consequentially, you can take the Bible away from me and burn it, or “disprove” it, or ban it, and it won’t change a thing for me because my salvation doesn’t come from believing the Bible, but through trusting in the person of Jesus Christ as my Lord and my Savior. Not even death will separate me from Him (see Romans 8:38-39).

An atheist further wrote, “But of course, as I’ve pointed out, you are not infallible; your trust might be in error.” That would be true, if we were simply dealing with another human being. If you said to me that my trust in my wife is misplaced, I would be upset that you are insulting her integrity. I have a wife who is incredibly faithful, very loving, and extremely honest. Yet, she is still a human being and is therefore subject to human weakness. Not so with God. He is without sin. It is impossible for Him to lie. He keeps every promise He makes. You and I can trust Him like an immovable and solid rock.

So, if you are a professing atheist, you are without excuse. God has covered every base. You are dealing with the One who created the genome, the atom, the unspeakable complexities of DNA and this entire infinite universe. You cannot win. Give up. Humble yourself and surrender to His will today and you will come to know Him “whom to know is life eternal.”

Back From New Zealand (Ray Comfort)

0

Back from New Zealand-Ray Comfort

How can you demonstrate that you love someone? You could buy them an expensive ring. I’m sure that would help, because it’s tangible evidence of a sacrifice. Still, it comes back to belief. If the person you love chooses not to believe that you love them, there’s nothing you can do about it.

I was in New Zealand recently at a university where local Christians had organized a debate between myself and an atheist. Just before it started a tall outspoken man named Ryan enthusiastically approached me and said something like, “I’m honored to meet you. I have watched your videos on the Internet, read your material, and here I am actually getting to meet you. I am really excited about this debate.” As he was walking back to his seat I called out, “Which side are you on?” and he replied, “I’m against everything you stand for.”

During the question-time Ryan asked some good questions. The next day he showed up at another meeting at which I was speaking, then he listened to me again, for another hour or so at a church service. Afterwards, we chatted, I signed a book for him, we had our photo taken, and he even helped on the book table. I really cared about Ryan and was pleased to hear him say at the end of the evening, “Man, why are you so likeable!!!” The fact that he could feel my love and concern for him was more powerful than any argument I could give him for the existence of God.

Some of you who are atheists read everything I write as if I write in hatred. Yet I love and care about you. If I could have lunch with you, I would, and I would gladly pay the tab. But if you refuse to believe that, I can’t do anything about it.

You accuse me of making money from the sale of my books, but did you know that I have preached open air more than 5,000 times and never been paid? I do that because I love people and care where they spend eternity. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t bother with preaching, blogging, producing a TV program, or writing Christian books. I had a very successful business before I became a Christian and could have made a good living, but I chose to spend my life pleading with people like you to consider where you will spend eternity.

So think about my motive, and then please think of God’s motive for the cross: “But God shows and clearly proves His [own] love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) died for us” (Romans 5:8, Amplified Bible). That’s the ultimate sacrifice. It’s up to you to believe it.

One wage packet you don’t want to collect

“Hey I just saw your new billboard on the 105 near my house. Thanks for clarifying for me that it is illogical to believe that things don’t just come from nothing ‘magically.’ Seriously, how can milk and honey just exist? Their mere existence proves that God exists since everything has a creator. I have one concern though, based on your logic. Who created God? Did He just magically appear? According to what your arguing, it’s silly to believe that. I mean, everything has a creator right? Things don’t just magically appear out of thin air. So who created God? Or is your brand of logic only applicable against what you disagree with? Thank you for solidifying my beliefs.”

Atheists often plead ignorance when it comes to the Initial Cause–as to what came before the Big Bang. Whatever it was that created the material for it to take place, had to be non-material (therefore free from the law of entropy), as well as dwell outside of the dimension of time (time logically demands that everything has a beginning and an end).

The Spirit of God qualifies for both (see Genesis 1:2). He is spirit (without a material body). He created time and is therefore not subject to it (revealed in the perfectly fulfilled Messianic prophecies).

You are right when you say that nothing “magically appears.” God is eternal–without beginning and without end, but He is also perfect in holiness. So whatever you do in this life, make sure you are right with Him because you don’t want to collect your due wages (see Romans 6:23). www.NeedGod.com

Keep it Simple

“You march ahead unchanged, repeating the same falsehoods. I’m not talking about reasonable differences in interpretation, I’m talking about outright misinformation (such as the bizarre idea that male and female have to evolve separately for each species . . . ” Euphimist

It’s difficult not to be repetitive with accusations such as the above. But here goes. There are an estimated 1.4 million species on the earth. Each species has both male and female (not counting worms and a few others). Let’s believe that each species did evolve. Let’s then zero in on the giraffe. After the big bang, there was a pre-giraffe animal. Millions (perhaps billions) of years pass until today, and now we have a male and female giraffe. Evolutionists believe that the two didn’t evolve separately. Such a thought is “bizarre.”

I know that you think I am intellectually slow, so please be patient with me and explain to me in very simple terms where you believe the female giraffe came from, and then explain how and why the other 1.4 million species ended up with both male and female.

I look forward to your comments.

%d bloggers like this: