End of Year

Possum, Redwood Tree, and Kidney Bean: “Our Ancestors”

A Spoof on Evolution Theory

The theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more complex as time progresses. Because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve and those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of evolution experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms. From the chart, it is “obvious” that we all started off as penicillin with only 2 chromosomes, and that we slowly evolved into fruit flies. After many millions of years we turned into tomatoes (or house flies) and so on, until we reached the human stage with 46 chromosomes. One of our ancestors must have been one of the identical triplets—possums, redwood trees, and kidney beans—with 22 chromosomes each.

If we are allowed to continue evolving, we may someday be tobacco plants, and maybe we may even become carp with 100- or maybe even the ultimate life-form, a fern with 480 chromosomes!

Don’t you believe it! God made this world and all life-forms, as recorded in the Bible.

Feedback (8/13/2010)

Click here to see our response to the feedback (comments) below.

,

Leave16 Responses to testPossum, Redwood Tree, and Kidney Bean: “Our Ancestors”

  1. David Ray August 3, 2010 at 8:59 am #

    I am asking you to be honest. Please feel free to respond to me privately and I give my word that I will not reveal your answer to my question to anyone, regardless of your answer. I just really want to know. The question is: Do you really believe that the statements you make should be taken seriously? They exhibit a complete lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution actually predicts. So much so that I seriously suspect that you don’t actually believe the things you say. Please understand that I am not trying to mock you or disparage you in any way. I just really want to know. Do you actually think that you are asking intelligent questions? Be honest. I will not reveal your answer. Sometimes it’s good to confess.

  2. Joakim Rosqvist August 3, 2010 at 10:21 am #

    [i]The theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more complex as time progresses.[/i]

    Nope. It teaches that lifeforms will adapt to the local environment. That can mean both an increase or a decrease in complexity.
    Complexity also has very little to do with chromosome count. A useful analogy here is books — a book with 22 chapters isn’t necessarily more complex than one with only 18.

  3. David Ray August 3, 2010 at 11:10 am #

    Please be honest. This is a serious question and I do not intend to mock or disparage you. Are you serious when you make these misleading statements about evolutionary theory? They demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what the theory actually predicts. I see two options. 1) No, you are not serious and you do understand the theory and present these statements as a way to get attention and or get people to buy your products; 2) Yes, you are serious and honestly believe you are accurately representing the theory. If you decide to respond, I give my word that your answer will not be repeated to anyone. I just want to know.

  4. Nigel McNaughton August 3, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    Right, this has nothing to do with actual biology. Eric has decided to call it a ‘spoof’ because he knows that and wants to avoid being labelled dishonest.

    But

    We know that Kent has used very same ridiculous ‘argument’ in debates, so he at least thought it was real. Like Neanderthal was a very old Frenchman,… even the kids.

  5. Anthony Kopah August 3, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    The theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more complex as time progresses. Because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve and those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of evolution experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms.

    That is a complete misrepresentation of evolution and I suspect that you are aware of it. Isn’t there a better way you could be furthering your cause?

  6. Sara Ci August 3, 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    “From the chart, it is “obvious” that we all started off as penicillin with only 2 chromosomes, and that we slowly evolved into fruit flies. After many millions of years we turned into tomatoes (or house flies) and so on”

    Dr. Hovind, by this strain of logic, chimps and tobacco are the exact same thing… funny, they don’t much look alike (totally different facial features, I suppose).

    As Joakim commented before me, evolution isn’t about the complexity of an organism; rather, it’s about how the genetic makeup of an organism allows it to compete in its environment (thus, “natural selection”). While this may, and does often, involve organisms becoming more complex in nature, complexity cannot be determined by the number of chromosomes.

  7. Kurt Petersen August 4, 2010 at 12:14 pm #

    @ David Ray
    It’s clear that Kent Hovind is demolishing the argument of life becoming more complex from counting chromosomes. please read it carefully, his argument only demonstrates that even the Darwinian 1st life forms from the supposed evolutionary standpoint are highly developed and complex.

  8. Nigel McNaughton August 4, 2010 at 4:02 pm #

    Kurt, that would be the classic, essentially text book example of a straw-man.

    The only one pretending complexity is measured by chromosome count, and that evolution is about things becoming more complex is…… Kent Hovind.

  9. David Ray August 4, 2010 at 7:40 pm #

    “@ David Ray
    It’s clear that Kent Hovind is demolishing the argument of life becoming more complex from counting chromosomes. please read it carefully, his argument only demonstrates that even the Darwinian 1st life forms from the supposed evolutionary standpoint are highly developed and complex.”

    Sorry Kurt. Kent’s argument does no such thing.

    Exactly which life form on the list are you counting as the “Darwinian 1st life form”? Penicillin? Please do not consider the next statement an insult. I undoubtedly know very little about your area of expertise. In other words, I am ignorant of your specialty. You are demonstrating the same ignorance of evolutionary theory and (biology in general) as Kent. All of the organisms on the list are eukaryotes. As such they are ALL far from being simple. By definition, a eukaryote is relatively complex because it has a nucleus, mitochondria, and, in plants, chloroplasts. Simpler organisms include the prokaryotes and archaea which both typically have single circular chromosomes. None of those are included on this list. He is excluding all of the organisms that actually ARE simple in order to make his fallacious point.

    I’d also like to point out Joakim’s comment. Chromosome number doesn’t have anything to do with organism complexity. His book example is great but consider this. Let’s say that we took our 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) and decided to fuse them all together into a single pair. How does this change the amount of information? Not at all. In other words, all we did was take the same information from 46 small books and cram it all together into 2 books. We didn’t lose or gain any information. We didn’t lose or gain any significant amount of complexity. Similarly, we could take the 46 chromosomes and split all of them in half to get 92 smaller chromosomes. Again, did we gain any significant complexity? Nope. Just took the same information and broke it into smaller pieces.

    I have a great example of this in humans. Unfortunately, one of the board rules is that no URLs can be posted. So, use Google to look up the following phrase, “The 44 Chromosome Man And What He Reveals About Our Genetic Past”. The top hit will be to a story about a man who has undergone an event similar to what I described above. Two of his chromosomes have fused together. Specifically, both of his chromosome 15s have fused end-to-end with his chromosome 14s. Thus, he has only 44 chromomsomes instead of the standard 46. According to Kent’s argument (“please read it carefully”), he should now be flying around and echolocating to catch insects.

    Unfortunately for Kent, he is NOT a bat and is still a perfectly normal human. By the way, which bat? The lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) has 56 chromosomes but the short-tailed fruit bat (Carollia perspicillata) only has 20. Does that mean that the fruit bat is actually an ear of corn or that the horseshoe bat is really a cow in disguise? Is one bat “more complex” than the other? Again, I can’t post URLs but if you search for the “Animal Genome Size Database” you can find the information I presented here.

    I hope you can see how Kent’s argument is invalid.

  10. Diane Smith August 5, 2010 at 12:45 am #

    Mhmmm…. The tonsils, the appendix…. Is it evolution that we don’t “need” them anymore? I think not. If evolution were true, we would be evolving bigger and better organs, rather than developing a lesser need for some of the originals. This is the opposite of evolution. Why aren’t we growing wings or tails? Those would be helpful! I think that the tonsils and appendix do play a small role in immunity, yet they played a much greater role in the beginning. We can now live without them. We can live without a lot of things tho’, we don’t even need ears, hair, both arms or both legs to SURVIVE, although they help a lot!

    Thank you Dr Hovind for your relentless pursuit of truth, my prayers are with you and your family in these days of trials. May He continue to strengthen and uphold you all as you battle against the powers and principalities of this world. Blessings!

  11. David Ray August 5, 2010 at 10:04 am #

    @ Kurt

    I’m a bit concerned that you might not have seen my response to your comment. The Hovinds have set up this forum such that my comment can only be viewed by logged in members. If you haven’t seen my comment and would like to or if you would like to continue this conversation, please contact me at epray1(at)gmail.com.

    I’ve contacted them about this problem but have yet to receive a response.

  12. Nigel McNaughton August 5, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

    Diane is the only point of your message was to inform everyone reading that you don’t understand the first thing about biology and the theory of evolution then you succeeded admirably.

  13. die kerze August 6, 2010 at 7:24 am #

    @ Diane Smith

    Read a book please.
    You only need an appendix if you have to digest massive loads of cellulose, that’s why horses have a rather big one.

    “we don’t even need ears, hair, both arms or both legs to SURVIVE, although they help a lot! ”

    Yeah, if you don’t understand natural selection just keep quiet.
    In an enviroment full of predators you won’t survive without arms, ears and legs. Trust me.
    Every tissue needs ressources, so if you have a smaller appendix (which you don’t need since you are not feeding on leafs) you can use those rescources elsewhere.

    “Why aren’t we growing wings or tails?”

    For many reasons. Mutation just won’t provide an extra pair of limbs, that’s why Birds don’t have an extra pair of arms, which might indeed be handy. In order to get wings, our arms would have to develop skin between them an the chest, and it has to be an advantage in surviving.
    Also, our Bones are to heavy. Birds have lighter bones, because otherwise they won’t be able to fly.

    Instead of reading this blog just read a science book.

  14. H. Bosma August 6, 2010 at 8:03 am #

    All comments against evolution just clearly show your lack of knowledge of with it beholds. It doesn’t remotely discredit evolution.

  15. Rocky Salit August 6, 2010 at 8:23 am #

    @Diane, where in the Theory of Evolution is it said that we get more complex or bigger? I will give you a hint, no where. you have created a straw man of Evolution, just like Mr. Hovind did in his opening sentence. This is not what evolution predicts. What it does predict is that organisms that are better suited for their environment will pass on their genes better than organisms that are not.

    With each passing of genes, though there will be changes (mutations) in the genes, most of these being neutral. Occasionally there will be a change that makes that organism again better suited for its environment (or the environment can change allowing for a previous neutral or even harmful changes to become a positive changes). That change does not mean the organism will become more complex, there are many examples of losing something making the organism better suited (in humans and other primates the ability for the body to produce vitamin C has been lost, this allows the body to spend the energy used in making vitamin C on other things like brain power. This ability was lost because our diet consisted of fruits high in vitamin C and it was unnecessary to make it.).

  16. Rose Turner August 6, 2010 at 7:44 pm #

    This is the first time I have logged into your blog. (NOT the first time on your web site, though), and my husband and I both enjoy your programs on TV. We were introduced to them by a couple of our grown sons, and we have encouraged all 14 of our grandchildren to watch them – they enjoy them, also. And since I had spent several weeks arguing with that youngest son about evolution when he was in grade school, I count this as quite a victory! I count us fortunate that all of our offspring are intelligent enough to think for themselves, and they can see that evolution is merely Satan’s attempt at simulating religion. What your detractors do not take into account is that once you’ve EXPERIENCED God’s Miracles in your life, nothing can make you doubt Him again! Maybe they should try it – It beats all the world has to offer today. Bless you, we’ll be praying for your family.