Mound building by Macrotermes bellicosus: Thermoregulation and other architectual aspects

Scriptie Orientatiefasecursus Populatiebiologie 1998

Anna den Held and Thijs van der Velden


We were asked to write a literature study about a subject that interested us during the course population biology. An amazing phenomenon in nature is the ingenius moundbuilding by certain termites. We decided to focus on the Macrotermes bellicosus, which belongs to the subfamily Macrotermitinae. These are fungus-growing termites which occur in parts Africa and Asia. First we will give some general information about this so-called social insect, and then go to to our main point, the thermoregulation in the nest of the M. bellicosus by different architecture.

The founding of a nest starts by the royal couple who make a hole in the soil, called copularium. In here the queen lays her first eggs which develop into stunted workers. They accomplish the further developement of the nest and after a while receive help from newborn soldiers. Just after four years alate reproductives are produced.

As said before the M.bellicosus is fungus-growing. They build fungus combs which

occupy special gardens in the center of the nest in large compartements. The gardens are organized into complex sponge-like structures with numerous convoluted ridges and tunnels, evidently designed to give the maximum surface for growth. The substrate of the fungi is finly chewed wood provided by the termites themselves.

At first there was doubt about the exact function of these gardens. Some thought they were somehow part of the ventilation system of the big nests by providing some of the heat needed for convection. Nevertheless convincing evidence has been collected that the fungi are an important nutritive symbiont for some of the Macrotermine species. Microscopic examination of macrotermes workers gut contents indicated that the fungi serve to degrade the lignin and to expose the minute fragments of cellulose for quicker digestion by the intestinal bacterial flora.

Even more remarkable than the phenomenon of fungus-growing is the size and complexity of the nests constructed by the macrotermites. An important aspect of this complexity is the thermoregulation concerning the nests. Several studies have been made about the ability of M. bellicosus to regalate the internal temperature of their nests and the influence that the environmental temperature has on the architecture of the mounds.


Termitenests and their composition.

The nests of termites are generally regarded as a future of social organisation. The inside of a adult nest is always build according to a certain plan, containing one or more breeding centres from which radiate a network of galleries and runways to special chambers which store food, water and all kind of soilparticles.

In general we can classify the nests into six categories, gathered into two main groups. The first group contains three categories of areal nests, i.e. in the aerial parts of plants. The second group contains three categories of terranian nests; one under the soil surface, one half on it, and one above the soil surface, called mound. It is in this kind of nests that our M.bellicosus lives. Their mounds are impressive feautures characterising whole landscapes. They reach heights up to 8 meters, and appear sometimes in densities of 83 mounds per hectare.

The mounds are constructed of soil particles, (like coarse sand, fine sand, silt, clay and organic carbon), extracta and saliva, these in varying proportions. The M.bellicosus uses re-packed, orally transported soil particles, cemented with saliva into walls.

It is thought that mound structure of termites is determined by three important factors: the species, the soil composition and the microclimatic conditions (like rain and temperature). This last item is supposed to be very important because it can change on large scale in the same area.

That there is correlation between moundshape and thermoregulation within the nest, has often been suggested. Stable temperature inside the nest is very important for an optimum in fungus production, and so the termites use special archtitectual technics to construct a mound with certain thermoregulatory qualities.

Investegation on this subject has been done in Comoé-National Park (Ivory Coast) by Korb and Linsenmair (1997). In this park we find the M.bellicosus in two very different areas. First, they are found in the very warm shrub savanna. Here, the mounds have rather thin walls with numerous ridges and complex structures. The ridges on the outside of the mounds are made to increase the surface. The result is that the temperature inside will not increase above the critical level during the day. Inside the nest there are several ventilationchannels, essential for the gasexchange. These channels are also involved in the thermoregulation. During the cold savanna night, the diameter is reduced by constructing obstacles in the channels so ventilation decreases and heatloss is regulated. When temperature increases during the day these obstacles are removed so that ventilation takes place and heat is lost.

Second, they appear in the moisty gallery forest. This habitat has a relative cool, but stable climate. So in this environment it is important for M.bellicosus to reduce the loss of heat. Therefore the mounds are dome-shaped with massive walls and hardly any portraiding structures. The reason for this is that in this type of habitats it is not nescessary to have an extended channelsystem for this would only increase heatloss.

It can be concluded that the differences in moundarchitecture performed by termites of the same species is caused by the diffrences in temperature between the two habitats. The

M. bellicosus apparently is capable of influincing its own microclimate By building mounds with special structures they can actually achieve thermoregulation.


Wilson, Edward.O.,1971, ‘The Insect Societies’, Harvard University Press.

Brian,M.V. (ed) 1978, Production ecology of ants and termites, Cambridge University Press.

Korb,J., Linsenmair, K.E., 1997, ‘The effect on …… savanna’. Insectes Sociaux 45:1-112.

Korb,J., Linsenmair, K.E., 1997, ‘Experimental heathing ….architecture’. Insectes Sociaux 45:.235-347

Thanks to H.Velthuis for his important contribution.

Amazing Creations–Termite Towers


The termite is the acknowledged master architect of the creature world. No other insect or animal approaches the termite in the size and solidity of its building structure. The world’s tallest non-human structures are built by Australian or African termites. If a human being were the size of an average termite, the relative size of a single termite nest is the equivalent of a 180 story building–almost 2000 feet high. It would easily be the tallest building in the world. How is it possible that this tiny creature has the engineering know-how to erect an edifice of this magnitude? Obviously this knowledge is innate to the termite. The process of construction, the materials and correct combination of materials to yield an elegant, structurally efficient and durable structure is simply awe-inspiring.

The building material is usually local soil mixed with saliva. Sometimes dung is mixed in. It becomes so hard and impervious that the native people of the area use it for building their mud and stick shelters. The termite mound, or termitary, consists of hard, thick walls that seal in moisture and keep heat out. The Australian and African variety of termite towers are designed for cooling. A system of channels and ducts circulates air through the mound. These passageways run through areas of the mound that have walls that are porous or have tiny ventilation holes. The pores act as fresh air ventilation and stale air exhaust. This supply and return system performs solely on heat and gravity with no moving parts. Can our tall building work with such efficient simplicity?

At the lower core of the termitary are the living and working quarters. This area is the coolest and most insulated zone of the nest. The royal chamber, which is the largest chamber in the nest, houses the queen and king. Below the royal chambers are where the workers store food and care for the young termites, called nymphs. In some colonies the workers tend gardens where tiny mushrooms and varieties of fungus are grown. The termites grow this fungus inside a comb which is located in several pockets in the central zone of the inner nest. The comb, made of termite droppings, provides nourishment for the growing fungus and the termites feed on both the fungus and the comb. Termites live on cellulose, the substance which makes the framework of vegetation, and fungi. Ingress and egress from a termite tower is provided by a series of underground tunnels. The tunnels lead outward and branch into a network of passage that open to the outside. The insects make their trips to the outside at night, when it is cooler, and collect twigs, leaves, seeds and other food. In very hot, dry climates some species in the desert dig straight down exceeding 125 feet(38m) to connect with underground water. Underground wells supply the termitary with water and a source for cooling the interior. The peaks and towers of the termite’s nest act as lungs that expel rising hot air, which is generated by the breaking down of the fecal comb by the fungus. The air then rises via a large central air duct, and moves up through the long porous chimneys.The carbon dioxide in the air then diffuses to the outside, while oxygen diffuses into the chimneys. The oxygenated air eventually loses its heat to the cooler outside air and cools sinking down into the cellar.[4] Such an ingenious HVAC system is necessary for the survival of some three million termites to a single colony.

The exterior form of the termite nest depends upon the climate. For instance some termite nests have adapted to their rainy surroundings by creating umbrella-like roof structures that direct water from heavy rains away from the nest. Compass termites appear like giant wedges with the broad side facing due east and west. This solar orientation serves to keep the high, intense sun from hitting any appreciable portion of the mounds surface and allows the weaker morning and setting sun to warm the greater surface area of the structure; thus, the structure attempts to create an even heating situation whereby the mound does not overheat.

See for the article in full.


Amazing Creations – The African termite called Macrotermes Bellicosus is truly an amazing creation.


These termites build the larges non-manmade structures in the world. If they were the equivalent size of man, their tower would be 180 stories high. This would easily be the highest structure in the world.

The cement is so hard and water resistant that the local natives of the are often use it for their huts.
The architectural design is an engineering masterpiece.
The air circulation is an essential element for survival in the African sun. They obviously have no moving parts, but the structure removes and refreshes the air continually.
Ventilation ducts use heat to create current that passes along thing inner walls that are porous. This allows the protected chambers to breathe and refresh oxygen.

These creatures have literally achieved thermoregulation. During cold nights, the openings are blockaded to reduce heat loss and during the sunlight hours, the openings are opened fully to maximize ventilation. Some species also cap their structures with umbrellas of mud. It repels water away from the structure and blocks out the hot afternoon sun. The overhang is designed to allow the early morning sun to warm the structure.

The M. Bellicosus supplements its diet by growing fungi. They chew up wood and digest what nutrients can be taken in. The rest is passed and used for gardening. The primary food source is not the wood itself, but fungi. Growing rooms are built for the purpose of raising this food source for the colony.

The M. Bellicosus termite’s structure is so climate efficient that it maintains a constant temperature of 88-89 degrees in the growing chambers. This is significant in the fact that their primary fungus harvest can only grow if the temperature is below 89 degrees and above 88 degrees. The two degree variable is essential for the health of the colony. Even more interesting is that the primary fungus grown is only found one place in the natural world – inside the growing chambers of the M. Bellicosus termite.

  Can evolution teach this kind of engineering? This fungus is dependent on the M. Bellicosus termite and the termite is dependent on the fungus and the engineering technology it uses to survive. It takes a lot of faith to believe that this glory belongs to blind evolution.
  For More information see the following articles:

Genetics – Science Against Evolution

What is Theorized 
The basic philosophy of evolution is that gradual change occurs over millions of years to evolve one species into another. This mutation occurs at the genetic level. In order for evolution to be possible, new information must be added to the gene code that creates new traits and eventually changes the species into a new species. This must be done without damage to the species. All mutations must be positive mutations or they will begin to destroy the species. The burden of proof rests upon evolutionists to show with observable science that positive mutations can and do occur.

How it Works
One strand of Human DNA within each cell could stretch out 6 feet in length. It contains 3 billion pairs of DNA subsets and 46 chromosomes, and yet fits within one microscopic cell. If you covered a pinhead with DNA, the information contained in its code could fill up enough books to stack one on top of another and reach the moon 500 times. Every living organism – both plants and animals – have the blueprint of every function of their body written in this code. DNA tells every cell in your body how to build its structure, manufacture proteins and carry out its functions necessary for life to exist.

DNA is a four-letter alphabet that can create a possible 64 ‘words’. Each strand of the code is constructed like a micro-sentence. The ‘word’ is three letters long and has a code that tells the interpreting key to ‘begin here’ and ‘end here’. Each letter is represented by one of these specific proteins: adenine, thymine, guanine, or cytosine. These are labeled in diagrams simply as A, T, G, or C. Most cells in your body divide and multiply many times during your lifetime. Each time a cell multiplies, each strand of DNA must be duplicated into two exact copies. Any errors in this copy becomes a mutation in the cell. Mutations are plainly observed in science and this problem has never been in dispute. The dispute is over positive mutations which is not observed in science but is necessary for the evolution model. Howard Hughes Medical Institute gives us this explanation:

We each inherit hundreds of genetic mutations from our parents, as they did from their forebears. In addition, the DNA in our own cells undergoes an estimated 30 new mutations during our lifetime, either through mistakes during DNA copying or cell division or, more often, because of damage from the environment.

What mutations do we see in people? Cancer is a mutation. A cell becomes damaged due to toxins, radiation or other triggers and as it divides, it creates more cells that the body cannot control until the body is destroyed or the cells eradicated through medical treatment. Many mutations can also be passed on to children. Any medical questionnaire will ask if immediate members of our families have suffered from heart problems, cancer, mental illness or any number of potential health problems. The reason for these questions is that if our parents suffered from these mutations, there is a possibility that we could have inherited the tendency to contract these illnesses as well.

Each year medical research discovers more genetic related diseases. As of this writing, there are over 4,000 known genetic diseases (The National Institute of Health says there are 6,000 including rare diseases and disorders). Cystic Fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, hemophilia, leukemia, and sickle-celled anemia are examples of genetic mutations that are passed down as genetic related diseases. Each year the list grows longer. Howard Hughes Medical research makes this statement about genetic mistakes:

Considering the difficulties involved–the 6 feet of DNA in a human cell consists of 6 billion subunits, or base pairs, coiled and tightly packed into 46 chromosomes, all of which must be duplicated every time a cell divides–our general state of health is something of a miracle.

How Mutations are Passed On
Consider the evolution claims that it is only a short step from man’s closest ancestor. It is often stated that human DNA is only 2% different than our closest ‘related’ ape. Because it sounds simple, it appears to be feasible. However, when we consider that we have 3 billion pairs of DNA, that 2% becomes 60 Million new pairs of DNA that must be inserted through positive mutations. Each new rung of information must be a properly organized subunit with the stop and start codes and be clearly interpreted by the ‘key’ which is used to instruct the cell’s development. Depending on which argument you look at, man supposedly split from our common ancestors around 500-600 thousand years ago. Some argue that this common ancestor could not be farther back than 50 thousand years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published an article by Giorgio Bertorelle (University of California, Berkley), and Bruce Rannala (Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York) which tracked the genetic disease, Cystic Fibrosis to determine trace modern populations back to a common source. Douglas J. Futuyma argues the opposite. As a die-hard evolutionists, he sticks to the strictest millions of years ideology and claims that we share a common ancestor 6 million years ago.

This means man needs 10 positive mutations per month to achieve what evolution requires if 500-600 thousand years are correct. If the 50 thousand year theory is true, that rate increases to 100 mutations per month. If Futuyma’s numbers are chosen, then we drop the mutation rate to 1 new pairs of DNA per month per month to achieve evolution’s goal. We should still see man and all other species visibly transforming and observable in science. We have already seen that negative mutations cause disease in the species, but we need positive mutations without diseased ones tagging along.

To understand this fully, let’s look at how mutations are passed along. Generally speaking, there are two types of genes – dominant and recessive. To put this in elementary terms, I have heard this illustrated like a twin engine airplane. A recessive gene is in charge of production of proteins. Like the engines of the airplane, if one fails, the other will continue to drive the craft. It will not be as efficient, but it will not crash. However, if the other engine fails, the production will fail. In the same sense, if one parent has a recessive gene defect but the other parent does not, the normal gene will keep the cell functioning without a visible defect. For a recessive gene, both parents MUST possess the same defect or it will not be passed on to the children. The figure below illustrates this:

Both parents carry a single defective gene (d) but are protected by the presence of a normal gene (N), which is generally sufficient for normal function. Two defective copies of the gene are required to produce a disorder. Each child has a 50 percent chance of being a carrier like both parents and a 25 percent risk of inheriting the disorder.

Even if the defect is present in both parents, there is only a 25% chance of a genetic change in the child and only a 50% chance of carrying this to the next generation. This presents a huge problem for evolution. In the best-case scenario both parents would have the same mutation. If it were possible to create a positive mutation in the gene code and both parents carried the exact same mutation, this still only leaves a 25-50% chance of passing the mutation on. If both parents do not have the defect, the odds of passing a mutation fall well below 25%. Even if a child carries the mutation, it will not produce a new trait on its own. It must sit in the background until another parent carrying the same gene arrives on the scene. Even so, the odds are still against evolution. Compound this problem by 60 Million mutations and the odds of us evolving from a common ancestor of ape to where we are becomes staggering.

To understand Dominate genes, let’s go back to the twin-engine airplane. If recessive genes represent the engines that drive the plane, a dominant gene represents the structure of the plane (or gene). A twin-engine airplane can remain airborne with only one functioning engine, but it cannot fly with only one wing. A dominant gene tells the cell in an organism how to build its structure. If a dominant gene is inherited, a genetic disorder will occur. Look at the illustration below:

The affected parent has a single defective gene (D), which dominates its normal counterpart (n). Each child has a 50 percent risk of inheriting the faulty gene and the disorder. Since each parent only provides half the genetic material, there is a 50% chance that the child will not inherit the defect. As we can see, even if a mutation is a dominant gene, there is still only a 50% chance that it will be passed on. Also keep in mind that these mutations must already be in effect before childbearing years. Defects later in life have zero chance of being passed on unless the tendency was already present. Geneticists estimate that our bodies mutate negatively 30 times in an average life. This is one of the reasons why birth defects are higher risks when the parents are 35 and older. Only mutations present during those childbearing years will have any chance of affecting the next generation.

What is Observed
Micro-evolution is a fact of science. Micro information is simply the rearranging of genetic information that is already present. A child may be born with blond, brown, red, or black hair. Hair could be curly, straight or a combination of the two. However, hair is still hair and no new information has been added to the genes. Micro-evolution can also be a loss of information. We often see evolutionists point to things like cave fish that have no eyes and claim this is evidence of evolution in action. However, evolution requires new information, but what is observed is a loss of information or a damaging of information. Lost information only gives evolution a greater obstacle to overcome and sends the species in the opposite direction than it should be going to fit the evolutionary model. In every case of micro-evolution that evolutionists attempt to claim for evidence, the trait is still the same trait and the species is still the same species. (For more information on micro/macro evolution, go to ).

Positive mutations are not observed in science. Evolution requires up to 10 positive mutations a month to progress from our theoretical evolutionary ancestor to modern man. This mutation rate is not limited to man, but we should see the same rate in all living organisms. The mutations needed are not the rearranging of information, but the addition of new information. We do see mutations in science. Each year more genetic diseases are discovered. We have already seen that the average person will have 30 negative mutations in their lifetime and that most of these will occur later in life after the child-bearing years and will not affect our descendants. The question must be asked – where are the 10 positive mutations a month? Science does not even observe 10 negative mutations per month and zero positive mutations have been observed where new information is added to the genome. When evolution’s leading propagator, Richard Dawkins was asked to give one example of a positive mutation or evolutionary process in action as observed by science, he could not name one. Pro-evolutionary ‘Atomic Scientists’ stated:

“It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing — good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad.” (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331)

Even the positive mutations heralded by evolutionists are simply the rearranging of information. In every example, either there is no new information added or a smoke-and-mirrors illusion is created to imply that a positive change has occurred. A good example of this is the often-touted fruit fly mutations. Researchers damage the fly’s DNA with radiation and it sometimes produces mutated offspring. Sometimes the fly will have legs where its antenna would normally be or some other defect. One supposed break-through came when researchers produced a fruit fly with two sets of wings instead of the normal one set.

Evolutionists declared that this was proof that positive mutation was possible. What is not openly publicized is that the second set of wings is not new information, nor is it functional. The fruit fly normally has halters (or balancers) behind each wing. These halters are necessary for flight and balance. When the radiation damaged the gene, the halters were missing and in its place was another set of wings produced by scrambled DNA, which was ‘borrowed’ from the code that was already present. These wings do not have muscles, therefore they cannot aid in flying. The weight change and the absence of halters leave the fly helpless. Outside of the lab, these flies could not survive. If anything, this proves that evolution is impossible. Without fully functional wings, a fly cannot fly. Without functional antennae, the fly cannot detect scents that it must find to locate food or a mate. Crippled fruit flies do not prove evolution, but it does cast a lot of doubt on evolutionary theory.

Negative mutations are frequently observed. With each negative mutation, the species begins its descent from evolution rather then ascending to it. A cave fish with no eyes has less complexity than it did in the past. If information is becoming damaged or lost, how does this help evolution? Scientific observations prove that organisms are drifting away from the direction that evolution demands living things to rise toward.

If each year, more negative mutations occur and the observation of new genetic diseases increase, where does this leave evolution? Shouldn’t evolution be streamlining the DNA code rather than scrambling it? Does a hemophilic (inability to stop bleeding) increase or decrease the chance for survival? Does Cerebral Palsy increase or decrease the chance of passing genes to the next generation? Today, an estimated 1 in 25 descendants of North Europeans are carriers of the defect that causes Cystic Fibrosis. 1 in 12 Blacks across the globe carry the Sickle Cell Anemia genetic defect. Of course those who actually contract the disease will be much lower because it takes both parents passing on the gene before a child can contract it. My point is that the increase in the number of carriers of genetic diseases proves that we are distancing ourselves from the ideal demanded by evolution. Evolution can’t explain this dilemma, but creation can. The Bible teaches that man and all of creation were created perfect. The curse of sin is the cause of death, disease and suffering. If the Bible is true, we should see mankind drifting away from the perfect creation that we were intended to be. If evolution is true, we should see mankind perfecting and overcoming our defective past. These two worldviews are in direct contradiction to each other. Observable science confirms scripture but contradicts evolution.

Clearly, if we take an honest approach to science, what is observed points to creation and denies evolution. Genetics is just another example of this fact.

Eddie Snipes

What is a Polystrate Tree?

Talk Origins responds to this article. Click here to read their rebuttal.

Polystrate trees are trees that are found in multiple layers of strata. Creationists observe these trees as evidence for a global catastrophe such as the biblical global flood. We believe these trees are consistent with what should be expected from silt and sediment as it settled after the flood. When you observe residue in water, it settles in layers consistent with the geological column found throughout the world. As this residue settled around the tree and hardened, these trees fossilized. This poses a problem to the evolution model. A rapid deposit is not consistent with evolution because fossils are throughout the layers and supposedly represent millions of years. How can a tree stand erect for millions or even hundreds of millions of years without decay in order to be embedded in these layers? Evolution, on the other hand, claims that these trees do not hinder evolution and attempt to explain away what is observed by science.

It is important for Christians to recognize the method of debate most evolutionists and atheist use. It is also important to recognize that they are not going to win the debate in the eyes of an atheist. Because atheism is a religion of pride – or self worship, to admit defeat is to deny self-identity. An atheist is not on a quest for truth, but on a quest for intellectual identity. They draw self-identity and self-worth from their claims of intellectualism. That is why evidence against evolution is always called religious. If they classify it as non-science, then they can justify in not answering the evidence.

When debating, you will recognize a few key methods almost all evolutionists use. They begin by intimidating critics; avoiding hard questions by machinegun fire questions to smoke screen the issue they are attempting to avoid; and establishing themselves as authoritative by declaring their position to be evolutionary. Once they have declared themselves to be ‘inside the box’ of evolution, they can then use their own quotes as facts. The reasoning is if evolution is the only authoritative position and they stand inside that box, others can then assume their opinions are fact because of that authority.

We often see the claims of evidence without having to provide the evidence. While an evolutionist requires irrefutable proof, they avoid having to prove evolution by bombarding critics with accusations and attempting to create rabbit trails for others to chase. We a creationist calls a bluff, they are either ignored or accused of misquoted evolutionists. To avoid answering opposition or explaining how evolutions leaders contradict themselves and the facts, they accuse others of dishonesty and ignorance.

I was recently given a link to an article as ‘proof’ that polystrate trees have been debunked by evolution: . This article on uses the typical evasive tactics found in almost every defense evolution attempts to establish. The prized tactic of evolution is to put critics on the defensive so that they will not bring the issues to light. Instead of cowering or being manipulated into chasing rabbits, Christians need to recognize these tactics and force the focus to remain on the issue at hand. Rabbit trails can be explored once the primary issue has been addressed. This article uses intimidation and evasion to avoid answering the objections that they fear. They also confirm creation claims and then try to twist them into evolutionary evidence.

The article begins with the typical insult to (hopefully) put creationists on the defensive. If I feel intimidated by my position, I will be less likely to challenge the facts or lack thereof.

The reason I am using Dawson (1868) rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed “problems” with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these “problems” exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.

Also in the 1800s evolutionist didn’t have a problem with spontaneous generation. They believed fruit flies evolved in closed jars. Right off the bat, the intended impression is that if you don’t believe in evolution, you are not even as intellectual as they were in the 1800s. Perhaps the reason he used an argument from the 1800s is because evolution still can’t come up with a reasonable explanation. However, the intent of the comment was to intimidate critics into compliance.

The most common criticism I get from atheists is that I take the quotes that show evolutionists in a bad light. I am frequently called a liar, but I provide references that are completely verifiable. Obviously, I will not quote the whole article, but at the risk of being called dishonest, I will only quote the points relevant to the argument. Anyone who wishes can read the article for themselves to verify my quotes. Dawson goes on to explain that polystrate trees begin by a rapid deposit of sediment (from a flood) and continue to build up over thousands of years. The article analyses the argument this way:

…he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of meters. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon),

This argument craftily avoids the issues while claiming to explain them. The issues in question are:

  • How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without rotting or being knocked down?
  • How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers?
  • How can a tree representing a short life span (on evolution’s geological time scale) stand erect through geological layers representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years?

This is not a problem for evolution? Regardless of how you slice it, the tree had to stand erect without rotting, falling or being knocked down for millions of years. The layers of strata have fossils representing different time periods according to the evolution model. It DOES pose a huge problem for evolution. If the tree was buried rapidly as Dawson hints toward and as creationists have said all along, evolution is out the window. If all layers were deposited together, then there is no such thing as millions of years. That would mean that all fossils were laid at the same time.

If the trees were not covered rapidly, then there is no explanation as to how a tree could have embedded itself into layers of strata that accumulated over millions of years. The article does not attempt to answer any of these questions. Yet it claims (as all evolutionists do) to have the answers.

Instead of answers, the claim to intellectual thinking is made while carefully avoiding the real issues. To avoid critical thinking, the article ends by insulting those who may question the facts. This article is nothing more than manipulation through human psychology. If you put people on the defensive, they won’t think critically and the evolutionist can avoid critical analysis against his or her argument. The article claims that we see examples of polystrate trees today. Indeed we do, but they debunk evolution. Mount Saint Helens created a lake full of sediment, which created many polystrate trees. Evolutionists don’t point to this observance but creationists do. To avoid this argument, the article says:

This argument is completely fallacious, because most “fossil forests” do not occur in volcanic deposits

Who said the flood was dependent of volcanic deposits? That is a straw man. The article ends the way it began – by attempting to intimidate critics and make people who would think critically feel ignorant for not siding with evolution. The article concludes: 

…many “young Earth global flood creationists”, have no idea that even data from the 19th century, presented by a creationist geologist is enough to demolish the “polystrate fossil trees” part of their presentation. “Polystrate fossil trees” are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence YEGF creationists can offer for their interpretation. I wish they would stop using it.

Of course he wishes we would stop using it. They cannot defend against it. The only friend to evolution is the people who blindly accept the propaganda. Critical thinking is not welcomed. While evolution clings to the 1800s, modern science continues to confirm the Bible and evolution must tap-dance around observable science.

Eddie Snipes

A Response to my article ‘Polystrate Trees’

I recently received an email from someone who claimed to be the author of the article I rebutted on Polystrate Trees found on Talk Origins website. Given the detail of the email, I don’t doubt that it is from the author, but I don’t have any way to verify the email address. I get countless critical emails that dispute various pages on my website. This one was particularly interesting, so I am going to post the letter and rebut it here. My response will be boxed in to avoid confusion. For the sake of readability, I am posting Andrew MacRae’s response at the point where he begins to address the three questions I posed.


I don’t care if critics “comply”, I would like them to
research the question more thoroughly before assuming (wrongly)
that conventional scientists “can’t come up with a reasonable
explanation”. Such a claim has been so wrong for so long, it is
amazing that it can be made so frequently as if it were true.
That scientists did provide good explanations, more than 100 years
ago, is a demonstration of how poorly the
question was researched before some people came to the erroneous
conclusion or speculation that such explanations do not exist.

(My article quoted) “Dawson goes on to explain that polystrate trees begin by a rapid
deposit of sediment (from a flood) and continue to build up
over thousands of years.”

Yes, a major river flood, like you might see on the Mississippi River
every few years. There is nothing more dramatic implied by the
evidence at Joggins.

(My article quoted these questions)
How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes
without rotting or being knocked down?
How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could
stand for the length of time it takes to build up the
additional layers?
How can a tree representing a short life span
(on evolution’s geological time scale) stand erect
through geological layers representing millions and
often hundreds of millions of years?”

It does explain the basic point of confusion in many “young Earth”
creationist claims about polystrate trees and other types of fossils,
but it does so rather tersely. In the FAQ, I need to
explain the source of the confusion better, and why the
supposed problem does not apply.
I will do so here, by addressing your 3 questions:

1) How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without
rotting or being knocked down?

Trees commonly remain upright during multiple river floods,
season after season, year after year. Some trees (such as the
modern bald cypress) are tolerant of immersion in water, and
will survive floods commonly. Even if trees are killed by immersion
during the period of a river flood (weeks or months), the tree does
not rot away or fall over as promptly as is commonly thought. Trees
often survive upright, after death, for years or decades. Some
are known to have remained upright for at least a century after death.
For example, there are trees standing upright in Reelfoot Lake
in Tennessee that were submerged by an earthquake that happened in
the 1800s. Some were killed by the water, others have survived.
There is also ample evidence in the fossil record that trees
did rot and fall down, and these are often more common than the
ones that remained upright.

The problem is that a thousand years is not enough time for these trees to be covered and fossilize. Being covered with debris is not enough. How the tree is covered is only half of the problem. The tree must be covered by multiple layers of sediment and survive through many flood events in order to fit the evolution belief. Even if you can satisfy this problem (which you cannot), you still must fossilize the fossil before it rots. Burying a tree upright or horizontally does not prevent it from rotting. The conditions for fossilization must also be present. A buried tree will rot.

I will give Andrew the argument that on rare conditions, a tree may miraculously stand 100 years after death, but that does not help the evolution position. But consider the double talk of this argument. For a dead tree to survive for 100 years without rotting, it must be a non-eventful century. Water increases decay and a flood would highly increase the chances of the tree collapsing. However, if there is not major flooding, the tree can’t be buried. In this argument is an illusion of facts. The fact that a tree can survive for 100 years after death if conditions are right is presented to prove the trees survival is possible. Then gradual sedimentation is given to show that a gradual build up is possible. Both are presented as evidence, however, only one or the other can apply. Even so, a hundred years does not fit evolution or creation arguments.

Any walk in the woods brings this argument into question. Polystrate trees have roots in place and fossilized with the tree. The top of the tree rots over a short period of time even if it stands upright. The base of the tree and roots quickly decay. Even when we find trees slowly being covered in sediment, we don’t see fossilization, but we do see decay.

2) How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for
the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers?

There are two components to this question: a) how long a
tree can stand upright while being buried (whether dead or alive),
and b) how long sedimentary layers take to build up.
A tree that remains standing for decades to centuries (whether
dead for that whole period or alive) would have ample time for meters
of sediment to accumulate on a river floodplain or a coastline, if
sedimentation conditions are suitable. A single river flood
can deposit tens of centimeters to meters of sediment. Granted,
only selected environments have sufficiently high depositional
rates to realistically bury trees to meters depth in under a
few centuries, but they are not rare, and trees are commonly found
there (e.g., river deltas and floodplains are). As mentioned above,
trees can remain upright for longer than people commonly think.

I have to disagree with the ‘rewording’ of the question. It would be better to ask if science can observe buried trees that slowly fossilize?
Do we see trees buried in flooding that do not rot?

Keep in mind that fossils in the geological column date the layers. If we shorten the time frame that these trees are buried, we also must shorten the ages of the fossils found in the layers. The crux of the argument is that the layers represent hundreds of thousands of years and up to millions of years depending on the fossils found. The trees growing through the layers disrupts the neat package that evolutionist are trying to present.

I will be more than happy to agree with Andrew that these trees survived for a thousand years while sediment built up if he and other evolutionists will be consistent and date the fossils in the same age range as the trees. If the tree is 1,000 years old, the fossils on the bottom layers can only be 1,000 years older or less than the fossils in the top layer. We know for a fact that evolutionists cannot agree with this assumption. This leaves a problem. Either the tree is millions of years old and miraculously stood through millions of years of flooding, or the fossils are not millions of years old. As you can see, both disagree with evolution. Therefore, it is necessary to craft any argument to avoid either of these to conclusions. Even so, one or the other must be true.

3) How can a tree representing a short life span (on evolution’s
geological time scale) stand erect through geological layers
representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years?”

Most commonly, the misconception develops because
it is assumed that if geologists claim a formation 1000 meters
thick took 100 million years to deposit, therefore every
meter of it (such as the meters that may be piled up around a tree)
took 100000 years to form, and every centimeter took a thousand
years. Such an assumption will be spectacularly wrong in any
environment where the depositional rate varies greatly. In the
deep ocean, it might be reasonable, but on a river floodplain,
it is wrong in the extreme. A soil horizon a few centimeters
thick may have taken thousands of years to form, a river
channel sandstone meters thick might have been deposited in a
few weeks at that spot, and the bottom of the river channel
commonly erodes away sediments that were deposited previously
(creating a gap).

I consider this to be evolutionary double-talk. When it supports evolution, they claim that each layer takes (x) number of years to form. When it contradicts evolution, then what is observed is not necessarily accurate. However, the real problem is not in how long it takes for layers of sediment to form. The problem is the ages that evolution places on the fossils in the layers of sediment. If the fossils in the lower layers are millions of years older than the fossils in the upper layers and the tree stands through each of these layers, there is no reasonable explanation. Evolutionists claim this is a ‘non-problem’, but in reality it is a big problem. The only safe position to take is to ignore the facts. Just write it off as a misunderstanding and claim the issue is resolved.

“This is not a problem for evolution? Regardless of how you slice
it, the tree had to stand erect without rotting, falling or being
knocked down for millions of years.”

Yes, it is not a “problem for evolution”. It is a “young Earth”
creationist problem to understand what normally happens in
areas of river sedimentation in modern times, and how conventional
geologists really apply that to the ancient record. As it turns out,
the 19th-century explanations are much more readable than the
present-day technical literature, which is the other reason I
recommend Dawson.

“The article claims that we see examples of polystrate trees today.”

Yes. For example, there are the upright trees being buried in Reelfoot
Lake, Tennessee, that I mentioned above. There are some really nice
examples from Washington State and Alaska that are being buried in
tidal marshes. Near Joggins, at a place called Amherst, Nova Scotia,
there are trees, several meters tall, that have been standing upright
and dead for decades to centuries, and which are currently buried
by at least 30cm of tidal muds (refer to:
Practically everywhere that trees occur and there
is significant, ongoing deposition of sediments, it is possible to
find examples of them being buried. It is harder to find the data/
necessary to figure out how long the process is taking, but there
are examples where periods of decades or centuries of burial can
be documented.

This is misleading at best. A polystrate tree is a tree that is fossilized through multiple geological layers of strata. This is a solid fossil in solid layers of rock. We do not see this today. We see living trees that have sediment built up around them, but they are not fossils. Nor will they fossilize. As I stated earlier, there is more to creating a fossil than burying a tree. Upright or laying down, the tree will rot unless there are conditions present that cause fossilization. A partially buried living tree is not a polystrate tree. A partially buried or completely buried dead tree is not a polystrate tree. These trees will rot under natural conditions.

Let’s look at the website referenced above as evidence: 

Bay of Fundy

Tidal marsh encroaching on forest, Amherst Marsh, NS.

Sea level is rising slowly causing the tidal salt marshes to build up and advance onto the land surface. Here the salt meadows are invading a forest. Dating of the trees at the base of the marsh shows that tide level is rising about 30 cm (1 foot) per century; the outermost tree is 1000 years old and is buried by 1 meter of peat.


How does this prove the evolutionary argument that polystrate trees are gradually covered and happening today? 1 meter of peat over a 1000 year period does not help the evolution argument at all. Peat is a very light soil and very organic. This is hardly suitable for fossilization. This is an amazing tree that can live for 1000 years, but once it does die, it will decay unless a catastrophic event occurs that allows the tree to fossilize. Polystrate trees are not buried in peat. A half-buried living tree is not a polystrate tree. These trees growing in peat will not become polystrate trees nor are there polystrate tree fossils found in the areas that have trees growing. Once they die, they will return to the soil as have all the other trees in these types of areas.

The bottom line is that you will believe what you want to believe. The evidence does not support evolution. Evolutionists do craft arguments that sound plausible until you actually look at what is being said. Once the facts are compared to the explanation, evolution falls short every time. However, out of a desire for evolution to be true, many will chose to believe it in spite of its lacking foundation.

Eddie Snipes

Amazing Creations – Hymenoepimecis Wasp

Hymenoepimecis Wasp


The Hymenoepimecis wasp is a parasitic wasp that temporarily paralyzes an orb web weaving Plesiometa argyra spider with its sting. Once the spider has been paralyzed, it lays an egg on its abdomen. The spider recovers and continues spinning its web and living normally while the wasp larvae grows by feeding on the spider’s fluids (called haemolymph). In approximately 14 days the larvae is ready to enter the pupa stage. The wasp larvae then uses a chemical to change the spider’s behavior. Instead of spinning a normal orb web, the spider spins a cocoon for the wasp.

Normal Web

Cocoon spun for the wasp larvae

The question we should ask is: how did this wasp gain the knowledge of this spider’s behavior? How did the wasp gain the ability to produce the chemicals needed to alter the spider’s behavior? How did it learn to apply this knowledge? If evolution is to be considered, we must acknowledge that this species only has one chance to get everything right by chance or the species of wasp would become extinct on the first attempt at an evolutionary jump.

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,


The fluid that circulates in the body cavity of an insect, commonly thought of as “insect blood” (although it does do carry oxygen like mammal blood does).

Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. Take a look at Darwin’s observation of the changes in finches. Isolated in the Galapagos Island, Darwin discovered finches that had much longer beaks than those found off the island. His assumption was that evolution was changing this species. However, these finches remained finches. Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18 year study of the finches on this island. He concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food. We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.

The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.

1. Dysfunctional change or otherwise noted as irreducibly complex. When a trait is critical for the survival of the species, it must be fully functional or the species will die off and any ‘evolutionary progress’ would be lost. For example, a bat could not evolve from a rodent because it is completely dependent on its wings for survival. A half-evolved wing could not be used for walking because of its awkward length and shape and would not be functional for flying. The idea of a half-evolved bat is completely illogical. It would be easily tracked down by predators and it would be helpless to get food and survive on its own. This need for completeness can be clearly observed from the most primitive single celled animal to the most complex mammal. To contradict this idea would clearly contradict Darwin’s principle of natural selection. Many scientists are making a shift because gradual change produces dysfunction in-between species. The new emerging proposal is the quantum jump. Jay Gould proposed the idea that every living cell could possibly be encoded with the ability to change into any other living thing. He believes that an external stimulus causes this jump.

This is a bigger stretch than gradual evolution. Based on his idea, simple pond microbes would have the same DNA encoding as humans and science has proven that this is not the case. Primitive life forms have far less genetic material than more complex animals such as a mammal. Gould’s leap of faith also does not account for varieties of different species. If environment is the trigger and we all have the same DNA, the jump should be to the same creature. Plus we can plainly observe that this reaction does not occur today. Moving from a warm weather climate to a cold weather climate doesn’t trigger a different type of offspring.

2. The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change.  There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present.  Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

Charles Colson made mention of a few good examples of this principle. Darwin used breeding of the rock pigeon as a basis for his theory that gradual changes in species will evolve into new species. All pigeons are descendants of the rock pigeon. This pigeon is the same pigeon that can be found in most city parks. Through selective breeding, Darwin was able to produce many drastic variations of pigeons. He observed very rapid changes in traits that he could alter by this selective breeding and concluded that if he could make these changes within a few generations of pigeons, in time a new species of bird would develop. There are several flaws with this theory. 1. His intervention was the trigger for these various breeds. It did not occur naturally. 2. When left alone, his pigeons returned back to the ancestral rock pigeon within a few generations. If his theory were valid, they should have continued their ascent. 3. Darwin never lived to see that there was a natural barrier that slowed changes after a few generations and eventually reached a stopping point.

Change can be rapid when leaving the ‘norm’, but slows and eventually stops as the ‘ceiling’ is reached. There is a limit to the number of combinations a specific trait can have. Another good example of this comes from the book, ‘How Now Shall We Live’. 150 years ago, sugar cane farmers committed to increasing the sugar content in their sugar beets. At the time the project began, sugar content was at 6%. Through selective cross-pollination, within a few generations of beets the sugar content soared to 13%. Over the next 75 years these growers were able to inch the sugar content up to 17%. Now, 75 years after they were able to achieve the 17% barrier, the sugar beet remains at 17%. This is a clear example of the DNA code barrier that limits the variation of a specific trait. This example shows the same principle that Darwin unknowingly discovered. Rapid change, then slow change followed by no change.

Another conflict with the evolutionary theory is that when the DNA ceiling is reached, the species becomes weak. When a trait is exaggerated beyond its natural limits, the species weakens and suffers from genetically induced diseases or vulnerability to disease. The farther from the ‘norm’ the more disease prone the plant or animal becomes. So even with selective breeding and exploited traits, the species becomes vulnerable and at risk of extinction. Animals that are bred to bring out their desired features often become sterile or diseased. We can look around today and see examples of this problem. Anyone involved with farming is aware of the sterility problem associated with over-breeding. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality. However, when left alone, species will soon return to the norm.

Natural selection thins the gene pool, but evolution demands that information be added. No evolutionary change (i.e. micro evolution) ever adds information to the genetic material. The only way evolution (i.e. Macro evolution) could be possible is if new information were to be added to the DNA.

Hybrids are often used as examples of how simple it is for evolution to change the DNA of plants or animals. You can cross pollinate two types of tomato plants to produce a new tomato plant that produces larger fruit. There are three problems with how evolutionists interpret this observation. The first problem is the most obvious; nature is not making a change, human intelligence is forcing the change and must prevent nature from reverting back. Second, the next generation of seeds is both sterile and unable to reproduce, or it reverts back to an inferior fruit. The third problem is that you are not taking on new information; you are combining two plants that already possess the necessary information and have compatible DNA structures. For evolution to be possible, there must be new information added that did not previously exist. In other words, information must come into the existing genetic material without any pre-arranged order, combine with the DNA that is already present and create a new or better code than that which already existed. If newly added information is garbled, the DNA that existed would be useless. If it was inserted in the wrong place or in the wrong order, the plant or animal produced would die or be completely dysfunctional. For example, a microbe would need to somehow acquire enough information through millions of errorless mutations that added to its DNA, which would enable it to become a fish. A fish would have to get the new information that did not previously exist to form a lung, then feet, feathers and so on. The problem is that science does not observe mutations that add to the information, but rather just the opposite. It is a loss of information that occurs when mutations occur. Natural selection is a good example of this.

Survival of the fittest is what thins out the gene pool; it does not increase or add to the genetic data. Natural selection does open the door for adaptation and changes within a species, but it accomplishes just the opposite of what is necessary for evolution. When natural selection occurs, the species that have certain traits are often weeded out. If Darwin had been correct in his observation and the Galapagos Island finches permanently weeded out the shorter beaked finches, they have not added to the gene pool, but they have subtracted genetic code and would no longer have the information necessary to produce offspring that has a shorter beak. Natural selection and evolution work against each other. Natural selection does sometimes make changes within a species, but the progression is downward and not upward – and the species does not become a new species, but rather a variation of the old. A permanent change is a loss of information, but evolution requires the addition of new information. In science we can clearly observe that when a species has a trait that the environment challenges, those who have this trait are weeded out. What has never been observed in science is the addition of new information. Even if an example should be found to have happened by chance, it doesn’t help the evolution cause. There must be millions of changes that add to the DNA information, without harming the species. We don’t observe this happening. We do observe mutations, but they are a loss of information or a defective copy of information that damages the species.

Richard Dawkins is arguably the most influential proponent of evolution today. In a debate, he was asked to provide one example where new information was added to DNA as observed by science. After a long silence, he passed by the question. He later rebutted the question with a three page argument but never addressed this original question and he did not provide one example. Even environmental adaptations harm the evolution belief system. When the environment changes and those animals that have traits that prevent them from surviving, there is not an increase of information, but a loss of genetic code.

Even microscopic evolution shows this problem. We have all heard about the ‘super germs’ that have grown resistant to antibiotics. In reality, they are weak germs. Bacteria that is resistant to drugs are usually destroyed by other organisms. For example, bacterium that has mutated so that it no longer pipes in the toxins that would normally destroy it are weaker than other bacteria because they also cannot pipe in the nutrients that are needed to flourish. It may fail to produce enzymes that enable it to resist the drugs, but this also becomes a crippling factor that limits its survival. The very mutations that make it resistant also make it vulnerable and weak.

These issues render change by micro-evolution impossible thus leaving macro-evolution as the only stand that evolutionists can take, and all the evidence clearly disputes the concept of macro-evolution. The fossil records show zero gradual change. Species in existence today show no change from the fossils that supposedly date back hundreds of millions of years. Interdependency also renders evolution an impossibility. Nature is filled with species that are completely dependent on other species. If one species cannot survive without another, evolution becomes an illogical deduction. There are also interdependencies between plants and animals. If a plant is dependent on an animal and an animal is dependent on that specific plant, the two would have to emerge from the evolutionary change at the exact same time and place. One generation later is too late.

Don’t mistake micro-evolution for Darwinian evolution. They are not related. When a Christian says they do not believe in evolution, it is not a reference to changes in specific traits. It is a reference to changes that require crossing the DNA limitations. When the facts stare evolutionists in the face, they are reduced to either insulting those who present the evidence or they must admit their world view doesn’t hold water. Evolutionists always call Christians and creationists non-thinkers because we question their illogical theories. Critical analysis is not un-intellectual, but it is unreasonable to refuse to honestly look at the whole picture painted when all the facts are presented. When someone builds their belief system around a godless world view, it leaves the realm of science and becomes a religious defense. Anyone who gets angry at the facts is not defending science, but is defending their hope that God does not exist and their hope that there is no God in which we are accountable.

Eddie Snipes