Vestigial Structures in Biology: A Debate between Evolution and Creation Science, Lecture notes of Biology

Download Vestigial Structures in Biology: A Debate between Evolution and Creation Science and more Lecture notes Biology in PDF only on Docsity! Volume 69, Number 1, March 2017 27 Article Philip J. Senter Philip J. Senter is a professor in the Department of Biological Sciences, Fayetteville State University in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Jared J. Mackey earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Fayetteville State University in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in 2013. He is currently in the process of earning a graduate degree in biological sciences at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 1: Vestigial Structures and Biological Degeneration Philip J. Senter and Jared J. Mackey Creation science (CS) is a discipline in which evidence is sought to support a literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis. Its technical literature has existed since the 1960s, long enough to test for the presence of temporal trends in attitudes toward and stances on specifi c topics. Here, we present a study of trends over the past fi fty years regarding two topics: vestigial structures as understood by mainstream biologists, and biological degeneration as it is understood within the CS paradigm. Perplexingly, through half a century, CS authors have maintained a general consensus that all “created kinds” of organisms have undergone degenerative changes, and they have simultaneously maintained a general consensus that vestigial biological structures do not exist. Because the claim for biological degeneration implies the existence of vestigial structures, CS authors’ denial of their existence is incongruous. According to the young-earth cre- ationist (YEC) worldview, the earth and all kinds of organ- isms were independently created about 6,000 years ago, as described in the book of Genesis. This worldview is widespread in North America and Europe,1 despite the teaching of evolution in public schools and despite the biblical injunction against taking Genesis and the rest of the Penta- teuch literally.2 It is unpopular among mainstream scientists, most of whom accept the physical evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that all organ- isms evolved from a common ancestor.3 Nevertheless, long before Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, advocates of the YEC school of thought were already chal- lenging the ideas of biological evolution and an old earth.4 Such challenges continued through the twentieth century,5 and in 1961, two of those advocates, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, produced a best seller, The Genesis Flood, which interpreted the geologic record according to the Genesis account of Noah’s fl ood.6 The arguments in the book are spurious, and point-by- point refutations have been published.7 However, the book’s popularity galva- nized a movement that began at about the same time with the establishment of the Creation Research Society8 (in the founding of which Whitcomb and Morris were involved9) and which has come to be called creation science. Creation science (hereafter abbreviated CS for concision) is a discipline in which extrabiblical support for the Genesis account in its literal sense is sought. CS practitioners publish their studies in peer-reviewed technical journals that accept only manuscripts that concur with a literal interpretation of Genesis. These journals form the core data source for 28 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 1: Vestigial Structures and Biological Degeneration today’s anti-evolution movement in North America and other English-speaking areas. Information from the technical journals of CS is fed into the anti-evolu- tion movement’s popular, nontechnical publications, which make frequent references to studies published in such journals.10 A list of the technical journals of CS follows below, with the name of each journal fol- lowed in parentheses by the abbreviation used for its name in the endnotes. In 1964 the Creation Research Society launched the earliest such journal, Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ), which is still issued quarterly today. The fi rst issue of each volume was titled Creation Research Society Annual (CRSA) until vol- ume 7 in 1970. In 1974 the Geoscience Research Institute, a Seventh-Day Adventist organization, launched the biannual journal Origins, which ceased publication after volume 63 in 2008. In 1984, the Creation Science Foundation launched the jour- nal Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (ENTJ), which was renamed Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (CENTJ) in 1991, then TJ in 2001, and then Journal of Creation (JC) in 2006, under which name it is currently pub- lished. The journal was fi rst published annually. It became biannual in 1991 and triannual in 1996. The Baraminological Study Group launched Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group (OPBSG) in 2002. Its last issue was published in 2010, whereupon it was succeeded by the Journal of Creation Theology and Science, Series B: Life Sciences (JCTS), published by the Creation Biology Society. In 2005 the Center for Origins Research launched the occasional journal CORE Issues in Creation. In 2008 Answers in Genesis launched the online, open-access journal Answers Research Journal (ARJ). In addition to these journals, the technical literature of CS continues within the Proceedings volumes of the International Conference on Creation series. The conferences are organized by the Creation Science Fellowship in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The fi rst took place in 1986, and the seventh and latest in 2013. The corpus of CS technical literature has now become large and long-lived enough to test for the presence of temporal trends in positions on specifi c topics. Here we present a study of such trends in two interrelated topics: the topic of vestigial biological structures as such structures are understood by evolutionary biol- ogists, and the topic of biological degeneration as it is understood by CS authors. Vestigial biological structures, as they are understood by evolutionary biologists, are structures that have become greatly reduced in function and often in size, in comparison to their ancestral homologs.11 Examples include the eyes of blind cave fi shes and blind cave salamanders, the diminutive hindlimbs of pythons, and the minis- cule hindlimbs of baleen whales. Most structures that evolutionary biologists recognize as vestigial retain a minor function of some kind, but usually the term “vestigial” is applied only if at least one major ances- tral function has been lost 12—for example, the ability to form an image, in the case of the eyes of blind cave vertebrates. The existence of vestigial structures is often denied in CS technical literature, but in some cases their existence is acknowledged. CS literature addresses the vestigiality not only of morphological structures but also of genes and other molecular enti- ties such as chemical pathways. The topic of biological degeneration as it is under- stood by CS authors bears some resemblance to mainstream science’s concept of vestigialization, but there are important differences. Biological degen- eration as it is understood by CS authors includes heritable change involving compromised function, morphological reduction, or genome reduction, whether or not it involves a discrete structure that mainstream scientists would recognize as a vestige. According to the YEC paradigm, biological degener- ation is not due to natural selection but is a result of the Fall of humankind, that is, Adam and Eve’s sin, which introduced the Curse of decay into the created world.13 Implicit in the YEC concept of biological degeneration is the premise that due to the decay caused by sin, heritable change can be only neutral or degenerative. This means that any heritable change that appears to be advantageous in some way is dis- advantageous in some other way(s) that outweighs the advantage, or that any apparent advantage in phenotype is an incidental result of degeneration of the genotype. For example, two CS authors claim that “mutations [that confer antibiotic resistance and other benefi ts in microbes] frequently eliminate or reduce pre-existing cellular systems and functions.”14 Within the topic of biological degeneration are sev- eral subtopics that are frequently addressed in CS technical literature: (1) biological degeneration as an explanation for the morphology of extinct spe- cies of Homo (e.g., H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus), (2) reduction in the human lifespan after the Flood as an example of biological degeneration, (3) patho- genicity or parasitism as the result of biological 31Volume 69, Number 1, March 2017 Philip J. Senter and Jared J. Mackey Author and year Stance Biological structure(s) in question Morris 1964 1 for general Rusch 1966 2 against human tonsils, parathyroid glands, thymus, pineal gland, appendix, coccyx, plica semilunaris; snake spurs; mysticete whale teeth Klotz 1966 3 for mutant fruit fl ies Howitt 1968 4 against coccyx Marsh 1969 5 ? sterile pollen of dandelion; blind cavefi sh eyes Artist 19696 against human appendix; python hindlimbs; whale hindlimbs; kiwi wings Shute 1970 7 ? hyrax outer toes Ouweneel 1971 8 against general Turner 1972 9 against general Howitt 1972 10 against general Armstrong 1972 11 against pineal gland Armstrong 1972 12 against tonsils Ouweneel 1975 13 ? wings of the fl y Termitoxenia Woodmorappe 1978 14 against septa in cephalopod shells Smith 1979 15 against snake hindlimbs Licata 1979 16 against general Hedtke 1981 17 against general Howe 1982 18 against general Bergman 1982 19 against general Jones 1982 20 against ape and human pinna Hinderliter 1982 21 against general Meyer 1982 22 against general Hedtke 1983 23 against general Smith 1985 24 against caecilian eyes Meyer 1985 25 against general Smith 1985 26 against human appendix, tonsils, thymus, pineal gland Sanders and Howe 1986 27 ? mouthparts of non-eating insects Hamilton 1987 28 ? eyes of snake ancestor Hamilton 1987 29 for caecilian eyes Bird 1988 30 against general Glover 1988 31 against human appendix Leslie 1988 32 against human appendix, tonsils, fetal yolk sac Cooper 1988 33 against sagittal keel of late Homo Snelling 1989 34 against human appendix Woodmorappe 1990 35 for fl y wings Bergman 1992 36 against general Lumsden, Anders, and Pettera 1992 37 against nontranscribing and nontranslating DNA Kaplan 1993 38 against human ear muscles Bergman 1994 39 against wisdom teeth Author and year Stance Biological structure(s) in question Maas 1994 40 against human appendix Gibson 1994 41 against general Wise 1995 42 for whale hindlimbs Colwell 1996 43 against human appendix Wise 1996 44 for goose wings Wieland 1997 45 against “junk genes” Sarfati 1997 46 against thymus Batten 1998 47 against introns Wieland 1998 48 against fl y halters Bergman 1998 49 against wisdom teeth Hedtke 1999 50 against general Bergman 2000 51 against mammalian yolk sac Jerlström 2000 52 for wallaby chromosome retroelements Walkup 2000 53 against introns Menton 2000 54 against human plantaris muscle Bergman 2000 55 against human appendix, tonsils, pineal gland, thymus Bergman 2001 56 against general; transposons Bergman 2001 57 against general Bergman 2001 58 against human male nipple Gurney 2001 59 against plica semilunaris Wood and Cavanaugh 2001 60 against general; “junk DNA” Bergman 2002 61 against eye-related glands Standish 2002 62 against noncoding DNA Bell 2004 63 against cytochrome c Bergman 2004 64 against general Woodmorappe 2004 65 against GULO pseudogene Batten 2005 66 against general Armitage and Howe 2007 67 against fungal ascospores and ascos- carps; sucrose metabolism Bergman 2008 68 against prostate accessory structures Doyle 2008 69 against human vomeronasal organ, goose bumps, Darwin’s point, coccyx, wisdom teeth Hendriksen 2008 70 against general Bergman 2009 71 against snake spurs Carter 2009 72 against retrotransposons Wise 2009 73 for whale limbs and pelves Bergman 2010 74 against general Bergman 2011 75 against general Niekirk 2011 76 against placental mammal yolk sac Bergman 2012 77 against whale hindlimbs, fetal tooth buds, hairlets Bergman 2013 78 against pseudogenes McDonald 2013 79 ? kiwi wings Hennigan 2014 80 against snake spurs Aaron 2014 81 for tyrannosaurid arms Table 2. References to vestigial biological structures in the technical literature of creation science through 2015. In the Stance column, “for” indicates acceptance of vestigiality, and “against” indicates rejection of vestigiality. We found 81 articles that address the evolution- ary topic of vestigial biological structures. In most of these, the authors express the opinion that such structures do not exist, but a few authors acknowl- edge the existence of such structures (table 2; fi g. 1). The number of authors that acknowledge the exis- tence of such structures is small (0–2) in all time periods, and there is no overall increase or decrease in the acceptance of the existence of vestigial biologi- cal structures by CS authors over time. All authors addressing the topic of vestigial structures addressed only morphology, until the early 1990s, after which a few authors in each period addressed the vestigiality of genes or other molecular entities (table 2; fi g. 1). 32 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 1: Vestigial Structures and Biological Degeneration 1Henry M. Morris, “The Power of Energy,” Creation Research Soci- ety Annual (hereafter CRSA) 1 (1964): 18–23. 2Wilbert Rusch, “Analysis of So-called Evidences of Evolution,” CRSA 3 (1966): 4–15. 3John W. Klotz, “The Philosophy of Science in Relation to Concepts of Creation vs. the Evolution Theory,” Creation Research Society Quarterly (hereafter CRSQ) 3 (1966): 3–11. 4John R. Howitt, “Man, the Upright,” CRSA 5 (1968): 46–48. 5Frank L. Marsh, “The Form and Structure of Living Things,” CRSA 6 (1969): 13–25. 6Russell Artist, “The Concept of Homology,” CRSA 6 (1969): 55–64, 66. 7Evan V. Shute, “Puzzling Similarities,” CRSQ 7, no. 3 (1970): 147–51. 8Willem J. Ouweneel, “The Scientifi c Character of the Evolution Doctrine,” CRSQ 8, no. 2 (1971): 109–115. 9C. E. A. Turner, “Teleology: Purpose Everywhere,” CRSQ 9, no. 1 (1972): 38–40. 10John R. Howitt, “Some Observations on the Science of Nutrition in the Light of the Scriptures,” CRSQ 9, no. 1 (1972): 51–53. 11Harold Armstrong, “Comments on Scientifi c News and Views,” CRSQ 9, no. 2 (1972): 131–39. 12 ———, “Comments on Scientifi c News and Views,” CRSQ 9, no. 3 (1972): 181–83. 13Willem J. Ouweneel, “Homoeotic Mutants and Evolution,” CRSQ 12, no. 3 (1975): 141–54. 14John Woodmorappe, “The Cephalopods in the Creation and the Universal Deluge,” CRSQ 15, no. 2 (1978): 94–112. 15E. Norbert Smith, “Another Vestigial Structure Found Useful,” CRSQ 15, no. 4 (1979): 215. 16David P. Licata, “A Unit on Biological Origins for the Secular Classroom,” CRSQ 16, no. 1 (1979): 60–63. 17Randall Hedtke, “The Episteme Is the Theory,” CRSQ 18, no. 1 (1981): 8–13, 26. 18George F. Howe, “Postfi re Strategies of Two Chaparral Shrubs (Chamise and Ceanothus) Cast Light on Origins,” CRSQ 19, no. 1 (1982): 3–10. 19Jerry Bergman, “Reality: Real or Conventional?,” CRSQ 19, no.1 (1982): 67–68, 35, 39. 20A. J. Jones, “A Creationist Critique of Homology,” CRSQ 19, no. 3 (1982): 156. 21Hilton Hinderliter, “Professor Frick—and the Theory in Stone,” CRSQ 19, no. 3 (1982): 175–78. 22John R. Meyer, “Vestigial Organs (If They Exist at All) Prove Noth- ing,” CRSQ 19 (1982): 190–91. 23Randall Hedtke, “The Principle of Applied Creation in an Origin Curriculum,” CRSQ 20 (1983): 44–46. 24E. Norbert Smith, “To See or Not to See,” CRSQ 21, no. 4 (1985): 198. 25John R. Meyer, “Origin of the Kaibab Squirrel,” CRSQ 22, no. 2 (1985): 68–77. 26E. Norbert Smith, “The Role of Creation Research in Modern Biology,” CRSQ 22, no. 3 (1985): 105–7. 27Robert R. Sanders and George F. Howe, “Insects Indicate Cre- ation,” CRSQ 22, no. 4 (1986): 166–70. 28H. S. Hamilton, “The Snake’s Spectacular Spectacle,” CRSQ 23, no. 4 (1987): 177–78. 29 ———, “Convergent Evolution—Do the Octopus and Human Eyes Qualify?,” CRSQ 24, no. 2 (1987): 82–85. 30W. R. Bird, “The Postulated Evidence for Macroevolution and Darwinism: Darwinian Arguments and the Disintegrating Neo- Darwinian Synthesis—Part II,” CRSQ 25, no. 2 (1988): 74–81. 31J. Warwick Glover, “The Human Vermiform Appendix—A General Surgeon’s Refl ections,” Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (hereafter ENTJ) 3 (1988): 31–38. 32J. G. Leslie, “The Hindrance of Evolutionary Terminology to the Teaching of Science,” Creation ex nihilo Technical Journal (here- after CENTJ) 3, no. 1 (1988): 59–64. 33Bill Cooper, “Rhodesian Man,” ENTJ 3 (1988): 137–51. 34Andrew Snelling, “Australian Publications,” CRSQ 26, no. 1 (1989): 33–34. 35John Woodmorappe, “Causes for the Biogeographic Distribu- tion of Land Vertebrates after the Flood,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, ed. Robert E. Walsh (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1990), 53–66. 36Jerry Bergman, “Some Biological Problems with the Natural Selection Theory,” CRSQ 29, no. 3 (1992): 146–58. 37Richard D. Lumsden, Paul C. Anders, and Jeff ery R. Pettera, “Genetic Information and McCann’s Dual Factor Paradigm for Development and Variation,” CRSQ 29, no. 2 (1992): 63–69. 38John Kaplan, “Functional External Ear Muscles,” CRSQ 30 (1993): 90. 39Jerry Bergman, “The Wisdom of Saving Wisdom Teeth,” CRSQ 31, no. 2 (1994): 74–77. 40Frank Maas, “Immune Functions of the Vermiform Appendix,” in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creation- ism, ed. Robert E. Walsh (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1994), 335–42. 41L. James Gibson, “Pseudogenes and Origins,” Origins 21 (1994): 21–108. 42Kurt P. Wise, “Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transi- tional Forms,” CENTJ 9, no. 2 (1995): 216–22. 43Gary Colwell, “Socrates Meets Darwin: A Study in Question Beg- ging,” CRSQ 33, no. 2 (1996): 127–35. 44Kurt P. Wise, “North American Paleontology Convention 96,” CENTJ 10, no. 3 (1996): 315–21. 45C. Wieland, “‘Junk’-making Viruses Neutralise an Evolutionary Argument,” CENTJ 10, no. 3 (1996): 296–97. 46Jonathan D. Sarfati, “Blood Types and Their Origin,” CENTJ 11, no. 1 (1997): 31–32. 47D. J. Batten, “‘Junk’ DNA (Again),” CENTJ 12, no. 1 (1998): 5. 48Carl Wieland, “Why a Fly Can Fly like a Fly,” CENTJ 12, no. 3 (1998): 260–61. 49Jerry Bergman, “Are Wisdom Teeth (Third Molars) Vestiges of Human Evolution?,” CENTJ 12, no. 3 (1998): 297–304. 50Randall Hedtke, “How Gradual Evolution Is Disproved in the Text- books,” CRSQ 36, no. 3 (1999): 136–44. 51Jerry Bergman, “The Rise and Fall of Haeckel’s Biogenetic Law,” CRSQ 37, no. 2 (2000): 110–22. 52Pierre Jerlström, “Jumping Wallaby Genes and Post-Flood Spe- ciation,” CENTJ 14, no. 1 (2000): 9–10. 53Linda K. Walkup, “Junk DNA: Evolutionary Discards or God’s Tools?,” CENTJ 14, no. 2 (2000): 18–30. 54David N. Menton, “The Plantaris and the Question of Vestigial Muscles in Man,” CENTJ 14, no. 2 (2000): 50–53. 55Jerry Bergman, “Do Any Vestigial Organs Exist in Humans?,” CENTJ 14, no. 2 (2000): 95–98. 56 ———, “The Molecular Biology of Genetic Transposition,” CRSQ 38 (2001): 139–50. 57 ———, “Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Natural- ism?,” Technical Journal (hereafter TJ) 15, no. 1 (2001): 26–33. 58 ———, “Is the Human Male Nipple Vestigial?,” TJ 15, no. 2 (2001): 38–41. 59Peter Gurney, “Dawkins’ Eye Revisited,” TJ 15, no. 3 (2001): 92–99. 60Todd C. Wood and David P. Cavanaugh, “A Baraminological Analysis of Subtrive Flaveriinae (Asteraceae: Helenieae) and the Origin of Biological Complexity,” Origins 52 (2001): 7–27. 61Jerry Bergman, “The Design of Tears: An Example of Irreducible Complexity,” TJ 16, no. 1 (2002): 86–89. 62Timothy G. Standish, “Rushing to Judgment: Functionality in Non- coding or ‘Junk’ DNA,” Origins 53 (2002): 7–30. 63Philip B. Bell, “The Non-evolution of Apoptosis,” TJ 18, no. 1 (2004): 86–96. 64Jerry Bergman, “Human Embryonic Gills and Gill Slits—Down but Not Out,” TJ 18, no. 1 (2004): 71–75. 65John Woodmorappe, “Potentially Decisive Evidence against Pseudogene ‘Shared Mistakes,’” TJ 18, no. 3 (2004): 63–69. 66Don Batten, “No Joy for Junkies,” TJ 19, no. 1 (2005): 3. 67Mark H. Armitage and George F. Howe, “The Ultrastructure of Lichen Cells Supports Creation, Not Macroevolution: A Photo Essay and Literature Review—Part II,” CRSQ 44, no. 2 (2007): 107–18. 68Jerry Bergman, “Was the Prostate Gland Poorly Designed?,” CRSQ 44, no. 3 (2008): 230–35. 69Shaun Doyle, “Vestigial Arguments: Remnants of Evolution,” Journal of Creation (hereafter JC) 22, no. 2 (2008): 40–42. 70Janet Henriksen, “The Design Paradigm,” JC 22, no. 2 (2008): 53–59. 71Jerry Bergman, “Evidence for the Lack of Snake Evolution,” CRSQ 45, no. 4 (2009): 258–70. 72Kurt P. Wise, “Mammal Kinds: How Many Were on the Ark?,” CORE Issues in Creation 5 (2009): 129–61. 73Robert W. Carter, “The Slow, Painful Death of Junk DNA,” JC 23, no. 3 (2009): 12–13. 33Volume 69, Number 1, March 2017 Philip J. Senter and Jared J. Mackey We found 125 articles that address the topic of bio- logical degeneration within the YEC paradigm (table 3; fi g. 1). The number of such articles and the number of authors writing on the topic peaked sharply in the second half of the fi rst decade of the twenty-fi rst century. Because there was no simulta- neous spike in the number of new CS authors or in the total number of CS authors (fi g. 1), this sharp rise cannot be explained by an increase in the number of CS authors. The number of CS authors attributing the mor- phology of extinct species of Homo to degeneration was initially high but decreased over time and has remained at zero through the present century (fi g. 1). The number of CS authors citing post-Flood reduction in the human lifespan as an example of biological degeneration has always been low: one such citation apiece in 1978, 1998, 2000, and 2009, and two in 1998 (table 3). The number of CS authors attributing pathogenicity or parasitism to degenera- tion peaked during the period at which the number of CS authors addressing biological degeneration was highest (2006–2010). The number of CS authors claiming that apparently benefi cial mutations repre- sent genetic degeneration peaked during the same period. These two spikes may therefore be connected with the increase in the number of CS authors pub- lishing on the topic of biological degeneration during that period. The number of CS authors using forms of the term “devolution” peaked during the same period. 74Jerry Bergman, “Inherit the Wind: A Lesson in Distorting History,” Answers Research Journal (hereafter ARJ) 3 (2010): 61–69. 75 ———, “C. Everett Koop—Christian and Darwin Doubter,” JC 25, no. 3 (2011): 63–67. 76E. van Niekirk, “Countering Revisionism—Part 1: Ernst Haeckel, Fraud Is Proven,” JC 25, no. 3 (2011): 89–95. 77Jerry Bergman, “Whale Evolution: A Whale of a Tale,” CRSQ 49, no. 2 (2012): 122–34. 78 ———, “The Origins and Genetic Functions of Pseudogenes,” CRSQ 49, no. 4 (2013): 308–18. 79Christine McDonald, “The Kiwi,” JC 27, no. 1 (2013): 68–70. 80Tom Hennigan, “An Initial Estimate toward Identifying and Num- bering Extant Tuatara, Amphisbaena, and Snake Kinds,” ARJ 7 (2014): 31–47. 81M. Aaron, “Discerning Tyrants from Usurpers: A Statistical Baraminological Analysis of Tyrannosauroidea Yielding the First Dinosaur Holobaramin,” ARJ 7 (2014): 463–81. Table 3. References to biological degeneration in the technical literature of creation science through 2015. Homo = attri- bution of morphology of extinct species of Homo to degeneration; lifespan = assertion that post-Flood reduction in human lifespans represents degeneration; P&P = attribution of parasitism and pathogenicity to degeneration; BMD = claim that benefi cial mutations are degenerative; dev = use of some form of the term “devolution.” Author and year Homo lifespan P&P BMD dev Lammerts 1964 1 Tinkle 1964 2 X Morris 1965 3 Rusch 1966 4 Custance 1968 5 X Cook 1968 6 X Tinkle 1968 7 Shaw 1970 8 X Lockwood 1971 9 Ouweneel 1971 10 X Morris 1971 11 Moore 1972 12 Williams 1973 13 Telfair 1973 14 Siegler 1974 15 X Clark 1974 16 X Wheeler 1975 17 Quinn 1975 18 Ouweneel 1975 19 Moore 1976 20 X Sharp 1977 21 Strickling 1978 22 X Sigler 1978 23 Licata 1979 24 Ancil 1980 25 Guenter 1981 26 X Moore 1982 27 Jones 1982 28 X Brown 1983 29 McCluskey 1985 30 Author and year Homo lifespan P&P BMD dev Leslie 1986 31 Gentry 1986 32 Marsh 1987 33 Bowden 1988 34 X Wieland 1991 35 X Bergman, J. 1992 36 X Brand and Gibson 1993 37 Wieland 1994 38 X Beasley 1995 39 Bergman, J. 1995 40 X Wieland 1996 41 García-Pozuelo-Ramos 1997 42 X Bergman, J. 1998 43 X X Bergman, D. 1998 44 X Cuozzo 1998 45 X X Walkup 2000 46 Armitage and Lumsden 2000 47 Bergman, J. 2000 48 X Mastropaolo 2001 49 X Wood 2001 50 Batten 2001 51 X Bergman, J. 2001 52 Bergman, J. 2001 53 Bergman, J. 2002 54 X Standish 2002 55 Bell 2002 56 Batten 2002 57 Sanders and Wise 2003 58 Wood 2003 59 36 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 95Frank Sherwin, “A Possible Function of Entamoeba histolytica in the Creation Model,” ARJ 2 (October 14, 2009): 117–21. 96Ira S. Loucks, “Fungi from the Biblical Perspective: Design and Purpose in the Original Creation,” ARJ 2 (October 21, 2009): 123–31. 97Georgia Purdom, “The Role of Genomic Islands, Mutation, and Displacement in the Origin of Bacterial Pathogenicity,” ARJ 2 (October 28, 2009): 133–50. 98Yingguang Liu, “Did Gene Duplication Produce Gene Families?,” CRSQ 45, no. 3 (2009): 179–87. 99Jerry Bergman, “Evidence for the Lack of Snake Evolution,” CRSQ 45, no. 4 (2009): 258–68. 100Per A. Larssen, “Mutation and Natural Selection: The Central Dogma of Neo-Darwinian Evolution,” CRSQ 45, no. 4 (2009): 271–81. 101Peter Borger, “The Design of Life: Part 4—Variation-Inducing Genetic Elements and Their Function,” JC 23, no. 1 (2009): 107–14. 102Anne Habermehl, “Those Enigmatic Neanderthals: What Are They Saying? Are We Listening?,” ARJ 3 (January 13, 2010): 1–21. 103Jean K. Lightner, “Comparative Cytogenetics and Chromosomal Re-arrangements,” JC 24, no. 1 (2010): 6–8. 104Jonathan Sarfati, “Darwinopterus vs Dawkins,” JC 24, no. 1 (2010): 43–47. 105Brian Thomas, “Cell Systems—What’s Really Under the Hood Continues to Drop Jaws,” JC 24, no. 2 (2010): 13–15. 106Shaun Doyle, “Photosynthetic Sea Slugs: An Evolutionary Dilemma,” JC 24, no. 3 (2010): 10–12. 107 ———, “Lizards Moving from Eggs to Live Birth: Evolution in Action?,” JC 25, no. 1 (2011): 16–18. 108Robert W. Carter, “Can Mutations Create New Information?,” JC 25, no. 2 (2011): 92–98. 109Shaun Doyle, “The Diminishing Returns of Benefi cial Mutations,” JC 25, no. 3 (2011): 8–10. 110Jeff rey P. Tomkins, “Alleged Human Chromosome 2 ‘Fusion Site’ Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene-Negating Fusion,” ARJ 6 (October 16, 2013): 367–75. 111Jerry Bergman, “The Origins and Genetic Functions of Pseudo- genes,” CRSQ 49, no. 4 (2013): 308–18. 112Christopher L. Rupe and John C. Stanford, “Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establish- ment of a New Principle: Haldane’s Ratchet,” in Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism, ed. Robert E. Walsh (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1998). 113Mike R. Arneigh, “It’s a Small World—MicroRNA Cuts Evolution Down to Size,” JC 27, no. 2 (2013): 85–90. 114Jean O’Micks, “Small Genome Size of Utricularia gibba Prob- lematic for Evolution but Not Creation,” JC 27, no. 3 (2013): 4–6. 115Peer Terborg, “The ‘VIGE-fi rst Hypothesis’—How Easy It Is to Swap Cause and Eff ect,” JC 27, no. 3 (2013): 105–12. 116Jeff rey P. Tomkins, “The Human GULO Pseudogene—Evi- dence for Evolutionary Discontinuity and Genetic Entropy,” ARJ 7 (April 2, 2014): 91–101. 117Alex Williams, “Human Genome Decay and the Origin of Life,” JC 28, no. 1 (2014): 91–97. 118Philip Robinson, “Cactus Spines, Sharper Than You May Think!,” JC 28, no. 2 (2014): 9–11. 119J. Blaschke, “Ancestral State Reconstruction as a New Method for Identifying Baramins of Pathogens and Parasites,” Journal of Creation Theology and Science, Series B: Life Sciences 4 (2014): 23–24. 120Yingguang Liu, “Cyclic Selection in HIV–1 Tropism: Microevolu- tion That Is Going Nowhere,” ARJ 8 (April 22, 2015): 199–202. 121 ———, “Mutations of the nef Gene Make HIV-1 More Virulent,” ARJ 8 (June 17, 2015): 323–26. 122 ———, “Is HIV-1 Losing Fitness Due to Genetic Entropy?,” ARJ 8 (July 1, 2015): 339–51. 123Alan Gillen, Jason Conrad, and Michael Cargill, “The Genesis and Emergence of Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA): An Example of Evolution in Action?,” ARJ 8 (October 14, 2015): 391–401. 124Change Tan, “Using Taxonomically Restricted Essential Genes to Determine Whether Two Organisms Can Belong to the Same Family Tree,” ARJ 8 (November 4, 2015): 413–35. 125Peter M. Murphy, “Understanding Open Questions on the Origin of Life,” CRSQ 52, no. 2 (2015): 136–45. Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 1: Vestigial Structures and Biological Degeneration Discussion During data collection for this study, it became evi- dent that CS authors frequently employ idiosyncratic usage of evolution-related terms, using the terms in ways that mainstream biologists do not. For example, several CS authors insisted that a structure must be completely functionless to be called vestigial. In con- trast, mainstream biologists have long maintained that a reduced structure is vestigial, even if it retains a minor function or functions, as long as it has lost a major function or functions.15 As Darwin put it in his discussion of vestigial structures (which he called “rudimentary” structures), “An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose; and remain perfectly effi cient for the other.”16 And as Charles Brues noted in 1903, insect wings that have “become vestigial to such an extent that they are no longer available for … fl ight” in some cases “have suddenly developed characters that make them of use in some other direction.”17 Nevertheless, several CS authors cite any known function in a vestigial structure as evidence that the structure is not truly vestigial or that no truly vestigial structures exist.18 Similarly, some insist that non-coding DNA cannot be considered vestigial because, in some cases, it has a known function,19 and, in other cases, a function might be found in the future.20 From the standpoint of mainstream biology, such arguments are non- sensical, because functionlessness is not part of the defi nition of vestigiality.21 One CS author argued that if any truly functionless structure were ever found, it would be evidence of degeneration, hence special creation.22 However, heritable changes of any kind, degenerate or not, are congruent with the evo- lutionary paradigm and are therefore not evidence against it. Another frequent example of idiosyncratic usage is restriction of the term “evolution” only to heritable changes that cause the addition, augmentation, or improvement of biological structures—as opposed to heritable changes that cause deletion, degenera- tion, or vestigialization of biological structures.23 For example, one author argued that vestigial septa in cephalopod shells are “not supportive of evolution” but “may be a genetic-code remnant of the more con- chiferous design employed by God elsewhere.”24 In other words, such septa were derived from more fully developed septa in the shells of these animals’ ances- 37Volume 69, Number 1, March 2017 Philip J. Senter and Jared J. Mackey tors, but the change should not be called “evolution” because it was degenerative. In contrast, mainstream biologists employ a broader defi nition of evolution and acknowledge heritable changes in general as evolution, whether those changes are degenerative or not. Nevertheless, unlike mainstream biologists, CS authors usually restrict the term “evolution” to additive or augmentative changes. For degenerative changes, such authors use the term “devolution,”25 a term absent from mainstream biology. As a general rule, CS authors recoil at the sugges- tion that vestigial structures exist. One CS author even asserted that the existence of vestigial organs would support creationism but denied their exis- tence nevertheless.26 However, a few CS authors have acknowledged the existence of vestigial, “rudi- mentary,” or “degenerative” structures,27 including vestigial genetic sequences.28 One such author took the position that the vestigial hindlimbs and pelves of extant whales and the small hindlimbs of fossil archaeocete whales (from sediments that he consid- ered post-Flood) indicate that the members of the whale “kind” aboard the Ark had legs and may even have been terrestrial.29 Two authors frankly acknowledged vestigial structures as a problem for the idea of special creation, proffering the example of mouthparts in insects that do not eat as an example of something that one would not expect God to cre- ate.30 However, according to a subsequent author, this problem is solved by the idea of “devolution,” which can cause vestigialization of structures that were created with full function.31 Two authors claimed that science has discarded the idea of vestigial structures, arguing that the dwin- dling of lists of vestigial structures in textbooks through the years, refl ects a disowning of the concept by scientists.32 However, a recent study by main- stream biologists tested that claim and found that it is incorrect. Despite small lists of vestigial structures in textbooks, scientists have explicitly identifi ed hundreds of examples of biological structures as ves- tigial in the primary scientifi c literature of the current century.33 Some CS authors waxed creative in their func- tional explanations of structures that mainstream biologists recognize as vestigial. For example, one author explained human ear muscles not as vestigial structures but as pre-adaptations “just in case.” He supported this argument by citing the example of an individual whose ear muscles helped him after he lost eardrum function.34 Some CS authors pointed out that male nipples and other structures that are functional in only one sex were presumably never functional in the other sex; because such structures are not degenerate they should not be called vestigial.35 This is, in fact, cor- rect. Although male nipples are sometimes listed as vestigial structures,36 they are not the degener- ate remnants of ancestrally lactiferous male nipples and therefore do not fi t the defi nition of vestigiality. Mainstream biologists would therefore do well to heed these CS authors’ point and cease calling male nipples vestigial. Several twentieth-century CS authors invoked degeneration as an explanation for the morphologi- cal features of extinct species of Homo.37 Such authors claimed that Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis were the degenerate descendants of more-ancient Homo sapiens and that the ape-like features of H. erec- tus and H. neanderthalensis represent degeneration rather than an ancestral state. Two authors even included australopithecine-grade hominids in the list of degenerate human populations.38 Those two authors claimed that the fossil record shows a pattern in which “degenerate” forms of humanity (H. erec- tus, H. neanderthalensis, and australopithecines) are found mainly at the periphery of the Old World, whereas ancient urban populations in the center of the Old World exhibit “advanced” (i.e., undegener- ate, as originally created) morphology. These authors explained this by positing that urban existence slowed down the process of degeneracy, enabling settled populations to retain “advanced” morphol- ogy, whereas nomads wandering away from Ararat after the Flood gained degenerate morphology, with the greatest degree of degeneracy occurring in the populations that wandered furthest. Another author identifi ed H. erectus and H. nean- derthalensis as “Hamites” (descendants of Noah’s son Ham) and described Hamites as degenerate human populations.39 He noted that across Eurasia, H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis remains are found in stratigraphically lower (hence, older) strata than are the remains of modern H. sapiens, and to explain this he posited that the descendants of Ham had spread throughout the globe before the descendants of Noah’s sons Japheth and Shem did. Interestingly, mainstream paleoanthropologists agree that these 38 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 1: Vestigial Structures and Biological Degeneration data indicate that H. erectus and H. neanderthal- ensis spread across Eurasia before H. sapiens did. Mainstream scientists disagree, however, with the identifi cation of the extinct species as descen- dants of a specifi c son of Noah or of any member of H. sapiens, because no remains of H. sapiens are known from strata older than those of the extinct species of Homo. Citation of the morphology of extinct species of Homo as examples of biological degeneration dropped to almost zero after the 1970s (fi g. 1), and the last such citation was in 1997.40 However, occasional mention of physiological degeneration, particularly in relation to lifespan, has continued into the present century. A few CS authors list—as an example of physiologi- cal degeneracy—the shorter lifespans of post-Flood humanity in comparison to pre-Flood lifespans of centuries, as recorded in Genesis.41 The earliest such listing was in 1978, the latest in 2009.42 One CS author provided an interesting spin on degeneration as applied to extinct hominids. Rather than positing that australopithecines are degenerate humans, he posited that they represent the ancestral form of the ape “kind.” He therefore explained the quadrupedal knuckle-walking of today’s apes as the result of degeneration from the upright locomotion of their australopithecine “ancestors.”43 Several twenty-fi rst-century CS authors explain pathogenicity of microbes and the parasitic lifestyle of other organisms—both of which are incompatible with a “very good” creation44—as a result of degen- eration. According to these authors, all viruses and organisms that are now pathogens or parasites were originally harmless, and in some cases may have been benefi cial symbionts, and pathological fea- tures appeared as a result of genomic deterioration.45 The CS explanation of pathogenicity as a result of degeneration is relatively new, with the earliest such explanation appearing in 2001.46 Interestingly, evolutionary biologists agree that the reduced genomes of some pathogenic bacteria are the results of gene loss. However, reduced genomes resulting from gene loss occur in benefi cial symbiotic bacteria also: this indicates that this genomic decay is related to dependency on a host and not to pathoge- nicity alone.47 Similarly, genome size reduction due to gene loss is common among eukaryotic parasites including protozoans, fungi, and invertebrates,48 but the same is also the case in benefi cial eukary- otic endosymbionts.49 Because genomic reduction is therefore related to host-dependence in general, it seems that within the CS paradigm genomic reduc- tion would have occurred in endosymbiotic microbes even without the Fall of humankind and the resulting Curse upon nature. It will therefore be interesting to see whether future CS articles address this issue and attempt to explain genomic reduction in benefi cial endosymbionts. Six CS authors gave examples of apparently ben- efi cial mutations that they claimed represented genomic degeneration. One author explicitly pos- ited that antibiotic resistance in a bacterium was the incidental result of a mutation that involved a loss of genetic information.50 Another pointed out that the loss of wings in insects inhabiting windy places is advantageous but is nevertheless an example of morphological degeneration.51 The others identifi ed advantageous mutations in bacteria and humans as incidental results of genomic deterioration.52 The topics of vestigial structures and biological degeneration make for a useful introduction to the fascinating world of creation science. Perplexingly, through half a century, CS authors have maintained a general consensus that all “created kinds” of organ- isms have undergone degenerative changes, and they have simultaneously maintained a general consensus that vestigial biological structures do not exist. Because the claim for biological degenera- tion implies the existence of vestigial structures, CS authors’ denial of their existence is incongruous. It will be interesting to see whether CS authors recog- nize this internal inconsistency in future CS literature or whether this mutually contradictory pair of claims will continue to persist.  Acknowledgments Several people deserve thanks for help with this study. Andrew Lamb of Creation Ministries International Australia generously donated copies of several back issues of Ex Nihilo Technical Journal and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, mailed them overseas, and wrote a letter of permission to USA libraries authorizing the photocopying of other vol- umes for this project. Library staff at four libraries provided photocopies of back issues of Ex Nihilo Technical Journal and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal: Laura Sullivan and Tanya Zanish-Belcher