Why Hybrids Can't Reproduce - A Creationist's Observation

I love the intricacies of God's created order and am particularly fascinated with how he designed the means of defining the physical manifestations of life in this world. I'm talking about genetics.

I've often wondered about the lack of ability of many diploid hybrids to reproduce. But to give you the observation I came to, let me rebuild a good understanding of basic genetics for you.

First, there are specific genotypes observed among living organisms. Given that there are a couple of ways to define and use the word "genotype", I'll give the definition I'm using here in my own words: A genotype is a combination of genetic patterns that allow for a range of morphological diversity by interchanging different alleles at certain loci. If this is Greek to you, let me give you a metaphor:

Have you ever played that puzzle game where a story is written down with several blanks? These are often called Mad Libs. With each blank is a suggestion as to what type of word is expected there, whether it is a now, verb, adjective, etc. So you ask someone for that type of word and write down whatever they say. After you have filled in all the blanks, you read the completed story which has been made humorous because the words were random. Well, the structure of the story has already been determined. All you need to do is fill in different words to produce a slightly different story with the same structure. You go on to the next story and discover a different structure with different places for words to go. You can randomize the words as long as you stay within the structure, but you can't change the structure or the story won't make enough sense to be funny anymore.

The structure of the story is like a genotype. The words are the alleles. The locations of the words in teach sentence and paragraph are their loci (each location being a locus).

To continue the metaphor, since each organism receives its words from its parents it can only receive those words that its parents have to give. Within a genotype all combinations are possible, but because of environmental factors not all words survive over time. Only those words which can reproduce effectively can continue to be part of the story. So over time a population with a certain genotype will weed out the words that don't work for that period of time. This is called "speciation". This is where different species come from. Unfortunately, if the environment changes and certain words are lost within that population, then a species may become extinct because they no longer have the ability to adapt. This is what creationists mean when we say that speciation represents a loss of information rather than an increase in information.

Something that's helpful is to re-infuse populations with words from other species or sub-species. If it is a sub-species, then the offspring are typically able to reproduce. But if the words come from a different species within a genotype, then the offspring is called a hybrid and often cannot reproduce.

That's why I have wondered why, if they are of the same genotype, they cannot reproduce. I've finally realized the answer.

Species become species because different combinations of "words" or alleles are capable of survivable reproduction. Otherwise, those combinations will die out. When you breed different species together, you may produce offspring that are useful. For example, you may have hearty grain or you might have a mule that has the benefits of both a horse and a donkey. However, mules typically cannot reproduce. Therefore, in order to get more mules you have to breed more horses with donkeys. So why can't a mule reproduce, for example?

Is a mule a different species? Is a mule a different sub-species? Neither. It's a hybrid. It didn't become a species by the same process of natural selection that drives speciation, so it's not a species. It's not different breeds of the same species. It's a cross between two different species. However, the combination of words doesn't usually mix to make a creature that can reproduce. Sometimes, perhaps a hybrid can reproduce. However, if two mules could reproduce, they might produce an offspring that is more like either a donkey or a horse because "mule" is not a species per se. If you could breed a mule back with a horse or a donkey, you may get a horse or donkey with some qualities of the other species. If so, then perhaps some of the words long lost in a species could be restored toward the type, but I wouldn't think this to be very likely because the mule isn't a species.

Now let me tell you why this is important. There are two types of evolutionists: those who understand genetics and those who think they understand genetics. Those who understand genetics know that I'm right in a basic way. There's a sense in which there appears to be some flexibility in the structure of a genotype. However, science has not demonstrated such fluidity in structure that would account for a slow progressive change in a genotype over time. Rather, the evidence is that different species within a genotype maintain a fairly consistent genotypic structure with marked distinctions between genotypes. In other words, there's not a multitude of slight yet fundamental differences in genotype between species within a genotype.

In keeping with our metaphor, the evolutionist's claim is that the story is pretty much the same, but the structure of one sentence or another has been altered changing the gist of the story slightly. What I'm saying is that this hasn't been noticed. There is the occasional error where part of a sentence, or even a whole sentence, has been duplicated. This would be obvious and is obvious, but this doesn't represent a re-write of the sentence.

However, an evolutionist who understands this can't accept it. Therefore, the only thing the evolutionist can do is to propagate the notion among evolutionists who don't understand this that speciation represents these slight changes in genotype to the point where eventually one can call the type of organism a new genotype. The evolutionists who don't understand what I have addressed above think that the supposition they have been fed has been proven to be true when it hasn't.

Now there are levels of detail that I haven't even touched here like dipthoid reproduction and a genetic analysis of different levels of morphologically based taxonomy, but I hope I've made this understandable to you. When hybrids can't reproduce, we may think that perhaps it's because their genotypes have shifted far enough apart. Rather, it's because hybrids are not breeds within a species. A hybrid doesn't have the benefit of a species to contain the allele combinations that can survive and reproduce by actually surviving and reproducing.

Random Thoughts

I’ve been slammed with projects lately and haven’t had time to post much. I’ll give you a run down of some of my latest disjointed thoughts and musings.

---

It occurred to me that materialism is necessarily deterministic. Then, I realized that unless God is not the creator of all things or He is not omniscient or He is not omnipotent, then all things are ultimately determined by Him. However, materialistic determinism is physical and existential. Therefore, unless God created a physical universe where the laws of physics are always constant, then metaphysical principles, which precede and define the physical, at least occasionally override physical laws thus making materialistic determinism an impossible proposition.

In this same vein, if the human will is limited to mere neurological activity then our minds are products of materialistic determinism. It is true that nothing informs our decisions that are outside of God’s created order. But this created order includes that which is spiritual. Inasmuch as the spiritual is metaphysical, then we are agents of metaphysical manipulation of physical existence. That doesn’t mean that we can go about breaking the laws of physics on our own, but rather that the animation of our bodies is a product of something greater than the mere chemical and electric impulses found in our nervous system.

---

I’ve come to realize that DNA is arranged to store and convey information, much like a language. The two differ in one astonishing regard. Language requires an external common frame of reference for the purpose of communication. If I write using the Phoenician alphabet with the understanding that most people in this world don’t know Phoenician, then I can expect that most people will not be able to understand what I’ve written. However, if I write in English, there are dictionaries all over the place to fix the common frame of reference. If you don’t understand a word, then you can look it up. If you understand the word order and usage of at least most of the words, then you can understand my intended meaning. If I write the word “branch”, you have the experiences of trees, streams of water or genealogical lines associated with that word.

The language of DNA is different because it does not exist for the purpose of communication. It exists for the purpose of defining and building biological morphologies. The astonishing thing is that you can define a biological morphology in any language you want. You can invent your own language for the express purpose of defining all the morphological possibilities of an organism or its genetic family. It’s useless unless you have a frame of reference with which to translate the definition from the language into an actual functioning morphology. The astonishing part is that the language of DNA is self-referencing. Within the language and definition is the information required to perform the translation. The breadth of this capacity exceeds that of, say, the Rosetta Stone by several orders of magnitude.

DNA is more than mere information. Necessary for its function is an understanding of quantum and macroscopic physics since the DNA itself functions on the quantum level and defines organisms that function macroscopically.

---

I’ve often contemplated the benefits and drawbacks of evidential and presuppositional apologetics. Although presuppositional apologetics is compelling if you understand it, evidential apologetics is better understood by the average person. There is yet a third way, and I haven’t named it yet. Its intent is evangelism where the truth is espoused. Either the Holy Spirit quickens people to understand or He doesn’t. In those who He quickens the truth will resonate.

---

Perhaps when I get through some of these projects, I’ll be able to finish a thought. Until then, you’ll probably see more of these partial thoughts here. Keep my church in your prayers. Missions have been sporadic throughout this year with teams having been to China, Costa Rica and the near East recently. We have people and teams preparing for China, Nepal, London, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Four Corners, etc. We are excited about what God is doing, but it is a lot of work and requires much prayer…

So pray!

Common Ancestry Begs the Question

I was listening to some lectures Dr. Alvin Plantinga gave at Southern Seminary last year concerning the origins debate. As I listened, it occurred to me that Darwinism has a serious flaw I had never considered before. It has many serious flaws, but this one is so obvious I wonder why I haven't heard this brought up. Surely someone else has noticed it, but in all my reading and debating on the subject, I've never seen or heard it discussed. As such I had three revelations:

First, without Common Ancestry (CA) molecules-to-man evolution is irrelevant.

Second, rather than Molecules-to-Man Evolution (MME) being foundational to CA, CA is foundational to MME. That is to say, one would expect CA to be the conclusion and MME to be one of the premises. Rather, Darwin noticed similar morphologies and concluded that CA was true. Later, genes were discovered and it was supposed that this would support CA. Therefore all the data, when interpreted by Darwinists, must be interpreted as though MME is true a priori. Then the argument is couched such that the conclusion becomes the premise and the premise becomes the conclusion.

Third, CA begs the question that genes are too complex to have happened spontaneously. Let me 'splain:

One of the keystones of Darwinism is CA. But why do they believe in CA rather than the spontaneous generation of early life in multiple places or multiple times? It's because they actually understand that spontaneous life is so improbable that it couldn't possibly have happened but once. They're unwilling to believe in an Intelligent Designer (IDer), so to them it had to happen at least once. Why is it so improbable? Because of it's exceeding complexity. This is the question that's begged. They never ask because they don't want to accept the answer.

If it is so complex that Darwinists must assume CA for all life, and MME as a consequence, then it is far more likely that there is an IDer than it just happened spontaneously. If there is an IDer, then there is no need to assume MME. That's why they're willing to assent to spontaneous life that is impossibly complex without recognizing the implications.

I can't believe no one else has realized this yet. And the problem is they've got a lot of people snowed into thinking that this is good science.

Dawkins Hears the Gospel...

...from AIG-UK's Paul Taylor.

Whether he eventually responds in faith is a matter for the Holy Spirit. At least we know he's heard it.

Answers Research Journal Annoys Naturalists

As though they strive to make my case for me, you can read the comments of the news of a new peer-reviewed science journal here. This new journal is the Answers Research Journal. What is the difference between a science journal reviewed by peers who hold to naturalistic presuppositions and a science journal reviewed by peers who hold to theistic presuppositions? The fact that theistic scientists actually have material to review is an indication that the philosophical divide among scientists has nothing to do with the level of accuracy to which these scientists abide by the scientific method. It also provides demonstrable evidence that theistic scientists are actually doing science despite the claims of the naturalists.

Two Important Misconceptions in the Origins Debate

Two misconceptions confuse the the origins debate in nearly every argument I read. These too often pollute the arguments made by people on both sides of the issue.

1. Scientific proof is rational.

The truth is that there is no such thing as scientific proof. There are scientific conclusions that involve demonstrable likelihoods using empirical testing and/or observation of evidence analyzed according to a set of philosophical presuppositions. The core of the origins debate is over these philosophical presuppositions. However, debates most often center on the conclusions and fail to address the foundational differences and how they affect the conclusions. In other words, opponents in the debate most often try to convince each other that their presuppositions are true by asserting the veracity of their conclusions. This is backwards.

As it is, a belief in molecules-to-man evolution is founded on naturalistic presuppositions which decidedly deny the influence of anything we have not been able to physically detect and quantify. Intelligent Design generically recognizes that there may be important factors that we cannot yet detect and quantify. Creation science, specifically Young Earth Creationism, specifically identifies an important factor, a Creator, who has made Himself known to us and given us a certain apologetic, not merely for His existence, but for His foundationally substantial influence. As such, it may be recognized that He is not temporally quantifiable although He can be known.


2. Evidence is in favor of one side of the debate or the other, but not both.

Once again, the difference is in the presuppositions, not the evidence. Evidence is evidence. It only lends itself to specific conclusions according to the presuppositions of the scientist analyzing it. Too often I read silly arguments like, “There is at least some evidence for evolution, but none for creation.” This misses the point that the same evidence used by naturalists to support evolutionary conclusions is also used to support the conclusions of creation scientists.


Misconceptions like these frustrate the search for truth.

Are Chimps More Evolved Than Humans?

We hear all about how 96% of the DNA of chimpanzees is similar to that of humans. But how is it similar? Is it qualitatively similar, quantitatively similar, or some combination of the two. One single genetic molecule is responsible for progeria, so what kind of differences can we expect to see when we change 4% of the millions of the molecules in our genetic code that define our morphological construction?

But what I really notice from a recent Answers in Genesis article is that Chimpanzees actually have more genetic code than humans. If molecules-to-man evolution is supposed to increase genetic information, then should the naturalists who believe in it not conclude that chimpanzees are more evolved than humans? Think about it.

Poor Argumentation in the Origins Debate

A week ago, Biologists from the University of Manchester issued a press release concerning the change in the breed of St. Bernards over time. Specifically, they observed quantifiable changes in the breadth of the skulls of St. Bernards, the angle between the nose and forehead and the acuteness of the ridge above the eyes. My observation scientifically is the same as that of Answers in Genesis. Namely, that their observations were primarily with respects to morphology, not genetic structure.

The interesting part to me, however, is not that the observations were made. I suppose someone could make them for some scientific reason. I don’t know what that reason would be. The thing is, the University biologists billed their find as a challenge to creationism. The study of morphology is no challenge to creationism. The only challenge is in answering the reporting of this press release as though the scientists had actually discovered something that put a nail in the coffin of creationism.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. Biologists should know better than to think that slight changes in morphology or any phenotype indicate a change in genotype. What I’m saying is that different types of animals have different genes. For human beings, I have the same genotype as my wife. However, I am tall and have dark features. My wife is short and has light features. My kids have my olive skin, but their hair is closer to my wife’s color. We have produced offspring of the same genotype, but with phenotypical variations allowable within that genotype. No amount of selecting for variations within a genotype will ever change the genotype. Even evolutionary biologists know this. Evolutionary theory holds that changes in genotype occur not by selection, but by accident. It’s only by intentional misinformation given by evolutionary propagandists that have resulted in the false idea that selection for desirable phenotypes changes a population’s genotype.

Creationists believe in selection as being necessary for speciation within a family. That is, the genotypes remain the same, but marked differences in phenotype occur as undesirable variants are removed leaving only the desirable phenotypes within a relatively isolated population of that genotype. Therefore, this study poses no scientific challenge to creation science. Rather, it presents a serious flaw in the less-than-scientific press releases by evolutionary scientists. This is no isolated incident, but is typical of too many pseudo-scientific conclusions made by scientists. It should be alarming that many of these scientists are teaching such poor scientists to the next generation of scientists in our places of higher learning.

If you look in the comment thread of the article in Physorg.com that repeated the UM press release, you will find a discussion where theistic evolution is proposed. It is true that scientists with different philosophical presuppositions often arrive at different conclusions given the same empirical data. Theistic evolution is a result of presuppositional differentiation. However, the presuppositions are often different than those between earnest naturalists and consistent theists. The presuppositions that drive most theistic evolutionists is the desire either for the existence of God (or to allow them some compatibilistic means to be nonconfrontational toward theists) as well as the belief that such press releases as the one from UM in some way indicate proof that evolution is true.

These types of scientists and those who believe them may be earnest in their argumentation. Too often, I suspect that the conclusion was developed prior to the argument and the argument tailored to propagate the desired conclusion. Either way, such argumentation at this is poor and decidedly not scientific.