2025/11/02

The Persistent Absence of Transitional Forms: A Quantitative Challenge to Evolutionary Theory

1. Setting the Quantitative Expectation

Even using the most modest evolutionary assumptions, the number of transitional forms that should exist today is enormous:

Level	Estimated number of living groups	Expected % transitional	Expected number of living transitionals
Species → new species	8,000,000	2–10%	160,000 – 800,000
Genus transitions	800,000	2–10%	16,000 – 80,000
Family transitions	40,000	2–10%	800 – 4,000

➡ Even conservative assumptions predict hundreds of thousands of transitional forms in existence today, with many thousands of them visible at the genus or family level.

If evolution is a continuous, gradual process — as Darwin himself described — the natural world should be teeming with observable intermediates in every environment and lineage.

2. Empirical Observation: They Are Not Found

However, when we look at the scientific fossil record and living organisms, we observe the opposite pattern:

Nearly all living genera appear as distinct, morphologically stable entities.
Family boundaries (e.g., cats vs. dogs, whales vs. hippos, bats vs. rodents, lizards vs. snakes) are morphologically discrete, with no living or fossilized bridges that fill the gaps step by step.
Fossil transitions between these groups are either missing, speculative, or represented by single mosaic forms that disappear as abruptly as they appear.

For instance:

There is no living or fossil half-bat, half-rodent, although bats appear suddenly in the record fully capable of flight.
There is no half-whale, half-deer, though evolutionary models require thousands of intermediate forms to transform a land mammal into a marine one.
There are no half-bird, half-reptile species living today — and the best fossil candidates (Archaeopteryx, Microraptor) are fully functional organisms with no evidence of being transitional prototypes.
Even the Cambrian explosion itself reveals more than 20 major body plans appearing within a narrow geological window — with zero documented ancestors in earlier strata.

Thus, instead of smooth transitions, we find abrupt appearances and long periods of stasis — precisely the opposite of what gradual evolution predicts.

3. The Quantitative Gap Becomes Astronomical

Let’s compare the expected number of transitional forms to the number scientifically verified:

Category	Expected (evolutionary model)	Verified, well-documented transitional forms
Living species-level intermediates	160,000 – 800,000	≈ 0–10 unambiguous cases (all debated)
Fossil genus-level intermediates	16,000 – 80,000	A few dozen disputed examples
Fossil family-level intermediates	800 – 4,000	Essentially none clearly verified

That’s a shortfall of four to six orders of magnitude (a factor of 10,000–1,000,000).
In any other branch of science, such a discrepancy between prediction and observation would invalidate the underlying model.

If the theory of evolution by random mutation and gradual selection were true, the biological world should be a continuous spectrum — but it is not.
Instead, we observe discrete “islands” of fully formed, stable forms, exactly what we would expect from designed kinds rather than transitional populations.

4. The Pattern of “Stasis and Sudden Appearance”

Paleontologists like Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, and David Raup all admitted this contradiction decades ago:

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” — Stephen Jay Gould
“We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. The record still shows sudden appearance and stasis.” — David Raup

To reconcile this, Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium — rapid bursts of change occurring too fast to leave fossils. But that is an explanation for missing evidence, not evidence itself.
A theory that continually explains away its own failed predictions ceases to be falsifiable and therefore ceases to be empirical science.

5. A Competing Interpretation: Created Kinds

In contrast, the creation or intelligent design model predicts exactly what we observe:

Abrupt appearance of each basic kind (baramin) — as seen in the fossil record.
Long-term stability (stasis) within kinds, with variation and adaptation limited by existing genetic and epigenetic information.
No continuous chain of transitional forms connecting major kinds.

In this view, the apparent gaps in the fossil record are not missing pieces — they are boundaries between created categories that were never bridged.

6. Conclusion

The mathematical expectation of evolution (hundreds of thousands of ongoing transitions) stands in stark contradiction to empirical observation (virtually none verified).
This vast discrepancy — far beyond what could be explained by sampling bias — supports Gould’s candid confession: the “tree of life” is largely an inference, not an observation.

If a theory consistently predicts what we do not find, and reality repeatedly confirms discrete, functional kinds instead of transitional grades, then the evidence favors design and stability, not random, continuous transformation.

2025/11/01

There's data only at the tips and nodes of their branches

The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches

Stephen J. Gould: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils..We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.

1. Cambrian Explosion (Origin of Animal Phyla)

Problem: Nearly all major animal body plans (phyla) appear suddenly in the Cambrian rock layers (~540 million years old), without known ancestors in Precambrian strata.
Why it supports Gould: There are no transitional fossils leading up to these complex body forms — e.g., arthropods, mollusks, chordates — they appear abruptly.

2. Trilobites

Problem: Trilobites appear fully formed with complex compound eyes and articulated segments in the lowest Cambrian layers.
Why it supports Gould: No fossil evidence shows their gradual evolution from simpler precursors.

3. Fish Origin

Problem: The first jawless fish (agnathans) appear abruptly, and the transition to jawed fish (gnathostomes) lacks a continuous fossil sequence.
Why it supports Gould: Supposed intermediates (e.g., Ostracoderms → Placoderms) are separated by morphological gaps, not gradual steps.

4. Tetrapod Transition (Fish to Amphibian)

Problem: Tiktaalik was once hailed as a “missing link,” but true tetrapod tracks predate it by at least 18 million years.
Why it supports Gould: Fossils like Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are fully formed amphibians, not gradual intermediates.

5. Amphibian to Reptile

Problem: There is no clear sequence of transitional fossils showing the transformation of amphibian skulls and egg types into those of reptiles.
Why it supports Gould: Fossil gaps remain across the key anatomical and reproductive features.

6. Reptile to Mammal

Problem: The “mammal-like reptiles” (therapsids) show mosaic features but appear in parallel lineages, not a single evolutionary line.
Why it supports Gould: Each new fossil appears as a distinct, stable form rather than a smooth continuum.

7. Reptile to Bird

Problem: Archaeopteryx is often presented as a transitional form, but it had fully developed flight feathers and bird anatomy.
Why it supports Gould: Later discoveries show true birds existed before Archaeopteryx, invalidating its position as a “proto-bird.”

8. Origin of Feathers

Problem: Supposed feathered dinosaurs (e.g., Sinosauropteryx) had collagen fibers, not true feathers, according to several studies.
Why it supports Gould: Feathers appear abruptly, already functional for flight or insulation.

9. Whale Evolution

Problem: Pakicetus and Ambulocetus were initially portrayed as half-aquatic, but later studies show they were fully terrestrial.
Why it supports Gould: No continuous fossil series documents the transition from land mammals to fully aquatic whales.

10. Horse Series

Problem: The famous “horse evolution” chart has been revised many times; fossils appear in overlapping time frames, not a linear sequence.
Why it supports Gould: It’s now considered a “branching bush” rather than a single evolutionary ladder.

11. Elephant Lineage

Problem: Supposed transitions (from Moeritherium to modern elephants) show no clear evolutionary direction — many forms coexist.
Why it supports Gould: Each form appears abruptly and then disappears without intermediate morphology.

12. Land Mammal to Sea Lion / Seal

Problem: There’s no solid fossil series showing gradual limb and body adaptations from land carnivores to modern pinnipeds.
Why it supports Gould: The earliest seals already had flippers and aquatic adaptations.

13. Bat Evolution

Problem: The earliest known bat (Onychonycteris finneyi) already had fully developed wings and echolocation structures.
Why it supports Gould: No transitional fossils link bats to any terrestrial ancestor.

14. Giraffe Neck Evolution

Problem: The fossil record shows only short- and long-necked giraffids; no gradual elongation series exists.
Why it supports Gould: The gap between Samotherium and modern giraffes remains unexplained.

15. Insect Flight

Problem: Insect wings appear fully formed; no fossils show partial wing structures or proto-wings.
Why it supports Gould: The first winged insects (Carboniferous) already had complex flight mechanisms.

16. Bird Beak and Tooth Loss

Problem: Toothless birds and toothed birds overlap in the fossil record; no graded sequence connects them.
Why it supports Gould: Abrupt transitions again — discrete morphologies with no intermediates.

17. Shark Evolution

Problem: Sharks appear fully formed in the Devonian, with advanced dentition and cartilaginous skeletons.
Why it supports Gould: No “proto-shark” fossils bridge earlier jawless fish to sharks.

18. Human Evolution

Problem: Supposed transitional fossils (Australopithecus, Homo habilis, etc.) often represent parallel lineages or mixtures, not linear transitions.
Why it supports Gould: The “bushy” nature of hominin fossils, plus reclassifications, highlight the lack of a clear ancestor-descendant chain.

19. Butterfly Metamorphosis

Problem: Fossil insects appear fully capable of complete metamorphosis; no fossils show a gradual evolution of this complex system.
Why it supports Gould: Metamorphosis requires coordinated genetic and developmental systems — no partial forms known.

20. Flowering Plants (Angiosperms)

Problem: Darwin called their origin an “abominable mystery.” Fossils show a sudden appearance of diverse flowering plants.
Why it supports Gould: No stepwise transition from gymnosperms to angiosperms is documented.

Summary

Gould’s point holds:

The fossil record overwhelmingly shows stasis and sudden appearance, not continuous change.
This pattern is precisely what we would expect from separate creation or designed kinds — each stable within its range, adapting epigenetically but not morphologically transforming into new body plans.

Ten Major Scientific Problems with the Theory of Evolution

The Cambrian Explosion
The sudden appearance of complex, fully formed animal body plans during the Cambrian period, without identifiable evolutionary precursors, remains one of the most serious challenges to Darwinian evolution. The fossil record shows an abrupt “explosion” of biodiversity within a geologically brief window of time, inconsistent with the slow, gradual branching expected from random mutation and selection.
The Gaps in the Fossil Record
Despite over 150 years of intensive fossil exploration, transitional forms between major animal groups remain conspicuously rare or absent. The fossil record reveals abrupt appearances, stasis, and sudden disappearances rather than a continuous evolutionary sequence. This pattern fits far better with discrete creation or design than with gradual transformation.
The Limits of Random Mutation and Natural Selection
Modern genetics has shown that random mutations typically degrade or neutralize genetic information rather than creating new, functional structures. Selection can only act on existing variation—it cannot generate new biological innovations. No known mechanism demonstrates how complex systems such as eyes, wings, or cellular molecular machines could evolve step by step through random errors.
Epigenetics Contradicts the Neo-Darwinian Model
Epigenetic regulation—heritable changes in gene expression that do not alter DNA sequences—has revealed a highly dynamic, information-rich system that adapts organisms rapidly to environmental conditions. These mechanisms operate under precise cellular control and are reversible, showing purposeful adaptation rather than random evolution. They produce variation but not new species through DNA mutation.
Epigenetic regulation makes DNA more vulnerable to harmful mutations, especially C>T alterations. This leads to inevitable genetic entropy.
Irreducible Complexity in Biological Systems
Many cellular systems, such as the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting cascade, and ATP synthase, are composed of interdependent parts that have no functional meaning unless all are present simultaneously. Such systems cannot arise through small, successive modifications because intermediate stages would confer no survival advantage.
The Origin of Genetic Information
DNA is a coded language containing digital information, instructions, and error-correction systems. No natural process has ever been observed to generate genuine new information of this kind. Information theory and molecular biology both point toward intelligent causation rather than unguided chemistry.
The Origin of Life Problem
Even before evolution could begin, a self-replicating, information-bearing system must exist. Abiogenesis experiments have repeatedly failed to produce anything close to the complexity of living cells. The required coordination of proteins, nucleic acids, and metabolic systems defies statistical probability under natural conditions.
Developmental Biology and the Body Plan Barrier
Research in embryology shows that mutations affecting body plans act early in development and are typically lethal or severely deforming. Small genetic changes cannot transform one fundamental body architecture into another, posing a major barrier to macroevolution.
Molecular and Genetic Discontinuities
Comparative genomics has revealed clear genetic boundaries between major taxa. The expected gradual genetic continuum between species is not observed; instead, organisms cluster into distinct groups—consistent with the concept of created “kinds.”
The Fine-Tuned Complexity of Biological Systems
From protein folding to cellular communication networks, life depends on finely tuned parameters. These interdependent systems exhibit hallmarks of design—precision, purpose, and integration—that random processes cannot plausibly explain.

2025/10/21

Skinks prove rapid epigenetic adaptation - No evolution

Reversible Transitions Between Viviparity and Oviparity in Skinks: Evidence for Epigenetic Regulation

Among vertebrates, live-bearing (viviparity) and egg-laying (oviparity) represent two distinct reproductive strategies, each requiring complex and tightly coordinated developmental programs. Viviparity involves profound physiological and molecular modifications, including uterine remodeling, suppression of maternal immune rejection, nutrient and gas exchange regulation, and hormonal synchronization between mother and embryo. Because of these interconnected systems, evolutionary biologists have long regarded viviparity as an evolutionary dead end—a state from which reversion to oviparity would be virtually impossible (Blackburn, 2015; Reynolds et al., 2013).

However, compelling evidence has emerged from studies on the common lizard (Zootoca vivipara), a European skink species displaying both oviparous and viviparous populations. Phylogenetic and genomic analyses have suggested that the viviparous condition likely evolved first, followed by a secondary reversion to egg-laying in at least one western European lineage (Lorig et al., 2013; Cornetti et al., 2015). If confirmed, this represents the first well-documented case of a reversible transition from live-bearing back to egg-laying among vertebrates.

Given the extensive suite of coordinated developmental changes required for each reproductive mode, such reversibility is difficult to explain through the slow accumulation of random mutations alone. Instead, these findings point toward epigenetic regulatory systems—mechanisms that can rapidly reprogram gene expression without altering DNA sequence. DNA methylation, histone modification, and non-coding RNA networks control uterine differentiation, placental gene activation, and embryonic-maternal communication in both reptiles and mammals. These same systems are responsive to environmental cues such as temperature, photoperiod, and nutritional status—factors that could act as epigenetic switches determining whether the embryonic developmental program proceeds toward viviparity or oviparity.

The Zootoca vivipara case, therefore, provides an intriguing model of developmental plasticity under epigenetic control. The coexistence of both reproductive modes within a single species suggests that the underlying genetic architecture remains largely intact, while the expression of key regulatory pathways is environmentally modulated through reversible epigenetic mechanisms. Such a framework implies that environmental factors can trigger coordinated, system-level changes in reproductive physiology through pre-existing, design-based regulatory networks rather than random mutational processes.

Further research combining comparative epigenomics, uterine transcriptomics, and experimental environmental manipulation is needed to clarify the causal mechanisms. Nonetheless, the observed reversibility of reproductive mode in skinks challenges the traditional view of viviparity as a one-way evolutionary transition and strongly supports the idea that complex, epigenetically regulated adaptive systems were designed to maintain reproductive flexibility within created kinds.

The rapid ability of skinks to switch from egg-laying to live birth does not result from random mutations and natural selection, but from precisely functioning epigenetic mechanisms. Epigenetic changes are dynamic and reversible. However, they place stress on the genome, causing subtle errors in the DNA. Therefore, genetic degeneration is an inevitable reality throughout all of creation.

Evolution never happened.

Key References:

Blackburn, D. G. (2015). Evolution of viviparity and placentation in the squamate reptiles. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 115(4), 815–828.
Cornetti, L., et al. (2015). Phylogeographic evidence for a reversal from viviparity to oviparity in the common lizard (Zootoca vivipara). Nature Ecology & Evolution.
Lorig, R., et al. (2013). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 69, 1213–1223.
Reynolds, A. M., et al. (2013). Evolution, 67(1), 245–253.

Numbers That Destroy the Theory of Evolution

The Numbers That Destroy the Theory of Evolution

The debate over the functional portion of the human genome has significant implications for our understanding of genetic functionality and evolutionary theory. Various scientists have proposed different estimates for how much of the genome is functional, often suggesting that if a large portion is functional, the high mutation rates would make evolution predominantly destructive. Here, we present a comprehensive list of these estimates and the related implications for evolutionary theory.

Estimates of Functional Genome Proportion - The Junk-DNA Theory

A few years ago most scientists thought that the so-called junk-DNA acted as a buffer against harmful mutations:

Dan Graur (2013): "At least 85% of the human genome is non-functional, with a possible upper limit for functionality being as low as 10%."
- Source: Graur et al., Genome Biology and Evolution
Sean R. Eddy (2013): "More than 90% of the human genome is likely junk DNA with no significant biological function."
- Source: Eddy, PLOS Computational Biology
Lynch (2007): "Only about 5% of the human genome is under purifying selection, implying functionality."
- Source: Lynch, The Origins of Genome Architecture
Brenner (1998): "Only about 3% of the human genome is functional."
- Source: Brenner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Nessa Carey (2012): "The functional proportion of the genome is probably around 8-15%."
- Source: Carey, The Epigenetics Revolution
Larry Moran (2011): "Functionality in the human genome may be limited to less than 10%."
- Source: Moran, Sandwalk Blog

Functional Genome and Evolution as a Destructive Process

Scientists know that without a buffering junk-DNA protection, evolution becomes a destructive process:

Dan Graur (2013): "If much more than 10-15% of the genome is functional, the mutation rate would lead to a lethal mutational load."
- Source: Graur et al., Genome Biology and Evolution
Ewan Birney (2012): The claim that 80% of the genome is functional has led to critiques that such a high functionality would make mutation accumulation untenable.
- Source: The ENCODE Project Consortium, Nature
Larry Moran (2013): "If much more than 10% of the genome were functional, the accumulation of deleterious mutations would result in a high genetic load that would be unsustainable."
- Source: Moran, Sandwalk Blog
Sean R. Eddy (2013): "The high estimate of functional DNA proposed by ENCODE cannot be reconciled with the observed mutation rates and population genetics."
- Source: Eddy, PLOS Computational Biology

Transcription and Non-Coding RNAs

Recent research has shown that a significant portion of the genome is transcribed into non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), which play various regulatory roles:

Mattick and Makunin (2006): "A significant proportion of the human genome, up to 90%, is transcribed into ncRNAs."
- Source: Mattick and Makunin, Human Molecular Genetics
Nessa Carey (2012): "Approximately 70-90% of the human genome is transcribed into RNA, most of which does not code for proteins but has regulatory functions."
- Source: Carey, The Epigenetics Revolution
Ewan Birney (ENCODE Project, 2012): "The ENCODE project suggests that 80% of the human genome has some biochemical function."
- Source: The ENCODE Project Consortium, Nature
ENCODE Project (2012): "The project identified that 75% of the human genome is transcribed at some point in development, suggesting extensive transcriptional activity."
- Source: The ENCODE Project Consortium, Nature
John Mattick (2004): "Non-coding RNAs transcribed from as much as 98% of the genome may have regulatory functions."
- Source: Mattick, BioEssays

Summary and conclusions:

Mutational load (genetic load) is a phenomenon recognized by every serious scientist and biologist. Leading evolutionary biologists have admitted that if more than 5–20% (estimates vary) of the human genome is functional, evolution becomes a destructive process. Current research shows that over 90% of human DNA is read into transcription, and even the remaining 10% has been found to serve regulatory functions. The “junk DNA” theory is dead and buried—but mutational load is a biological fact. This means that genetic entropy is an inevitable biological reality.

Evolution never happened.

2025/06/23

Evolution is a destructive process

Evolution Is Not a Creative Force but a Destructive Process – How Genomic Function and Mutation Load Refute Evolution

Introduction

According to classical evolutionary theory, random mutations and natural selection together form the engine that drives biological development from simple lifeforms to complex organisms. However, recent discoveries in genomics have begun to seriously challenge this framework. New data on the functional extent of the human genome and the relentless accumulation of mutations suggest that evolution, far from being a creative force, is actually a destructive, degenerative process.

This article explores the incompatibility of evolution with observed mutation rates, and the implications of the fact that most of the human genome is actively transcribed and functionally important. We conclude with a realistic estimate of how many generations remain before human reproduction becomes biologically impossible – all within the context of a biblical timeline that includes creation and the genetic bottleneck after the global Flood.

Genomic Function: Transcription Across the Genome

Until the early 2000s, much of the human genome was thought to be "junk DNA" – inactive sequences that had accumulated through random evolutionary processes. This belief provided a convenient cushion for evolution, as mutations in "junk" regions were assumed to be harmless.

However, large-scale projects such as ENCODE (2012) and subsequent transcriptomic studies radically altered that view:

“More than 90% of the human genome is likely to be transcribed, yielding a complex network of overlapping transcripts that include tens of thousands of long RNAs with little or no protein-forming capacity.”
(Kung et al., 2013; ENCODE Consortium, 2012)

This means the human genome is not passive or mostly irrelevant, but highly active and full of non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) that regulate gene expression, chromatin structure, development, stress responses, and more. These findings greatly expand the concept of functionality, calling into question the very assumptions evolution depends on.

Mutation Load: The Genome Cannot Tolerate Full Functionality

Mutation load refers to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in a population over generations. Modern studies estimate that each human inherits about 60–100 new mutations per generation (Kondrashov, 2003). If only 5–10% of the genome is functional, most of these mutations may be harmless. But if 90–100% is functional, as current data indicate, most mutations will be harmful to some degree.

This reality has been explored in depth by John Sanford, a former genetics professor at Cornell University, in his book Genetic Entropy:

"Natural selection cannot effectively eliminate slightly harmful mutations, so they inevitably accumulate. This leads to degeneration, not evolution."

The critical point:

Natural selection is powerless against the vast majority of slightly deleterious mutations (Kimura & Crow, 1970).
If the genome is almost entirely functional, mutation burden rapidly exceeds what a population can endure.

Even leading evolutionary biologist Dan Graur admitted:

“If 80% of the genome is functional, then evolution is wrong.”
(Graur et al., 2013)

The Accelerating Pace of Genetic Degeneration

Genetic decay does not proceed at a constant rate. Several factors make degeneration exponential over time:

Mutations in DNA repair genes reduce the cell’s ability to correct future errors.
Disruption of epigenetic control leads to faulty gene expression and cellular dysfunction.
Compounding of mutational load increases vulnerability in every generation.

As these faults accumulate, mutations begin to target essential systems such as fertility, immunity, and development, pushing the population closer to a crisis point.

The Biblical Timeline and the Final Countdown

Let’s consider the human timeline from a young-earth creationist perspective:

Creation occurred ~6000 years ago
The global Flood occurred ~4500 years ago, resulting in a severe genetic bottleneck (only three sons of Noah contributed to the modern gene pool)
Assuming ~25 years per generation, we are ~180 generations past the Flood.

Sanford’s genetic entropy model estimates that a human population cannot remain genetically viable for more than ~250–300 generations under current mutation rates, especially without the ability to remove slightly deleterious mutations.

➤ This implies that we are approaching a biological tipping point:

🔚 Humanity may reach critical degeneration within 70–120 more generations (i.e., in the next 500–1000 years), depending on environmental stressors and the use of artificial technologies (e.g., gene therapy, IVF) to maintain fertility.

Conclusion: Evolution Is a Self-Defeating Process

In summary:

The vast majority of the genome is functionally transcribed and regulated, not inert.
Mutations accumulate relentlessly, and most are mildly harmful, especially when the genome is highly functional.
Natural selection lacks the precision and efficiency to eliminate such mutations.
Genetic degeneration is accelerating, especially as it damages systems responsible for maintaining genomic integrity.

Together, these facts refute the evolutionary model, which requires vast amounts of time, neutral DNA, and an unlimited tolerance for mutation. Instead, they strongly support the view that the human genome was originally created perfect, but is now decaying under the curse of sin, as described in Scripture.

Evolution, when viewed through the lens of modern genetics, is not a process of improvement, but a one-way path to biological extinction. And according to the data, that extinction is not millions of years away – it may be within the visible horizon of human history.

References

ENCODE Project Consortium. (2012). An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature, 489, 57–74.
Kung, J. T. Y., Colognori, D., & Lee, J. T. (2013). Noncoding RNAs: Biological functions and applications. Epigenetics & Chromatin, 6(1).
Sanford, J. (2014). Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications.
Kimura, M., & Crow, J. F. (1970). The number of alleles that can be maintained in a finite population. Genetics, 49(4), 725–738.
Kondrashov, A. S. (2003). Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases. Human Mutation, 21(1), 12–27.
Graur, D., Zheng, Y., Price, N., Azevedo, R. B. R., Zufall, R. A., & Elhaik, E. (2013). On the immortality of television sets: “Function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biology and Evolution, 5(3), 578–590.

2025/06/19

The Tailbone is not an evolutionary leftover

The Human Embryonic Tail – A Functional Structure, Not a Vestige

During human embryonic development, particularly between the 4th and 8th weeks, the embryo exhibits a tail-like protrusion extending beyond the developing lower limbs. Evolutionary biologists often interpret this structure as a “vestigial tail,” claiming it to be a non-functional remnant of our primate ancestry. However, this interpretation is not supported by what is now understood about human development and embryology.

Recent developmental biology shows that the so-called “embryonic tail” is not a leftover of evolution, but rather a necessary and functional part of normal vertebral development. It contains mesodermal tissue, developing somites, and part of the neural tube. These components contribute directly to the formation of the coccyx (tailbone) – the terminal end of the vertebral column – and are crucial in patterning and organizing the lower spine and associated tissues.

The transient elongation of this caudal structure during early development is simply a result of differential growth rates: the spinal column initially grows faster than other surrounding tissues, causing a temporary projection. As development proceeds, tissues catch up, and the “tail” is reabsorbed or integrated into the lower back as the coccygeal vertebrae. This is a precisely regulated process, involving genes that guide the segmentation and morphogenesis of the entire spine.

Moreover, studies have shown that disruption in this process can lead to congenital malformations of the spine, underscoring the importance of this temporary structure. Far from being useless, it plays a critical role in the timing, positioning, and alignment of the body’s axial structures.

In summary, the so-called embryonic tail is not a vestigial evolutionary leftover, but an integral part of human development, serving a defined biological purpose. Its presence is consistent with intelligent design and careful regulation, not with random mutation and evolutionary accidents.

Main Functions and Roles of the Coccyx (Tailbone):

Attachment Point for Muscles, Tendons, and Ligaments
The coccyx serves as an attachment site for several pelvic floor muscles and connective tissues, including:

Gluteus maximus (buttock muscle)
Muscles of the levator ani group (an essential part of the pelvic floor)
Coccygeus muscle (supports pelvic organs and forms part of the pelvic floor)

These muscles help support pelvic organs such as the bladder, uterus, and rectum.

Balance and Postural Support
The coccyx acts as a point of support when sitting or leaning backward, especially in semi-seated or crouched positions.

It helps distribute pressure and stabilize the body in a sitting position, working together with the ischial bones (sit bones).

Protective Structure for Nerves and Blood Vessels
The coccyx forms a partial shield for certain neural structures (e.g., the ganglion impar, a solitary sympathetic ganglion at the coccyx).

This is also associated with sensory perception in the lower body.

Scientific Perspective:

Many researchers in anatomy and physiology consider the coccyx a functional structure, not a vestigial one.
For instance, Gray’s Anatomy (a classic medical reference) describes the coccyx as playing an important structural role as an anchor point for the pelvic floor muscles.

Summary:

The coccyx is not a useless remnant, but rather:

A point of attachment for essential muscles and connective tissues
A contributor to posture control and balance
A supporter of internal pelvic organs
A protector of neural and vascular structures

All of this points to a purposeful and functional structure — not a random product of evolution.

Conclusion:

The embryonic "tail" in humans is a developmentally functional and transient structure that contributes to proper spinal formation – not an evolutionary relic.

2025/06/17

Natural Selection is an Imaginary Force

Mutations and Selection – Or Mechanisms?

1. Fish and Salinity: Adaptive Osmoregulation

Evolutionary view: Evolutionary biologists propose that fish populations adapting to varying salinity levels undergo random mutations affecting ion transporters and membrane proteins, with natural selection favoring variants better suited to saltwater or freshwater environments.

Epigenetic reality: Studies on species like the European sea bass and three-spined stickleback show that fish sense salinity changes via osmoreceptors, triggering intracellular signaling cascades. These cascades modify the methylation status of key osmoregulatory genes in gill tissues, altering expression without changing the DNA sequence. The adaptation is rapid, reversible, and even heritable over generations.