AIG Plays With Six Tiger Sub-Species

Fewer than 4,000 free-ranging tigers remain in the wild. Efforts to protect these remaining tigers have also been stymied by uncertainty about whether they represent six, five or only two subspecies. Now, researchers who’ve analyzed the complete genomes of 32 representative tiger specimens confirm that tigers indeed fall into six genetically distinct groups.


1 Like

Very interesting. Thank you for posting.

Now Jeanson and Ken Ham are weighing in about the tiger subspecies:

Evolutionists have long thought that species take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form. In contrast, young-earth creationists believe that tens of thousands of new species formed from the “kinds” on board the Ark—and that this process took only about 4,500 years. For example, the over 5,000 mammals species alive today (e.g., elephants, giraffes, zebras, tigers) arose in just 4,500 years from less than 200 mammal “kinds” on board the Ark.

Nice to see it stated so plainly. Hyper-evolution.

1 Like

@Joel_Duff, what is their internal logic to make this claim? Does Scripture ever mention tigers? What about the ostrich?

@swamidass, could you clarify your question? The article mentions mammals. I would dare venture that the bible does not mention mammals. Without doubt the bible mentions lions (and lambs). Not sure why you are focusing on tigers.

My question would be which 200 mammals. And more to the point, how do they establish the common descent of modern tiger species from one or more of the mammal species on the ark?

And furthermore, why does the same sort of evidence that they appeal to to establish the common descent of all tigers from a common ancestor not also apply all mammals. And if to all mammals why not beyond mammals to a shared ancestry of mammals and … [insert nearest neighbor]?

This is one reason I accept common descent. I don’t know how to draw the lines that can identify where it stops.

1 Like

On today’s FB live Answers New they talked about this study. Ham and Purdom speak as if its obvious that the felines are a “kind” and thus there were only 2 on the ark. So therefore - rapid post-flood speciation. Jeanson is excited about this study because he thinks that these 6 subspieces just have arisen in just recently and therefore are on the cusp of becoming new species. This is right from his book. He, along with Ham, Hodge and Purdom, today talked about how there are so many more subspecies than there are species of animals on earth. They all seemed convinced that this must mean that speciation is happening very rapidly and maybe species diversity is continuing to advance. I don’t know how they fit this into the massive extinction going on!
I looked at the original paper. I wonder if Jeanson looked at it? It he had looked at the mtDNA tree he would notice that the difference between any two tigers subspecies members is LESS than that found between different living humans. Surely he isnt’ going to propose that humans are about to speciate!? The break between tigers and lions is on par with the differences between humans and chimps. So clueless about population dynamics and speciation rates.

I especially like Jeanson’s last line: " the fact that so many subspecies exists is a smoking gun for their recent origin" He had to have my “smoking gun” post on his mind when he wrote that:-) Why does he seem to think that there being more subspecies than species is some sort of shocking discovery. It should be obvious there should always be more subspecies than species right?


There are many mammals mentioned scripture. I can’t get the donkey from Palm Sunday out of my head now. I’m sure you can come up with other examples.

Because…the original post was about tigers…?

Very helpful @Joel_Duff. Makes more sense where they are coming from. I really appreciate the work you do to really engage with their understanding of the world.


Sorry, I meant the word “mammal.” I thought you were asking about references to the word “tiger” so I thought that would come through. I could have been more clear. :slight_smile:

1 Like

From the Sensuous Curmudgeon…

1 Like

I have enough difficulty figuring out the best definition of species, let alone subspecies.

A half century ago, at least some “creation scientists” seemed to put a lot more emphasis on hybrids being a primary explanation for why fossils “falsely” looked like evidence of evolution. Now it seems like the focus is on embracing as much high speed evolution as possible without actually calling it that. Yet, considering that Greek and Roman authors of 2000 years ago describe animals which sound remarkably similar to today’s animals, why is that “hyperspeed speciation” so hard to observe in a time frame around one-half of the time span since Noah’s Flood?

Ken Ham used to say (and I thought that the Ark Encounter still does in its exhibit diagrams) that all of that post-Flood speciation took place in the first hundred years after the animals left the ark. (I have no idea how Ham made that determination—other than the convenience of such a miracle coming at the very time the earth needed to be repopulated.) So I wonder if AIG is moving more towards a continuous hyper-speciation model.

At Answers in Genesis it seems likes every new scientific discovery is “totally shocking to evolutionists” but not shocking to biblical creationists who accept “God’s infallible Word over man’s fallible word.”

Meanwhile, AIG also argues that the Theory of Evolution is so extremely flexible and consisting of mostly “just so stories” which fit absolutely any new discovery, then why would anybody be shocked at all? How can they have it both ways?

It just seems like if hyperspeed speciation has been so rampant since Noah’s Flood, we should be observing “transitional forms” in countless varieties everywhere we look. Isn’t that always their complaint about evolutionary theory—not enough “transitional forms” found in the fossil record? If their hyper-speciation hypothesis is true, why don’t we see far more variation and subspecies in “real time”? If evolutionary biology and paleontology lack sufficient “intermediate forms”, shouldn’t their accelerated speciation model require even more impressive examples of transitions?

For that matter, if Noah’s Flood is allegedly responsible for most of the world sedimentary rocks (almost the entire geologic column, according to many YECs), shouldn’t the “fossil column” be mostly a “freeze frame” view of just the species and subspecies living when the flood drowned them all?

I have a hard time tracking their scattershot model. (It’s almost as if there really isn’t one! :grinning:)