Lent's Review of Darwin Devolves a Top DI Story of the Year



Im a little confused by their latest line of argumentation. For the longest time their argument seemed to be significant evolutionary change needs a gain in information. But research shows this isn’t necessarily true. See here:

So now we know evolutionary change doesn’t really require lots of new information and now this is somehow a problem for evolution? I haven’t worked this all out in my head but I feel like there is some tension between this argument and their earlier ones.


@NLENTS, looks like our review of Darwin Devolves is much anticipated. At some point, we should reveal the publication it will be in, and our mystery third author. It appears that the article by @bjmiller commenting on your review (which became our review) was among their top stories of the year. @bjmiller, was that by web hits or was it picked for another reason?

1 Like

Its not accurate to use marine mammals. this, and I understand other, yEC thinkers insist marine mammals were not created on creation week but only adapted to the seas after the flood from land loving Ark inmates.
This because the seas were destroyed of life save gods provision like on the ark. So animals fuldfilled gods command to fill the earth/niches and they did.
They did not evolve by selection on mutations but did instantly in a few generations have great diversity of marine mammals. Indeed uniquely do they show a previous bodyplan and probably a previous genetic plan along with that.
Its not accurate sampling to use them for claims of the host of biology on genes showing evolution.
( I use the word mammals although i don’t agree there is such a group in nature but just to be clear)

I’d say we should wait until its formally accepted. While they did invite us to send it, which means they probably want it, they’re by no means committed and they could end up with less space than they thought, other editors may chime in and feel that DD doesn’t warrant a response, etc., etc. So maybe let’s hold off for another couple weeks.


This can’t possibly be a serious claim.


Clearly you are not familiar with Robert Byers.


Well Nathan you certainly have a ‘nose’ for this sort of thing.

Yes. We only have results. No process was observed. Its guessing. For example peoples colours/bodyplans changed quickly after the flood and was finished within a few, or less, centuries.
The glory of biology allows a option that it has within it great ability to change as needed. A plasticity, often noted in island reptile studies etc, that is triggered once a threshold has passed.
Why not?
Why say this, unlikely, lucky mutations arrive as needed and then selection on them and a crawling progression of turning a poulation from one bodyplan to another.

A special case of creatures able to fill a empty seas. Creatures with evidence in their bodies of previous bodyplans is less then 1% and very less. marine mammals are not accuarte sampling for biology.

Thank you for sharing this with me.

1 Like

Did you figure all of this out by yourself, or did you have help? Inquiring minds want to know.


I definitely want to see the math on that one.

Also, which species are you conceding as having “evidence in their bodies of previous bodyplans”? What structures do they have which led you to this surprising concession.

Why? And what is your definition of “accurate sampling”?

1 Like

There has been glorious biological change since the Fall. no Creator involved after creation week.
Then after the flood there was again glorious biological change to allow biology to fill the earth in a limited timeframe.
Therefore there must be mechanism to do this. obviously we have human speciation as a example that everyone must agree with since everyone, now, agrees all humans came from a original small population. Look at us now!
Why not these mechanisms are within the existing biological system/genetic system?
They just need to be triggered after thresholds are crossed. there are now examples of creatures that change from innate mechanisms in bodyplans without selection on mutation. Plasticity has become, however unwelcome, a term to describe it.
why not this mechanism is common, great, historic and better explains population bodyplan changes then unlikely selection on a few lucky mutations.
The glory of biology is already within biology however hidden.

Marine mammals would be amongst the few. The other 99% are unrelated . They have no evidence in their bodies of previous bodyplans. This because there is no evolution going on but instead instant bodyplan changes.
Snakes show thier previous leggy lives. heaps of ground flightless birds show atropied wings etc. Including T-rex as I see it. Probably a few more I can’t remember. YET THATS IT.
Evolutionists do sample marine mammals to PROVE evolution or rather prove important bodyplan change.
Yet it doesn’t prove mechanism and in facxt proves the opposite. The utter lack of anatomical evidence of creatures having changed from bodyplan to bodyplan.
If evolution was true it would not be this way. All creatures would be crawling with bits and pieces of bodyplan(s) they previously had in a long evolving history.

Many, not enough, YEC need to see marine mammals as creatures off the ark.
They clearly are in the blueprint limited options that indicate a land loving origin.
Also thee are no fossils of them below the k-t line, flood line for many YEC.