Replacing Darwin Made Simple

By the way @dsterncardinale, for future reference this is how Jeanson writes about his development-as-evidence-for-rapid-evolution argument in his supplemental book to Replacing Darwin: “Replacing Darwin Made Simple”.


Oh my goodness, I just read that book yesterday, cover to cover, highlighting all the while. What a cluster. There are just plainly false statements made as 100% certain facts. And you got a shout-out near the end, though he didn’t seem interested in engaging with anything you said. Shocker.


Yeah I was pretty disappointed when I saw that despite referencing my series of critiques, he doesn’t bother to actually respond to a single thing I said. I wrote over 34,000 words critically evaluating Jeanson’s arguments - 6,000 more than this entire book of his. Still, he doesn’t think any of it is worth responding to in the section of his book dedicated to responding to critics, despite me apparently being the only person to “rigorously attempt to engage” with key parts of his work.
For the benefit of everyone else, this is the section of the book where Jeanson mentions me (references 117 and 118 are references to one of my blog posts):


My annotation next to that second to last sentence reads “you dolt he’s testing YOUR predictions”.

My annotations get progressively more irritated chapter by chapter.


Since you’re only a graduate student, not a real professional PhD sciencey guy, you can be taunted and not taken seriously, just as the French did to King Arthur. Your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries.


Jeanson: “ However, I have yet to see evolutionists produce a study that documents years of observation of a group of species but shows no formation of new species .”


Creationists have been claiming for decades that we aren’t seeing new species evolving, and now Jeanson claims that we have always seen new species evolving, in every long-term study that’s ever been done.

Either I’m misunderstanding Jeanson’s text, or Jeanson is bonkers.

Maybe some-one should buy him Meerkat Manor[1] for Christmas.

  1. While it focusses primarily on the meerkats, I suspect the researchers in the Kalahari meerkat project would notice a new species of snake, scorpion or eagle evolving in their vicinity. ↩︎


Or it’s bad writing and he didn’t intend a double negative.

1 Like

At some point I’m going to do write/record a review of this book. My jaw was on the floor basically the whole time.

Some highlights (these are not direct quotes but I can provide direct quotes upon request):

He breaks out “but how did male and female evolve?”

He says speciation (“within kinds”) is due to loss of heterozygosity. Like, that’s the mechanism.

“Since evolutionists assume constant rates for nuclear decay, if they’re consistent they also have to assume constant rates of genetic change.”

“Since everyone agrees that all the “breeds” in domesticated animals originated in the last 12k years or so, and there’s more variation in breeds than there is between some species, everyone should agree that all the speciation of everything alive could also happen in thousands of years.”

Says evolutionists would claim we haven’t witnessed 10 new species in the last few thousand years.

“Speciation rates within families are linear.”

And so, so much more.


I would like to publish that review at Peaceful Science please.

And we also use a far slower rate than Jeanson.

Notice the switch from “some” to “all”?

1 Like

None of those three are mutually exclusive!


That’s connected to this claim:

Which is to say he misunderstands what “evolutionists” (rather “evolutionary theory”) predicts.

This reminds me a lot of Walter ReMine’s move in Biotic Message.

Scientists present nested clades as evidence of evolution. Creationists argue mightily against nested clades, presenting all the exceptions that show they aren’t perfectly nested clades. ReMine judos the whole conversation by arguing that the perfectly nested clades are clear evidence of creation over evolution, because evolution doesn’t produce perfect nested clades.

See the problem?

Scientists present the origin of several new “species” or “kinds” as evidence of evolution. Creationists argue against many of these examples of speciation, claiming that they are not significant changes. Now Jeanson argues that known examples of speciation are so common and pervasive it is a problem for evolutionary science.

See the problem here?


Quoting Jeanson:

What everyone would agree on is that a bunch of purebred pedigree dogs left to their own devices over generations will result in mutts. A bunch of mutts left to their own devices will not result in purebreds. Scientists understand this, but so do hairdressers, stock traders, taxi drivers, and airline pilots. How badly must you want to support a predetermined conclusion to buy into such a cracker statement by Jeanson?


The way I understand it, modern creationists claim there is no evolution from one kind to another but speciation within kinds is ongoing, often in a historically observable time frame. See Jeanson’s writeups on Darwin’s finches.

And yes, AFAIK he does mean that any long term study would show speciation.

It’s nice that you confirm the constant rate of change part of that sentence though.


No creationist equates species to kinds. Where is a paper that show the origins of the new kinds? Whales are still whales. Salamanders are still salamanders. SARS-Cov-2 is still a virus. Bacteria is still bacteria. Creationists argue that mutation loses information or speciation loses created heterozygosity.

I can’t remember if this flower research came up in the forum recently or I brought it up.

But the ID folks did a good job of explaining this, though I think this is a case of these flowers becoming more homozygous. I’m not sure how to differentiate between created alleles and broken genes though. That would be an interesting topic to research!

One of the reasons mainstream evolutionary biology is bonkers to me as it stands, is that it’s not consistent at all! There is no one theory that everyone subscribes to. I can see it when reading what mainstream biologists write on this forum. Creationists’ explanations of evolution make much more sense. The irony of that doesn’t escape me. The only place “evolutionists” have a point is when showing novel traits show up in very simple organisms. That’s where YEC has an advantage over ID again IMO. I do think there’s control mechanisms that haven’t been discovered yet. ID tends to over-argue about broken genes.

That last paragraph of course is all my opinion on the state of the science. Think me bonkers if you must.

Isn’t this also true of creationism?

If speciation can happen, given enough time, wouldn’t it be possible for new kinds to also arise? comparing the bone structures between different mammals shows lots of similarities. There are textbook pictures showing those types of relationships suggesting common ancestors

God is creative enough: why didn’t he make some kinds that do not look like they evolved and do not fit into nested clades? Have any creationists found an example of a unique kind without similarities to other kinds?


I don’t think he did that. Not specifically commenting on something is not the same as confirming it.

Rates of genetic changes can be highly variable over time.

If Paulinella chromatophora and Elysia chlorotica do not constitute “new kinds” then the concept is meaningless and basically any degree of change is possible “within kinds”.


Not true. Hugh Ross does, for example. Now in fact very few creationists can identify so much as a single kind (except for Homo sapiens, which they’re all sure of). Kinds expand or contract at need. You seem to think that whales are a kind, as are salamanders, vuruses, and bacteria. Yet the diversity of salamanders dwarfs that of whales, bacteria are orders of magnitude more diverse, and viruses even more so. One might attribute that to your personal ignorance, but most creationists are similarly vague. Not even the supposed creation scientists, baraminologists, have been able to determine what the “kinds” are, even though one would expect separate creations to be easily identifiable. Ask yourself why that’s the case.


Consider the breadth of all of the research published on evolution and biology. There are libraries upon libraries of technical literature, compared to the single bookshelf or so of creationist and ID published work. If you take that sheer amount of writing into account, mainstream biologists agree exceptionally well, especially compared to creationists.

Further, creationists have a conclusion that they all already agree on (genesis). Considering that biologists start with data and experiments and come to conclusions based on what they observe, the fact that they agree at all is a testament that the scientific method produces consistent, verifiable results.

Creationists’ explanations of evolution make much more sense. The irony of that doesn’t escape me.

I would strongly disagree. Creationists’ explanations of evolution vary based on the argument they are making. For example, AiG has defined microevolution:

As adaption within an organism’s lifetime:

“this is a small-scale change allowing an organism to adapt to its environment…”

As expression of dominant and recessive traits:

“Microevolution” is a term representing small changes in living things (for example a difference in hair color or height from a previous generation),”

As changes within a species:

“Evolution can be used in the sense of change in a species by natural selection.”

And, as change within baramin kinds like you suggest.

”Where is a paper that show the origins of the new kinds?”

When you include organizations besides AiG, and individual creationists, the variety of opinions is even more wild. This kind of inconsistency seems to shift based on who is writing which argument, and is an atrocious explanation of the actual science.

The only place “evolutionists” have a point is when showing novel traits show up in very simple organisms.

Is this not a strong point, though? In animals with short enough generation times to be observed over an evolutionary significant time period, we observe novel traits arising. Simple organisms are governed by the same genetic principles as more complex organisms, right?

That’s where YEC has an advantage over ID again IMO. I do think there’s control mechanisms that haven’t been discovered yet. ID tends to over-argue about broken genes.

For what it’s worth, I totally agree with you here. I think if baramin kinds cannot adapt into each other and new information cannot arise as YECs predict, creationists have a huge opportunity to discover and define the genetic barriers between kinds and the control mechanisms in place. I think that every scientist on this site would agree with me that a confirmed prediction of that nature would revolutionize biology.

I do find it strange that no creationists anywhere are looking for those genetic mechanisms, though, and that no geneticist have stumbled across them. Indeed, most creationists seem to just sweep genetics underAdd images

the rug. Maybe they know that there are know real mechanisms to discover?


And yet creationists never come up with a usable definition of “kind.” What’s perfectly clear is that “kinds” get tinier as their members become more obviously related to humans, showing that “kind” is a post hoc political construct with zero basis in biology.

As in:

Don’t many do so with humans? Clearly all treat the single genus Homo as a kind, right?

Whales are an infraorder. Lots of genera, lots of species. It contains two very different groups, toothed and baleen whales. Do you think that all that diversity evolved within thousands of years?

Salamanders are an order. Do you not see how silly it is to use the names of huge clades as though they are something much smaller?

And it’s not exhibiting a bit of “genetic entropy,” proving Sanford dead wrong in real time.

“Bacteria” is the plural of “bacterium,” so “Bacteria are” is the correct conjugation. More to the point, bacteria are a huge kingdom. You’ve just demonstrated that your use of “kind” is utterly meaningless as a classification.

But do you believe them and argue that too?

He didn’t do anything of the sort. You owe him a retraction and apology.


What’s a kind? Where does the line cross from within to no-longer-within a kind?

Whales, salamanders, viruses, and bacteria are some rather diverse clades. Do those roughly correspond to kinds in your view? So you’re okay with all whales sharing a common ancestor, all salamanders sharing a common ancestor, all viruses sharing a common virus ancestor, and all bacteria sharing a common ancestor? If not, where’s the limit?

But they can’t define it consistently, and then we’re back to the kinds problem. Notice how you don’t get any theories of kinds, or information, from creationists, so they can bullshit to the end of days about how something doesn’t count as s gain of information, or a new kind, until the cows come home. Are you okay with that?