An extensive literature review on some of these issues was carried out by L.J. Gibson of the Geoscience Research Institute, and fascinating possibilities exist to account for these phenomena. Briefly, the main potential for change and speciation can be summarized as follows:

1) Breed selection from existing built-in variation:

Examples would be the breeding of the various breeds of dogs, cats, domestic cattle, pigeons and poultry. Some naturally occurring species how similar differences in clines (gradient of change in population or species correlated with the direction or orientation of some environmental feature, such as a river, mountain range, north-south transect, altitude, etc.) such as the corn snake Elophe which differs in colour and scale number along a cline. Seasonal variation in colour, fur thickness, etc., are further examples.

2)Loss of genetic material:

Loss of genetic material has led to speciation. Loss of flight is common in birds, particularly in island birds where flight can be a distinct disadvantage as the birds can be blown out to sea in storms and not make land again. Often related species retain the capacity to fly. Examples are the flightless rails (marsh hens), flightless cormorant of the Galapagos Islands and the flightless goose from Hawaii, loss of eyes in blind cave fish and many cave dwelling insects.

In terms of the standard classification paradigm, loss of genetic material leads to new species or genera but not higher categories. Given our current understanding of the way in which the genome works and how genes are activated and deactivated, it is doubtful whether the genetic information is really lost in these species. Probably, it is just deactivated as the circumstances do not require the features in question. Mechanisms must obviously exist to deactivate even structural genes coding for morphological features should the need arise.

These changes may be perceived as examples of micro-evolution, but in real terms, they merely reflect quite standard activities common to the genome.

3) Hybridization:

Most hybrids are not viable because of loss of fertility, particularly in mammals. Some taxa are, however, prone to hybridization and hybridization can lead to viable species in some animals (for example, fish) and plants. Hybrids of horses and zebras, leopards and jaguars and even sheep and goats have been achieved, although in the case of the latter cell linkages between embryos of the two species were implanted in a surrogate mother to achieve the hybrid.

4) Changes in chromosome structure and number:

Chromosomes are classified on the basis of the position of the centromere (condensed region on a chromosome where sister chromatids are attached to each other after replication). When the centromere is in the middle of a chromosome and the two arms are thus of equal length, it is called a metacentric chromosome. If the centromere is located at or near one end of the chromosome, it is called an acrocentric chromosome. Change sin chromosomal structure can be detected by a special staining technique known as G - banding.

Rearrangement of the chromosomes may entail changes in the number of chromosomes, number of chromosome arms as well as other changes produced by translocation (movement of chromosome segment to another location), deletions, duplications, inversions and drastic rearrangements.

Sometimes, chromosomes can fuse with each other to form much longer chromosomes or they can split at the centromere to form two shorter chromosomes. One such rearrangement is known as Robertsonian rearrangement and is the result of either the fusion of two centromere into one, or the splitting of the centromere into two. A tandem fusion on the other hand is a fusion of two chromosomes in which one end of a chromosome fuses with the end or the centromere of another chromosome.

Comparisons between the chromosome banding of the chromosomes show that the information is still the same, it is just rearranged. Moreover, the type of rearrangements which occur in different animals are quite group specific and one type of rearrangement doesn't necessarily occur in another group.

Robertsonian Fusion

Robertsonian fusion changes the chromosome number, but not the arm number. When chromosomes line up during meiosis 1, a metacentric chromosome lines up with 2 acrocentric chromosomes. Examples are:

The house mouse Mus Musculis has 40 chromosomes, and a population of mice form the Italian Alps was found to have only 22 chromosomes. This population differs slightly from the normal house mouse in morphology as well, and is classified as a different species Mus poschiavanus. Other populations have been discovered with chromosome numbers varying between 22 and 40. The number of chromosome arms are the same and banding studies reveal the genes to be homologous. Obviously, in terms of their relationship, these different species are all one group.

Tandem Fusion

Tandem fusion changes arm number and chromosome number. Tandem fusion's have been found in some antelope species where a sex chromosome fused with an autosome. This is rare, and one can assume that the organisms probably had a common forerunner. The antelope displaying this fusion range in size from the eland (the largest of all the antelopes) to smaller species such as the sitatange and the bushbuck. They all share common features, whoever, such as similar shapes of the horns and stripes on the body which may be prominent as in the case of the Bongo or less prominent as in the case of the eland. Species with this type of fusion are: the eland, bongo, lesser and greater kudu, bushbuck, sitatunge and nilgai (Indian antelope) where the y-chromosome is fused to an autosome.


Tandem fusions are found in Malaysian swamp buffalo and Asian river buffalo. A further very interesting example of this type of fusion is also found in the Asian deer. In the species Muntiacus muntjac, the females have only 6 chromosomes and the males have 7 chromosomes (this is the smallest chromosome number in mammals). However, in a different species of the group,Muntiacus reevesi, both the males and the females have 46 chromosomes. Banding studies show, that the same genetic material is present in both species, the chromosomes inM. muntjac are just fused together to form very long chromosomes. Once again no new information is added, it is just reshuffled, thus providing differential expressions and increased variety. Just like many tunes can be played on the same piano, but the music remains piano music.

Pericentric Inversions

These provide changes in arm number but not chromosome number. The number of arms depends on the position of the centromere. If it is located at the end, then there is one arm and if in the middle there are two arms. The inversion can change acrocentric chromosomes to metacentric chromosomes. The rodent Neotoma and Peromyscus differ by this inversion.

Translocation

Translocations can lead to reduced fertility, or in some cases in humans Down's syndrome can occur where part of chromosome 21 gets translocated to another autosome. In some insects and plants that have meiotic drive, viable offspring can be produced.

Paracentric Inversion

In this type of inversion the centromere is not included. This inversion is relatively uncommon, but has been proposed for some bats, hares and apes.

Drastic Rearrangements

Under certain circumstances of severe environmental stress, drastic rearrangements can produce greater varieties which could enhance survival. These changes can be rapid when new adaptive zones are entered (canalization model). Such rearrangements have been proposed for the mole rate Spalax.

To sum up: The organismic genome is endowed with an enormous capacity for variation. Under conditions of stress, or where organism enter new adaptive zones or low selective pressures there are even built-in mechanism for even greater change and variation.

These findings are consistent with the creation model, and the palaeontological record. After the deluge, precisely such a situation existed. The new adaptive zone that was to be reoccupied required extraordinary adaptive potential. The palaeontological record reveals great variety of form and structure of organisms in what we have classified as post-floor deposits. The large mammals with the extremes in variation such as the woolly mammoths and sabre-tooth tigers are just some examples. Moreover, given this tremendous potential for change, and the obvious relationship between even species with totally different chromosome numbers, a situation can be envisaged where a relatively small number of "kinds" can account for large number of "species" in a very short time. For those with faith in the Biblical account of the ark, the problem of fitting the animals into the ark would no longer seem as daunting. Not all the antelope species had to be on board just a few representative kinds.

The canids of the world illustrate this point dramatically. Dogs and wolves of the genus canis have 78 chromosomes while foxes have a varied number from 38-78 chromosomes. The uniformity of chromosome number in canid dogs can be due to free interbreeding over a wide range, whereas foxes live in small family groups and smaller territories so that new arrangements will persist. If the "kind" is penned at the level of the family Canidae, then the implications in terms of the number of animals required to produce the present varieties are not as daunting as many fear. The potential for change certainly exists, nevertheless, there are certain barriers which cannot be transgressed. Genetic manipulations have shown that this axiom is indeed true. Geneticists have manipulated the genome of the fruit fly Drosophila to such an extent that some believe that all evolutionary events in the history of the earth do not exceed the amount of manipulation to which fruit flies have ben subjected. Nevertheless, although bizarre forms have been created, the barrier which constitutes "fruit flies" has never been broken. Similarly, a great deal of change from chromosomal rearrangements has probably taken place since creation, and the time frame can be consistent with a short chronology. It is , therefore, possible to envisage the changes to have taken place rapidly which led to the large variety of species present on earth. Indeed, numerous chromosome homologies have been identified in animals today, and prescribed the differences between species can often be prescribed rearrangements as in the case of kangaroos, where Robertsonian fusions can account for much of the variation between the different species. Rearrangements can account for differences in insectivores, bats, primates, marine mammals, rodents, rabbits and hares and ungulates. (L.J. Gibson. 1986. "A creationist view of chromosomal banding and evolution." Origins. 13:9-35)

Similarities between genetic linkages, do not however, always have to reflect close relationships, they could just reflect similarities in design based on functional requirements. For example, genes for specific enzyme systems are often situated on chromosomes with similar banding patterns in different species. (Lalley, P.A. and V.A. McKusick. 1985. Report of the committee on comparative mopping. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics 40: 536-566)

Similarities can thus also be explained on the basis of function rather than ancestry. In fact, similar linkage patterns between cats and humans are almost as consistent as between humans and chimpanzees. (O'Brien, S.J. and W.G. Nash. 1982. Genetic mapping in mammals: chromosome map of the domestic cat. Science 216:257-265)Similarities in chromosomes of humans and apes could also be explained on this basis. Interestingly, the human karyotype seems to be closest to the primitive condition, which does not support the ancestral position of the apes. (Yunis,J.J. and O. Prakash. 1982. The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science 215:1525-1530)

From a creationist viewpoint, the differences we see today in the numerous species of the world, can largely be attributed to rapid post-flood changes which have taken place since organisms were redistributed over the earth. Redistribution must have taken place from the ark along three distribution lines.

A literature survey of mammalian distribution patterns carried out by L.J. Gibson (Geoscience Research Institute) shows that many mammalian species exhibit distribution patterns consistent with an ark distribution. The various continental and geographic barriers that exist today must be considered to be post-flood phenomena. The two elephant populations in the world today can serve as an example. They can be considered relics of a much wider distribution of elephants that became separated by the deserts of North Africa and Arabia into the African and Asian populations.

The distribution of mammals on earth is consistent with a north-south distribution in Africa, and a west-east distribution in Asia. There is also genetic evidence for migration across the Bering strait. The antelope ground squirrel (Spermopilus undulatus) and the American species (S. columbianus) are chromosomally identical, but separating them and living on both sides of the Bering strait is another species, S. parryi, which has a different chromosome number.

More difficult to explain, is the problem of endemic families of animals. Endemic families occur largely in a few distinct orders, the marsupials, primates and the rodents. The fact that most of the endemic species occur in positions further from the ark position (86% of endemic families occur on the southern continents or on islands, which may account for some of their strange features). During the initial distribution from the ark, small groups that became isolated form the main body due to geographic barriers or other reasons, would have exhibited a high potential for variation given the challenges of the new environments, together with low competition rates cue to small population sizes.

The unique fauna of Australia, in this regard, presents a challenge to the scientific fraternity. The accepted paradigm is, that the marsupial populations of Australia represent a relic of the once primitive forerunners of placental mammals, but none of the Australian endemic families have a fossil record outside of the Australian realm. In other words, the unique forms of not only the living animals but also that of the immediate ancestors was already confined to the Australian realm. Perhaps the answer lies elsewhere.

Why should a marsupial be considered primitive just because of the way the young are born and raised. Why can it not be considered adaptive? Placental mammals occur on continents where seasonal migration is viable. Young are born in the favourable season and are capable of independent movement from an early age. This is very important to ungulates that require stable seasonal food supplies and have to undergo long migration between seasons. The same can not be said for Australia. The food position is far less predictable, migration is not an option and the unique reproductive style might have been an early answer to the challenges of the environment. Marsupial reproduction is not primitive (unless the premature birth is considered primitive). The young of marsupials receive the best protection whilst at the same time they are less of a burden than carrying a fetus to term as in the case of placentals. Marsupials are reproductively more flexible and thus capable of meeting extremes of environmental circumstances. Surely a situation where two young, being raised simultaneously and receiving differential treatment according to need (two types of milk form two different mammary glands in the same mother) must be considered adaptive rather than primitive. Under conditions of environmental stress, development can even be arrested. The particular challenges of thepost-flood isolated island communities may have led to some novel organismic types, but this can be merely one of the wonders of the superb adaptability of organisms and the built-in capacity of the genome to produce supply variation when needed.

No model of origins can supply all the answers, particularly if our knowledge of many biochemical and genetic mechanisms is still so incomplete. The creationist model does, however supply many plausible answers to some of the many questions that plague us in terms of origins. There will be areas where faith must supply the lack of knowledge, but the same is true for the evolutionary paradigm. In the final analysis, both paradigms thus require faith. The question that everyone must ask himself is, which of the two requires more faith?