Darwinism Intelligent Design Irreducible Complexity

Karsten Pultz on the limits of gradualism in evolution

Spread the love

Our Danish correspondent Karsten Pultz (right) sends us his reflections on a recent, curious effort to save Darwinian evolution: We are told that cell parts cannot be compared with machine parts:

Biological functions and gradualism

In the debate over irreducible complexity (IC) the neo-Darwinists are clinging to straws of protein evolution, and the presence of homologues proteins in different molecular machines to try to reject the fact of IC, thus saving their theory.

We hear the claim that molecular machinery is not machinery at all, it’s different—something to do with protein-evolution they say. If proteins really can evolve, it sure would differentiate them from manmade machine parts which, as we know, can’t evolve. But, as I will argue here, whether proteins can evolve or not will not in the least influence the argument for IC.

Seen from an engineering perspective, you would not regard the materials of machinery as the determining factor as to whether an object is a machine. An engineer will only look at function— if an ensemble of parts working together performs a specific function then it’s a machine. How the parts came to be, what materials were used, and how they were assembled doesn’t matter. The core issue is entirely function.

In the fantasy realm of evolution, a type III secretion system can, via random mutation and natural selection, turn into a flagellum-motor (or vice versa). Presenting the hypothetical scenario to a mechanical engineer, that one machine with one function could slowly and gradually turn into another machine with a different function, would probably result in a good laugh, or maybe the concern that you get an appointment with a shrink. Such a scenario, seen from an engineering perspective, is ludicrous.

Bestil Exit Evolution på nettet. 198 kr.

The dominant problem with slow gradual evolution is that function cannot evolve gradually. It doesn’t matter whether you can take a machine apart and assemble a different apparatus using some of the same components. You still cannot move from one function to a new one through a step by step gradual process, even if it were possible to slowly morph the parts, as with a three-dimensional drawing on a computer. From one appearance to the next, the function of the first machine would, at some point in the transition process, cease completely.

The function of the new machine would not step in until the transition is almost completed. Evolution by natural selection is therefore in no way possible because there will be a gap between two functions where no benefits exist for natural selection to act upon. On the contrary, in the functionless gap where the machinery is neither this nor that, the organism, which relies on the function, would be less likely to survive. One function must be given up before benefit of the new function can be drawn upon.

This is the reality of how human engineering works. Although I am not a biologist, I will insist that biological systems must follow the same rules. From one function to a new function there will always be a gap—a gap that cannot be filled. It’s much like a quantum leap, where an electron disappears from one place and reappears at another place without actually having covered the space between the two spots.

This fact of the world of functions makes it irrelevant, in the debate over IC, if proteins can evolve, if homologues proteins are found in different molecular machines, or if the type III secretory system has similar features of that of the flagellum motor.

Since both manmade machines and molecular machines occupy the same universe, they are ruled by the same laws of nature. No matter how much imagination the neo-Darwinists mobilize, they will never bridge the functionless gap between two different machines.

As I see it, the problem of the quantum leap between functions can be applied to all aspects of Darwin’s theory, at micro as well as macro level. Darwin himself should have realized this when he spoke of the “complex organ, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.”

The power of natural selection will, without exception, weed out machines that have stopped functioning before any new function could arise. Add to that the problem that machines with different functions are based on different blueprints, and always are part of larger ensembles of functional systems (IC on a larger scale), and you have a theory that’s ready for the bin.

Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity springs from sound reasoning, and since we must insist that reason ought to beat imagination, we have to keep blowing the whistle on a scientific theory which obviously is, and always has been, out of touch with reality.

Also by Karsten Pultz:

On the Scandinavians who are threatened by ID


ID is now thriving in Europe

Pultz is the author of Exit Evolution.

10 Replies to “Karsten Pultz on the limits of gradualism in evolution

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Beautiful clarity. Often discussions of this point get bogged down in details and complex names of genes and such.

    Even with ordinary machines, gradual evolution of FUNCTION is impossible, but a gradual change of STYLING is possible. Cars can change trim or grilles without losing function, iPhones can change their proportions somewhat without losing function. The same thing happens in nature. Colors and fur can change gradually to fit new environments, but that’s about the only thing that can evolve gradually.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Polistra @ 1

    Even with ordinary machines, gradual evolution of FUNCTION is impossible, but a gradual change of STYLING is possible. Cars can change trim or grilles without losing function, iPhones can change their proportions somewhat without losing function. The same thing happens in nature.

    No, it doesn’t.

    Human designed machines do not change on their own. They only change when a human designer changes them, whether they are cars or iPhones or airliners.

    Yes, living things that reproduce themselves without any input from human or other designers can change over time in response to environmental influences. We even have fossil sequences which illustrate such changes. No designer input needed.

    That’s why all Pultz is offering is another – and hardly original – argument by analogy. Analogies can provide useful insights through the similarities but it is misleading to imply that being similar in some respects means being similar in most or all respects.

    Yes, living creatures are similar to machines in some ways but very different in others. My cats, for example, don’t have chrome trim and I can’t use them to call friends hundreds of miles away. But we have evidence of their desert-dwelling ancestry and their remarkable Borg-like assimilation of human societies over time. All done without design input – unless you count the great Ceilingcat.

  3. 3
    FourFaces says:

    Seversky, like all clueless heathens, doesn’t understand the curse of dimensionality. It’s hilarious.

  4. 4
    ET says:


    Yes, living things that reproduce themselves without any input from human or other designers can change over time in response to environmental influences.

    Because they were intelligently designed to do so.

    We even have fossil sequences which illustrate such changes.

    Except for the fact we don’t know what the fossil record illustrates. There remains the issue of a testable mechanism.

  5. 5
    BobRyan says:


    The fossil records do not prove anything close to macro-evolution. There is not a single line lacking millions of years of missing links, if a line can be found at all. There are no fossils showing the between moments of speciation. Where are the mutations in the fossil records?

  6. 6
    Sven Mil says:

    “ Although I am not a biologist, I will insist that biological systems must follow the same rules.”

    “I know nothing about biology, but I’m going to explain how it works.”


  7. 7
    ET says:

    Gee, Sven, if there is a mistake, please point it out. Just because someone isn’t a biologist doesn’t mean they don’t know anything about biology. Clearly you don’t know how thinking works.

  8. 8
    Ed George says:


    Where are the mutations in the fossil records?

    Right next to God’s interventions.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky claims that

    “We even have fossil sequences which illustrate such changes. No designer input needed.”,,,

    The fossil record reveals no ‘sequences’ between major phyla.

    “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.”
    — Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.

    “Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? … The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record.”
    Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9

    Do Phyletic Lineages Evolve from the Bottom Up or Develop from the Top Down? – Robert F. DeHaan – 1998
    Excerpt: The authors concluded:
    “Most higher taxa were built from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families…the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”48 and 49,,,
    48 D. H. Erwin, J. W. Valentine, and J. J. Sepkowski, “A Comparative Study Of Diversification Events: The Early Paleozoic Versus The Mesozoic,” Evolution 41 (1987): 1177ñ86.
    49 Ibid., 1183. Herein lies the origin of the “top-down” and “bottom-up” metaphors.

    Erwin and Valentine’s The Cambrian Explosion Affirms Major Points in Darwin’s Doubt: The Cambrian Enigma Is “Unresolved” – June 26, 2013
    Excerpt: “In other words, the morphological distances — gaps — between body plans of crown phyla were present when body fossils first appeared during the explosion and have been with us ever since. The morphological disparity is so great between most phyla that the homologous reference points or landmarks required for quantitative studies of morphology are absent.”
    Erwin and Valentine (p. 340)

    Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found throughout the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,

    Günter Bechly video: Fossil Discontinuities: A Refutation of Darwinism and Confirmation of Intelligent Design – 2018
    The fossil record is dominated by abrupt appearances of new body plans and new groups of organisms. This conflicts with the gradualistic prediction of Darwinian Evolution. Here 18 explosive origins in the history of life are described, demonstrating that the famous Cambrian Explosion is far from being the exception to the rule. Also the fossil record establishes only very brief windows of time for the origin of complex new features, which creates an ubiquitous waiting time problem for the origin and fixation of the required coordinated mutations. This refutes the viability of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary process as the single conceivable naturalistic or mechanistic explanation for biological origins, and thus confirms Intelligent Design as the only reasonable alternative.

    “The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. Afterwards, a slow evolution follows; this frequently has the appearance of a gradual change, step by step, though down to the generic level abrupt major steps without transitions occur. At the end of such a series, a kind of evolutionary running-wild frequently is observed. Giant forms appear, and odd or pathological types of different kinds precede the extinction of such a line.”
    Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist 40 (January 1952), 97.

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
    TS Kemp – Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

    , as Dr. Wells points out in the following video,

    “The current estimates for the origin of life put it at 3.8 billion years ago. Let’s say 4 billion years ago. So if we start our clock then, our 24 hour clock, 6 hours nothing but these simple single celled organisms appear, the same sort that we saw in the beginning. 12 hours same thing. 18 hours same thing. 3/4 of the day has passed and all we have are these simple single celled organisms. Then about at the 21st hour, in the space of about 2 minutes, BOOM! Most of the major animal forms appear in the form that they currently have in the present, and many of them persist to the present and we have them with us today. Less than 2 minutes out of a 24 hour period. That’s how sudden the Cambrian Explosion was.”
    Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video (2:55 minute mark)

    ,as Dr. Wells pointed out, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin’s tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,

    The Theory – Diversity precedes Disparity – graph

    But that ‘tree pattern’ that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin’s theory predicted.

    The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity – graph

    The Cambrian Explosion – Stephen Meyer and Marcus Ross – video
    Various phylum are discussed in the first part of the video (Top down, disparity preceding diversity, pattern discussed at 33:00 minute mark)

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Darwinists don’t even have any evidence that it is possible to gradually mutate one type of protein into a new type of protein,…

    “Enzyme Families — Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?” – Ann Gauger – December 4, 2014
    Excerpt: If enzymes can’t be recruited to genuinely new functions by unguided means, no matter how similar they are, the evolutionary story is false.,,,
    Taken together, since we found no enzyme that was within one mutation of cooption, the total number of mutations needed is at least four: one for duplication, one for over-production, and two or more single base changes. The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations.
    We have now addressed two objections raised by our critics: that we didn’t test the right mutation(s), and that we didn’t use the right starting point. We tested all possible single base changes in nine different enzymes, Those nine enzymes are the most structurally similar of BioF’s entire family We also tested 70 percent of double mutations in the two closest enzymes of those nine.
    Finally, some have said we should have used the ancestral enzyme as our starting point, because they believe modern enzymes are somehow different from ancient ones. Why do they think that? It’s because modern enzymes can’t be coopted to anything except trivial changes in function. In other words, they don’t evolve!
    That is precisely the point we are making.

    Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne – September 29, 2019
    by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski
    Excerpt: Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space.
    Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream.

    ,,, much less do Darwinists have any evidence that it is possible to change one type of microbe into a new type of microbe,,

    Scant search for the Maker – 2001
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
    – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.

    Darwin vs. Microbes (Where’s the substantiating evidence for Darwinian evolution?) – video

    … much less do Darwinists have any evidence that it is possible to change one type of species into a new type of species,,,

    Response to John Wise – October 2010
    Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12. None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–,,,
    (As Jonathan Wells states),,, We can modify the DNA of a fruit fly embryo in any way we want, and there are only three possible outcomes:
    A normal fruit fly;
    A defective fruit fly; or
    A dead fruit fly.

    Shoot, not only do Darwinists not even have any evidence that it is possible to gradually change one type of species into a new type of species, Darwinists can’t even provide a rigid scientific definition for what the term species actually means,

    You don’t have to take my word for it. Last year a Darwinist admitted that “The most important concept in all of biology, (i.e. species), is a complete mystery”

    What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019
    Excerpt: Enough of species?
    This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete.
    The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,,
    some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,,

    In fact, Charles Darwin himself admitted that he did not have a rigid scientific definition for what the term ‘species’ actually meant when he stated that, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience.,,,”

    “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”
    – Charles Darwin

    As should be needless to say, the failure of a supposedly scientific theory, a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species” in the first place, to clearly define what a species actually is is a clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the proper ‘scientific’ explanation for the “Origin of Species” in the first place!

    Whereas Darwinists cannot even provide a rigid ‘scientific’ definition of what a species actually is, on the other hand, normal people in general, and Christians in particular, have no problem whatsoever recognizing what a species actually is when they see it. i.e. People never confuse a dog, with a cat, with a rodent, with a squirrel, or with a etc.. etc.. etc..

    Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas
    The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage
    Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms.
    Denial of True Species
    Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes:
    “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”
    Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,,
    The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.
    What About Man?
    Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,,

    Darwinists, besides being unable to rigidly define exactly what the term species actually means, also have no evidence for the ‘blending together of characteristics’, as would be predicted under the assumption of ‘continual gradual transformations of ‘species’ into new ‘species’ (whatever the term ‘species’ is suppose to mean for a Darwinist)

    As Stephen Meyer explained, “the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.”

    “Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.”
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)

    Here is an interesting quote from a researcher who, during working for his PhD thesis, was ‘surprised’ to find ‘Distinct kinds’ instead of a ‘blending together of characteristics as would be expected under Darwinian presuppositions. He even states “this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. ”

    “For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing.”
    Dr. Arthur Jones – did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids – Fish, Fossils and Evolution – Cichlids at 29:00 minute mark (many examples of repeated morphology in cichlids) – video

    In short, Darwinian evolution is a evidence-free pseudoscience, even a religion for atheists, rather than being a hard and testable science.


    Genesis 1
    24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, land crawlers, and wild animals according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that crawls upon the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.…

Leave a Reply