


If man descended from other forms of life, we ought to have the same number of chromosomes, and the DNA count should be the same. But, in this study, you will learn that—even in DNA and chromosome counts—there is no evidence of evolutionary descent. Evolutionary theory is a myth. It is God who created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: Chromosome Comparisons

Chromosome Comparisons: This is a worthwhile way of finding evolutionary connections, if they can be found at all
Plant Kingdom: No connections can be found
Animal Kingdom: No connections here either
Chromosome Counts in Relation to Size: Surely, here we should find some evolutionary evidence
DNA Count in Relation to Size: Well, at least we ought to find evolutionary relationships in the DNA counts
Patterson's Conclusion: The director of the British Museum of Natural History has something to say

This material is excerpted from the book, SIMILARITIES. See Order Sheet.) An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.


As mentioned earlier, homology is the name given to the effort of science to prove evolutionary theory on the basis of shallow physical similarities between various creatures ("shallow" that is, because "five bones" in the arm and hand are emphasized while crucial factors, such as chromosome counts, are ignored).

But the creatures thought to be more closely related have been found, in fact, to be totally different in a number of ways, when exacting twentieth-century molecular comparisons have been made. We have already considered several examples of that.

If you wanted to really know which species were closest to each other, what method would you use? If you stop to think about it, the very best way would be to compare chromosome counts. What genetic factor could be more basic than chromosomes and its DNA?

Each species has a specific number of chromosomes in each cell in its body. Human beings, for example, have 46 chromosomes in each body cell while in their reproductive cells (the egg and the sperm) there are only half that number (23).

In this way, when the sperm and egg unite, the full number of 46 will be made up again.

Is there any factor more basic to a species than its chromosome count? Knowledgeable scientists seriously doubt it.

Several chromosome count lists are available in scientific books. A comparison of them would provide us with the very best "similarities" analysis that we could possible have!

Let us now consider this matter of chromosome count "similarities." John N. Moore has done a great service for us all. He took chromosome counts for various species, and then placed them into a "family tree" arrangement, such as evolutionists like to display in school textbooks (see John N. Moore, "On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny," Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1972, pp. 159-171).

The result is not numerical similarities in each "family branch,"—but rather something of a confusion of numbers on all levels! Keeping in mind that one of the most important factors in any given species is its chromosome count, this lack of numerical similarity is highly revealing. It is clear that there cannot possibly be any relationship between the various species—even those supposed to be "closely related."

To say it again: Chromosomes contain the genes which themselves are the DNA spirals. It would be impossible to change the chromosome count of a species or an individual in that species without totally destroying that species or that individual! No respectable biologist would suggest that by removing one or several chromosomes, a new species would be produced. That could not be, for the gene factors containing the millions of DNA codes are to be found all along those chromosome strings. To remove even one chromosome would remove millions of vital body factors.

"Chromosome number is probably more constant, however, than any other single morphological characteristic that is available for species identification."—*Eldon J. Gardner, Principles of Genetics (1968), p. 211.

Because the genes determine all body parts and functions, we would expect that the smaller life forms would have fewer chromosomes, and there is a tendency in this direction; but, even in this, there are striking exceptions as will be seen below. (The Cosmarium, a simple algae, can have as many as 140 chromosomes, and Radiolaria, a simple protozoa, has over 800, whereas human beings only have 46.)

Here is part of Moore's findings. (In all the following, the duplex or double chromosome count [2n] found in most body cells is given; exceptions will be marked "n=" [1n].) When several different numbers are listed, each is for a separate species.


First, we will look at the chromosome counts of several branches of the PLANT KINGDOM:

At the bottom of the evolutionary plant tree are the ALGAE: What similarity do you find in any of these numbers? Chlamydomonas, 16 / Chorda, 56 / Cladophora, 22, 24 / Closterium (n=194) / Cosmarium, 40, 120-140 / Cystophyllum, 32-48 / Laminaria, 62 / Nitella (n=9,18) / Sirogyra (n=16, 32, 50).

Just up the trunk from the algae, we come to the FUNGI: Bacillus, 1 / Clavaria (n=8) / Escherichia,1 / Neurospora (n=7) / Phytophthora, 8-10 / Saccaromyces, 30, 45, 60.

Further up the plant kingdom trunk we go out onto the branch marked PTERIDOPHYTES: Adiantum, 60, 120, 116 / Diphasium, 46 / Diplazium, 82, 123 / Dryopteris, 82, 123 / Elaphoglossum, 82 / Isoetes, 33, 44 / Ophioglossum, 960, 1100 / Polypodium, 72, 111, 148 / Polystichum, 82, 164 /Psilotum, 208 / Lycopodium, 46, 340, 528 / Pteris, 58, 76, 87, 115 / Selaginella, 20, 36 / Thelypteris (n=29, 36, 62, 72).

At the top of the imaginary tree of plant evolution are the DICOTYLEDONS: Brassica, 18, 20 / Chrysanthemum, 18, 36, 56, 138, 198 / Clematis, 16 / Helianthus, 34 / Phaseolus, 22 / Primula, 16, 22, 36 / Ranunculus, 16, 32, 48 /Rumex, 20, 40, 60 / Salix, 40, 63 / Sedium, 20, 44, 54, 68 / Petunia, 14 / Paphanus, 16, 18, 20, 38.


Now we go to the second of the two trees: It is called the ANIMAL KINGDOM. Moving upward from bottom to top, here are the chromosome counts of a few of its branches:

PROTOZOA: Euglena, 45 / Radiolaria (over 800) / Amoeba, 30-40.

NEMATHELMINTHES: Ascaris, 2, 4, 22, 48-50 / Echinorhyncus, 8.

PORIFERA: Grantia, 8, 26 / Sycandra, 16.

ARACHNIDA: Argas, 26 / Agalena, 44 / Heptathela, 80 / Euscopius, 70-84 / Tityus, 6, 10, 20.

CRUSTACEA: Artemia, 84 / Daphnia, 8, 20 / Cambarus, 208 / Cypris, 24 / Notodromas, 16.

INSECTA: Acrida, 23 / Aphid, 5, 6, 8, 12 / Musca, 12 / Lethocerus, 8, 30 / Cimex, 24-29 / Lysandra, 380 / Bombyx, 50-71 / Cicindela, 20-24 / Calliphora, 12 / Drosophila, 8-12 / Metapodius, 22-26.

PICES: Salmo, 80-96 / Coregonus, 80 / Mollienisia, 36-48 / Lepidosiren, 360 / Nicorhynchus, 74 / Betta, 42 / Cyprinus, 99.

AMPHIBA: Rana, 16, 24, 26, 39 / Salamandra, 24 / Cryptobra nchus, 56, 62 / Bufo, 22 / Triton, 18-24.

REPTILA: Elaphe, 36 / Hemidactylus, 46 / Alligator, 32 / Chamaeleon, 24 / Lacerta, 36, 38 / Emys, 50 / Anguis, 36, 44.

AVES: Rhea, 42-68, Passer, 40-48, 54-60 / Melopstittacus, 50-60 / Gallus, 12-44 / Anas, 43-49, 80 / Columba, 50, 31-62 / Larus, 60.

MAMMALIA: Ornithorhynchus, 70 / Didelphys, 17-22 / Erinaceus, 48 / Sorex, 23 / Lepus, 36-46 / Peromyscus, 48, 52 / Microtus, 42, 46, 50 / Apodemus, 46, 48, 50 / Mus, 40, 44 / Ratus, 46, 62 / Cania, 50, 64, 73 / Felis, 35, 38 / Bos, 16, 20, 60 / Capra, 60 / Ovis, 33, 48, 54, 60 / Sus, 18, 38, 40 / Equus, 60, 66 / Rhesus, 42, 48 / Homo 46.


It is obvious that each branch of the ancestral trees is but a jumbled maze of chromosome numbers, having little mutual correspondence. What about size of organism, from small to large? We already referred to the fact that even here we do not find a clear-cut pattern. The smallest life form ought to have the fewest chromosomes and the largest ought to have the largest. That would be a fact which would encourage the evolutionists, but consider the following list:

Aulacantha (protozoa): 1600 / garden pea: 14 / maize: 20 / alfalfa: 40 / barley: 14 / oats: 42 / trillium: 10 / tomato: 24 / mouse: 40 / copepode-crab: 6 / man: 46 / deer mouse: 48 / striped skunk: 50 / mink: 30 / dog: 78 / fox: 34 / pig: 38 / donkey: 62 / small monkey (Macaca rhesus): 42 / cow: 60 gorilla: 48 / Gypsy moth: 62.

The list may have some relation to size, but actually not very much. Thus, analyzing the number of chromosomes a creature has, in relation to the size of that creature, provides no tangible help in ascertaining evolutionary descent. Just below, we will learn that DNA count in relation to size is equally meaningless, as far as helping to establish evolutionary theory.


Before concluding this section, let us consider estimated DNA counts for various creatures. As you know, it is the DNA within the cell which contains all the codes needed for all structures and functions within each organism.

"It might reasonably be thought that the amount of DNA in the genome would increase pretty steadily as we advance up the evolutionary scale. But, in fact, measurements of total DNA content are quite confusing. While the mammalian cell seems to have about 800 times more DNA than a bacterium, toads (for an example) have very much more than mammals, including man, while the organism with most DNA (of those so far studied) is the lily, which can have from 10,000 to 100,000 times as much DNA as a bacterium!"—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery. (1983), p. 174.

The following sample listing will begin with those creatures having the smallest amount of DNA, and will progressively move on up to those with the most. You will note that man is only about two thirds up the list, yet he should be at the top!

bacterophage-0x174: 0. 000,003,6 / bacteriophage-T2:0.000,2 / colon bacteria: 0.004,7 / yeast: 0.07 / snail: 0.67 / sea urchin: 0.90 / chicken: 1.3 / duck: 1.3 / carp: 1.6 / green turtle: 2.6 / cattle: 2.8 / man: 3.2 / toad: 3.7 / frog: 7.5 / protopterus: 50 / amphiuma: 84.

Here is what *Dobzhansky had to say about that table!

"More complex organisms generally have more DNA per cell than do simpler ones, but this rule has conspicuous exceptions. Man is far from the top of the list, being exceeded by Amphiuma [an apode amphibian], Propterus [a lungfish], and even ordinary frogs and toads. Why this should be so has so long been a puzzle."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics of the Evolutionary Process (1970), pp. 17-18.

It appears that the Designer of everything arranged matters so that on not one single point could man say, "I am smart enough to be able to fully understand and explain it."


Colin Patterson is senior paleontologist at the British Museum. He is an expert in fossil species, and has spent most of his lifetime comparing them with living species. Thoughout all those years of research, he has tried to figure out this imaginary evolutionary "family tree" of who was descended from whom. In an address given at the American Museum of Natural History on November 5, 1981, he expressed regret that he had been asked to speak on the topic, "Creation and Evolution"; for, he said, he had become so puzzled over his findings that he was ready to give up evolution. He said that, after 20 years of evolutionary research, he was unable to come up with even one thing that proved evolutionary theory. When he had asked other leading evolutionists for solutions, they glibly told him, "Oh, it's just convergence; convergence is everywhere," as if that answered the evolutionary problem: different creatures, totally unrelated to one another, having features in common—which it should be impossible for them to have! The problem is then solved by calling it "merely another form of evolution, and a disproof is magically changed into a proof.

Patterson concluded his talk by saying that evolution was an "anti-theory" that produced "anti-knowledge." He elaborated on this by saying that evolution is full of special words that explain nothing, yet give the expression that they explain everything. Something that produces "anti-knowledge," really produces ignorance. And surely we do not want that!


Forward to the next major topic in this series: VESTIGES: This is another peculiar evolutionary theory which is totally without scientific foundation.