| ‘SEAHORSE DADS BUILT FOR BIRTH. Seahorses and pipefish males carry developing babies in a brood pouch and give birth to live young. Scientists at Sydney University have studied the process of how males gave birth. They originally thought it would be like the female birth process in other vertebrates that give birth to live young, where the babies grow in a uterus that has layers of smooth muscle in its walls. When the young are ready to be born hormones stimulate the smooth muscle to contract and expel the babies. Smooth muscle, also known as “involuntary muscle,” is the muscle found in internal organs and is controlled by hormones as well as the nervous system. However, the research team found the seahorse brood pouch had very little smooth muscle, and did not respond to hormones that stimulate contractions. They then compared the muscle and bone anatomy of male and female seahorses and found that male seahorses had three bones near the pouch opening. These had robust skeletal muscles attached to them and were oriented so that contraction of the muscles controlled the opening of the pouch. The research team suggest that seahorse males give birth by contracting these muscles and bending their bodies. This combination of movements opens the brood pouch and expels the babies. The researchers wrote: “We propose that these muscles control the opening of the seahorse pouch, allowing seahorse fathers to consciously control the expulsion of their young at the end of pregnancy.” In an article in “The Conversation” they commented: “Our unexpected results suggest male seahorses use different mechanisms to give birth compared to female pregnant animals.” They went on to say: “Despite the similarities that male seahorses share with female mammals and reptiles during pregnancy, it seems seahorse fathers have a unique way of giving birth to their young.”References: ABC News 2 September 2022; The Conversation 2 September 2022; Placenta, 6 August 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.placenta.2022.07.015 ED. COM. These findings confirm the fact that seahorses are a unique kind of fish, with their own distinctive well designed structure and function. As such they are a challenge to the belief they evolved from a general fish ancestor, but confirmation of Genesis, which tells us that living creatures were created as fully functional separate kinds. All the evidence we have of studying living and fossil seahorses confirms they only reproduce after their kind, in their own distinctive way. Creation Research has a connection with seahorses. The seahorses studied in the research described came from Seahorse Australia, a seahorse breeding facility run by our Tasmanian colleagues Craig and Rachelle Hawkins. Next to this is our Tasmanian creation museum. John Mackay and Diane Eager will be joining Craig for the official opening of the museum this weekend. Diane will be bringing three seahorse fossils to the museum. These were originally obtained by our UK colleague Joseph Hubbard, but they had to wait until they could be safely carried to Australia when Diane returned from a trip the UK earlier this year.’ |
 |
Creation Research
All posts tagged Creation Research
Whether you are a creationist or not ICR’s website is worth going to and seeing what is available. Hopefully after a visit you will visit often and perhaps if you are an evolutionist you will even begin to question evolution and just believe the Word of God.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Genesis 1:14-15
“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.”
‘Many secular cosmologists believe that the universe came into existence in a singularity, as a result of a quantum event about 14.7 billion years ago. However, this so-called Big Bang theory is not without its problems. Principle among these is the Horizon Problem, which refers to the fact that Big Bangers cannot account for the Cosmic Microwave Background being the same temperature in all directions. This phenomenon would have required different parts of the universe coming to thermal equilibrium by radiation moving at the speed of light. Yet the maximum distance this radiation could travel is considerably less than the size of the universe.
In the 1980s, theoretical physicist Alan Guth proposed the Inflation Theory. In this model, a very rapid expansion of the universe happened from 10-36 seconds to 10-32 seconds after the Big Bang event. This allowed the entirety of the universe to be in close contact for a while, enabling transfer of energy between all parts of the universe.
There is no scientific evidence for this inflation, which is sometimes called the Big Fizz. The extremely short timescale of the event, at the beginning of a period of extremely deep time, gives the whole theory an impression of being a convenient construction, just to make the math work.
Moreover, it creates new problems of its own. There are several different models of inflation, and recent work suggesting that evidence for inflation is now available, turns out simply to disprove some of the models, without validating the concept itself.
As biblical creationists, we know that none of these models are correct. God has explained how and why the universe was created in the first chapter of the Bible.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/the-big-fizz-2/?mc_cid=7678cb4794&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘Even nonscientists can face problems for suggesting that there might be a serious intellectual debate over Darwinism. At Baylor University, philosopher and legal scholar Francis Beckwith was initially denied tenure despite an outstanding record of academic research and publications.1 Although Professor Beckwith was well known for his prolife views, he was most controversial for his law review articles and an academic book defending the constitutionality of teaching about intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism.2 It is important to note that Beckwith did not advocate that intelligent design should be taught in public schools — only that it was constitutional to teach it in an appropriate manner. But that nuanced position was too much for some of his colleagues, who were defenders of Darwin’s theory. Fortunately for Beckwith, after a public outcry, the president of Baylor later granted him tenure.3
A Dissertation in Limbo
College professors are not the only targets in academia who face discrimination because of their skepticism of Darwinism. Students can be even more vulnerable. Ohio State University doctoral candidate Bryan Leonard had his dissertation defense put in limbo after three pro-Darwin professors filed a spurious complaint attacking Leonard’s dissertation research as “unethical human subject experimentation.” Leonard’s dissertation project looked at how student beliefs changed after students were taught scientific evidence for and against modern evolutionary theory. The complaining professors admitted that they had not actually read Leonard’s dissertation. But they were sure it must be unethical. Why? According to them, there is no valid evidence against evolutionary theory. Thus — by definition — Leonard’s research must be tantamount to child abuse.4
Outside of academia, there have been similar cases of discrimination in government-funded science organizations. David Coppedge was a senior computer systems administrator for the Cassini Mission to Saturn at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab in California. He faced demotion and discharge after he offended his supervisor by occasionally offering to loan colleagues DVDs about intelligent design.5 No one had ever complained to Coppedge about his offers of DVDs, but when the supervisor found out, Coppedge faced a punitive investigation. His employment evaluations, which had been outstanding, suddenly became negative, and ultimately he lost his job. Coppedge’s dismissal was justified as a budgetary reduction unrelated to his views on intelligent design, but that explanation was questionable given the facts of the case.
The Sternberg Case
Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg faced similar retaliation by officials at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) after accepting for publication a peer-reviewed article supportive of intelligent design in a biology journal he edited. A research associate at the museum, Sternberg said that after the article was published, he was told to vacate his office space and was shunned and vilified by colleagues. Efforts were also made by administrators to discover Sternberg’s personal religious and political beliefs.6 Investigators for the U.S. Office of Special Counsel concluded that “it is…clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing [Dr. Sternberg]…out of the [Smithsonian].”7
Smithsonian officials denied any wrongdoing, but Sternberg was demoted from a research associate to a research collaborator without explanation.8 A 17-month investigation by subcommittee staff of the House Committee on Government Reform subsequently confirmed and elaborated on the previous findings of the US Office of Special Counsel. In a detailed report released to the public, subcommittee investigators concluded that they had uncovered “substantial, credible evidence of efforts to abuse and harass Dr. Sternberg, including punitively targeting him for investigation in order to supply a pretext for dismissing him, and applying to him regulations and restrictions not imposed on other researchers.”9
Congressional investigators further accused NMNH officials of conspiring “on government time and using government emails…with the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE)…to publicly smear and discredit Dr. Sternberg with false and defamatory information.”10 The NCSE even provided a set of “‘talking points’ to…NMNH officials on how to discredit both Sternberg and the Meyer article.” In addition, the NCSE was asked by senior museum administrator Dr. Hans Sues “to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities…The clear purpose of having the NCSE monitor Dr. Sternberg’s outside activities was to find a way to dismiss him.”11 Congressional investigators concluded that “the extent to which NMNH officials colluded on government time and with government resources with the NCSE to publicly discredit Dr. Sternberg’s scientific and professional integrity and investigate opportunities to dismiss him is alarming.”12
When asked about Sternberg’s plight by the Washington Post, Eugenie Scott of the NCSE seemed to suggest that Sternberg was lucky more was not done to get rid of him: “If this was a corporation, and an employee did something that really embarrassed the administration, really blew it, how long do you think that person would be employed?”13
Teachers at Risk
Science teachers in K-12 schools also face challenges if they criticize Darwinian theory. In Minnesota, high school teacher Rodney LeVake was removed from teaching biology after expressing doubts about Darwin’s theory. LeVake, who holds a master’s degree in biology, agreed to teach evolution as required in the district’s curriculum, but said he wanted to “accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory.”14
In Washington State, longtime high school biology teacher Roger DeHart faced continuing harassment from pro-Darwin activists, who succeeded in getting his school district to prohibit him from discussing scientific criticisms of modern Darwinian theory with his students. DeHart was even banned from sharing mainstream science publications with students that corrected textbook errors about evolution. Although DeHart complied with his district’s gag order, ultimately, he was removed from teaching biology. When he took a job in an adjoining school district so that he could continue to teach biology, the harassment continued. He was eventually reassigned from teaching biology in that district as well, even though there were no allegations by his new district that he was not following the prescribed curriculum. DeHart finally was driven from public education altogether.15
Notes
- John West, “Scandal Brewing At Baylor University? Denial of Tenure to Francis Beckwith Raises Serious Questions About Fairness and Academic Freedom,” Evolution News and Views (March 28, 2006), https://evolutionnews.org/2006/03/scandal_at_baylor_university_d/ (accessed November 24, 2020).
- See, for example, Francis J. Beckwith, Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003); Francis J. Beckwith, “Science and Religion Twenty Years After McLean v. Arkansas: Evolution, Public Education, and the New Challenge of Intelligent Design,” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 26 (Spring 2003), 455-499; Francis J. Beckwith, “Public Education, Religious Establishment, and the Challenge of Intelligent Design,” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, & Public Policy 17 (2003), 461-519; Francis J. Beckwith, “A Liberty Not Fully Evolved?: The Case of Rodney LeVake and the Right of Public School Teachers to Criticize Darwinism,” San Diego Law Review 39 (November/December 2002), 1311-1325.
- Robert Crowther, “Welcome News as Scholar Francis Beckwith Is Granted Tenure At Baylor,” Evolution News & Views (September 27, 2006), https://evolutionnews.org/2006/09/welcome_news_as_scholar_franci/ (accessed November 24, 2020).
- For information about the Bryan Leonard case, see Catherine Candinsky, “Evolution debate re-emerges: Doctoral student’s work was possibly unethical, OSU professors argue,” The Columbus Dispatch (June 9, 2005); “Attack on OSU Graduate Student Endangers Academic Freedom,” Discovery Institute (April 18, 2005), https://www.discovery.org/a/2661/ (accessed November 24, 2020); “Professors Defend Ohio Grad Student Under Attack by Darwinists,” Discovery Institute (July 11, 2005), https://www.discovery.org/a/2715/ (accessed November 24, 2020).
- For information and documentation about the Coppedge case, see Robert Crowther, “Trial to Begin in Intelligent Design Discrimination Lawsuit against NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab,” Evolution News and Views (March 5, 2012), https://evolutionnews.org/2012/03/trial_to_begin_/ (accessed November 24, 2020); “Facts of the Coppedge Lawsuit Contradict the Spin from Jet Propulsion Lab and National Center for Science Education,” Evolution News and Views, March 12, 2012, https://evolutionnews.org/2012/03/facts_of_the_co/ (accessed November 24, 2020); Joshua Youngkin, “Why Did NASA’s JPL Discriminate Against David Coppedge and Why Does It Matter?” Evolution News and Views (November 22, 2011), https://evolutionnews.org/2011/11/what_happened_t/ (accessed November 24, 2020).
- See David Klinghoffer, “The Branding of a Heretic,” The Wall Street Journal, January 28, 2005, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB110687499948738917 (accessed November 24, 2020). For more information about the controversy surrounding the publication of the journal article supportive of intelligent design, see “Sternberg, Smithsonian, Meyer, and the Paper That Started It All,” https://www.discovery.org/a/2399/ (accessed November 24, 2020); Richard Sternberg, “Smithsonian Controversy,” http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithsonian.php (accessed November 24, 2020).
- Letter to Richard Sternberg from the US Office of Special Counsel, August 5, 2005, available at http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithsonian.php?page=letter (accessed November 24, 2020). Also see Klinghoffer, “The Branding of a Heretic.”
- Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian’s Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution, Staff Report Prepared for the Hon. Mark Souder, Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources (Washington, DC: US House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, December 11, 2006), 3, 20-21, https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2020/11/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf (accessed November 26, 2020).
- Intolerance and the Politicization of Science At the Smithsonian, 4.
- Intolerance and the Politicization of Science At the Smithsonian, 5-6.
- Intolerance and the Politicization of Science At the Smithsonian, 22, emphasis in original. The congressional report further explained, “Dr. Sues hoped that the NCSE could unearth evidence that Dr. Sternberg had misrepresented himself as a Smithsonian employee, which would have been grounds for his dismissal as a Research Associate: ‘As a Research Associate, Sternberg is not allowed to represent himself as an employee of the Smithsonian Institution, and, if he were to do so, he would forfeit his appointment.’”
- Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian, 23, emphasis in original.
- Quoted in Michael Powell, “Editor Explains Reasons for ‘Intelligent Design’ Article,” The Washington Post (August 19, 2005), A19.
- Quoted in Rodney LeVake vs. Independent School District #656, State of Minnesota Court of Appeals, C8-00-1613 (May 8, 2001); https://web.archive.org/web/20130314100547/http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0105/c8001613.htm (accessed November 24, 2020). Additional information on the LeVake case can be found in James Kilpatrick, “Case of Scientific Heresy is Doomed,” Augusta Chronicle (December 23, 2001), A4. The Minnesota Court of Appeals found that the school district’s interest in maintaining its curriculum overrode LeVake’s First Amendment interest in teaching material critical of Darwinian evolution.
- John G. West, Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2007), 231-232, 234-238.’https://evolutionnews.org/2022/03/do-non-scientists-have-freedom-to-question-darwinism/
QUESTION: ‘MAN & WOMAN: Is there a real definition of man and woman in a world that wants fluid gender?
Answer by John Mackay and Diane Eager
The easy bit is that the word “man” refers to an adult human male, and a “woman” is an adult female human. But can we actually give a testable, provable meaning to the traditional words “male” and “female”, or are they just roles allocated for convenience which can be abandoned as life evolves?
This is a battle being fought hardest in school classrooms to conquer the minds of the next generation. Consider the following actual events:
A woman teacher was caught up in a staff room debate about who could use the girls’ toilets and change rooms at her schools. A transgender supporter claimed ‘We can be whatever gender we choose and therefore we must be allowed to use whichever toilet suits our choice’. The frustrated lady teacher retorted: “Why don’t we just look between their legs – that should settle it!”
Second event – November – 2020! Two Christian parents spend several frustrating hours with a Government school principal and deputy. What’s the problem? Their daughter has reported to them that their school class has been ordered to call one boy she.
Mum and dad ask why the school is forcing their child to lie. ‘But that’s just your opinion’ retorts the deputy. ‘If the boy feels he’s a girl we have to accept that. It’s the law!’
But my wife and I are both scientists, state the parents. We can give you a testable definition of what a male or female is. All the creatures we work with have very observable features of male and female. The boy is the one with the testicles who makes sperm. And in every case they are provably different from the females who make ova and babies. And we humans are the same.
So why are you teaching my daughter to lie? And why are you lying about this yourselves? Did you intend to tell us as parents that you had ordered the class to call this boy a girl?
“No,” replied the increasingly embarrassed principal, while a very emphatic “NO!” was uttered by an obvious radical feminist deputy. Government policy is that we must accept whatever gender the students feel they are, and this student feels they are female no matter what your opinion is.
The result? Despite being long-term participants and active supporters on school councils, both parents advise the Principal that because you’re teaching our children to lie and you are lying about it, our children are out of here today – not this afternoon, but right now!
Of course, the school authorities are rightly concerned about what they should tell students’ parents, especially other Christian parents in the school.
How should we react when atheist governments and education are actually lying about gender and sex? How do we define boy or girl, male or female, man or woman? And can we go deeper than that and have a meaningful scientific and legally enforceable definition?
Male and Female
Let’s start with the obvious differences between what we traditionally call gender. Being male or female, whether infant or adult, is provably determined by a person’s chromosomes, and indicated by the resulting reproductive systems and naturally produced hormones. At different stages of a person’s life reproductive systems and related hormonally induced changes to body structures will go through maturation and degenerative processes, but an individual remains either male or female throughout his or her life, from conception, through childhood and adulthood, to death.
The chromosomes that determine whether a person is male and female are named X and Y. A male has an X and a Y, usually written as XY, a female has two Xs, usually written as XX. These are inherited at conception and remain in every cell in the body, with one notable exception for each sex* (see below) for the rest of a person’s life.
Therefore, it doesn’t matter what manipulation is done to the body or mind after conception – a person is male or female throughout life. It doesn’t matter what bits they may get cut off or added on, or any alterations caused by the chosen addition of alternative sex hormones or by blocking their own hormones. In spite of efforts by transgender activists to drive a wedge between gender and sex, neither gender nor sex are determined by an individual’s choice, or by feelings, by externally administered drugs or hormones, or by social acceptance of someone’s choice.
*The only cells in the body that do not have the XY or XX chromosome identity are the reproductive cells, i.e. sperm in a male and ova (eggs) in a female. When these cells are formed the chromosomes are separated and each sex cell gets one of the sex chromosomes. Therefore, sperm will have either an X or a Y, ova will have one of two X’s. But such cells are still male or female, as only males can produce sperm and only females can produce ova?
Where Did Male and Female Come From?
Each human being is formed from the union of one sperm, carrying an X or a Y chromosome, and one ovum, carrying an X chromosome. An X carrying sperm will give rise to a female when its X combines with the X in the ovum. Y carrying sperm give rise to a male when it combines with the X in the ovum. This process can be traced back through the generations to the first human beings – Adam and Eve. Sex is not something you can evolve. It has to be right first time or you die out!
Adam was created male. Therefore, he had an X and a Y chromosome. Eve was created from tissue taken from Adam. All the components needed to make a woman were already in Adam. To make a female from male tissue God took out the Y chromosome and duplicated an X. From then on human beings have reproduced by the process described above.
Adam and Eve were created individually by God. Adam was made from “dust of the ground” i.e. raw materials, and Eve was made from tissue taken from Adam. They were not derived from any other living creature. Human beings are unique and separate creations, and therefore it is irrelevant if other living things, such as fish or plants, can change sex in certain circumstances.
So, theistic evolutionists take note: Those who want to believe in evolution but defend God’s word on men and women, and marriage, will find themselves on shaky ground. If evolution is true, human ancestry goes back to creatures with no distinct sexes and/or interchangeable sexes, and those who oppose God’s rules can claim that blurring the sexes is just part of the natural world, and Christians should not impose their views on it.
It is time to humbly accept that in the beginning God created humans male and female just like He said He did.’https://askjohnmackay.com/mand-woman-is-there-a-real-definition-of-man-and-woman-in-a-world-that-wants-fluid-gender/
‘ANTARCTIC FLOWERING PLANTS “A CLIMATE WARNING”: Scientists from Italy and UK have been
studying the plants on Signy Island, a small island near Antarctica. They found two native flowering plants named Deschampsia antarctica and Colobanthus quitensis have increased their growth rate and range of habitation over the past decade. They are low growing grasses that grow in clumps on an otherwise rocky, snow-covered island. Researchers suggest the increased grow rate and expansion is the result of warmer summer temperatures and less trampling by fur seals. Whilst the changing conditions are good for these two plants the researchers are concerned that increased temperatures may allow non-native species to gain a foothold and cause “irreversible biodiversity loss and changes to these fragile and unique ecosystems”. They concluded that if global warming proceeded according to the worst case scenario proposed by the IPCC “Earth’s climate by as soon as 2030 could resemble warmer periods such as those recorded during the mid-Pliocene”.
References: Science Alert 19 February 2022, Current Biology 14 February 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2022.01.074.
ED. COM. These researchers admit the earth has been warmer in the past. Whilst we don’t agree with the
evolutionary timetable that places the Pliocene warm period millions of years ago, we agree there is ample evidence in the fossil record of a warmer world with lush vegetation in the past. So why do these
researchers complain about new warming and new growth? A warm environment with plenty of lush
vegetation makes for a better place for living things than the present cold, barren environment of the
islands around Antarctica.
Similar changes have happened in the northern hemisphere, where we know from history some frozen
wastelands, such as Greenland and Iceland were once warm enough for people to live and grow crops.
The dire predictions about “non-native” species moving in exposes the hypocrisy of modern
environmentalists – they believe in evolution, which is a process of survival of the fittest. The whole concept of “native” species assumes these plants evolved here and cannot live anywhere else. The reality is these plants survive here because others can’t, and there is no reason they could not or should not grow somewhere else given the opportunity. Currently these two Antarctic grasses are the fittest, but if the climate changes and other plants can move in, the new more successful ones will be the fittest.
Again, we are left with the hypocrisy of environmental evolutionists – they claim to believe in continual
evolution, but they don’t want anything doing it!
The IPCC’s latest report, with all its dire predictions, came out in August 2021 and has now been endorsed
by the United Nations.’https://creationresearch.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/Enews/enews-20220303.pdf
Good Ole Charles ‘Darwin proposed that evolutionary changes occur by a long series of small incremental changes over long periods of time. Six decades later Richard Goldschmidt proposed that evolution happened by sudden large changes resulting in new organisms with new structures and functions, which he called “hopeful monsters”. A group of evolutionary biologists at University of California Santa Barbara claim to have found an example of a sudden large change brought about by mutations in a single gene in a plant named Aquilegia coerulea, otherwise known as the Colorado Blue Columbine.
They noticed that approximately one quarter of the population of A. coerulea in central Colorado had flowers that lacked the distinctive nectar spurs seen in Columbine flowers. Instead, the flowers had an extra row of sepals. They studied the genetics of normal and spurless plants and found the change resulted from mutations to a gene named APETALA3-3. The mutations made the gene non-functional.
Hodges, a professor of Biology at UC Santa Barbara explained: “This finding shows that evolution can occur in a big jump if the right kind of gene is involved. When it’s broken, those instructions aren’t there anymore, and that causes it to develop into a completely different organ, a sepal.” He went on to comment: “We did not have a good example of a hopeful monster due to a single genetic change until now.”
The researchers wondered how the loss of function mutations survived in such a large proportion of the population, especially as the mutant flowers lacked nectar spurs. The plants are normally pollinated by moths that feed by inserting their proboscis into the spur, which positions the moth’s head in the right place to collect pollen. According to Scott Hodges, “To get that many of this mutant type really suggests that there’s selection favouring it somehow.” It turns out the mutant plants can be pollinated by bees so they could still reproduce, but the selection advantage that enabled them to survive and thrive was the fact that aphids and deer, which feed on Columbines, did not like the mutant plants as much as the normal plants.
References: ScienceDaily 16 February 2022; Current Biology 16 February 2022 doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2022.01.066
Editorial Comment: Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958), who proposed the “hopeful monster” theory also recognised that some sudden large changes result in loss of function and he called these “hopeless monsters”. As the mutant columbines can survive, due to being disliked by aphids and deer, they not hopeless, but they are not hopeful either.
As the researchers admit, the change was caused by a gene being broken, i.e. a loss of genetic information. That is degeneration, not evolution. The plant has not gained a structure it did not have before. In fact, it has lost an important structure, the nectar spurs, which reduces its options for being pollinated. If moths with their long proboscises try to feed from the centre of the flower, rather than from the nectar spurs their heads are not close enough to collect any pollen.
The extra row of sepals is not a new structure, and the broken gene didn’t form them. The plant already had sepals. The extra row results from the loss of the signal to make petals muddling the complex sequence of genetic control that occurs during flower formation.
An extreme form extra sepals resulting from muddled genetic signalling occurs in flowers known as green roses. In these the flower bud can only make sepals, and it makes multiple rows of them resulting in a cluster of green sepals with no other flower parts. These are definitely “hopeless monsters” as they cannot reproduce themselves, but they survive because people like them and propagate them by grafting. Creation Research has several specimens in our collection of unusual plants.’https://creationfactfile.com/6475/hopeful-monster-flowers/
whatyareckon 