Browse Search Feedback Other Links Home Home The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Index to Creationist Claims,  edited by Mark Isaak,    Copyright © 2006
Previous Claim: CH520   |   List of Claims   |   Next Claim: CH541

Claim CH521:

The specialized dietary needs of many animals might have come about only after the Flood via microevolution. Microevolution could also account for climate preferences, lack of dormancy, wild temperament, and other traits, meaning that Noah never would have had to face many of the challenges that would be posed by animals in their present form.


Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, Santee, CA: ICR, pp. 61, 116-117, 125, 134.


  1. It is ironic that someone opposed to evolution would invoke evolution as a magic wand to solve so many problems. The rates of evolution proposed by Woodmorappe are far greater than the evolution rates that biologists propose to account for common descent of all plants and animals from a common ancestor.

    Woodmorappe (1996, 5-7) further proposed that all species evolved after the Flood from representative genera or families aboard the ark. Since the evolution Woodmorappe proposed involves speciation and has no barriers to change, it is unquestionably macroevolution, not microevolution.

  2. Rapid evolution requires populations that include lots of variation already; the evolution then proceeds via selection of existing variation. If there is little or no variation in the population already, nonharmful mutations must first occur to provide some variation, and evolution is much slower. According to the Flood story, almost all populations would have begun from just two individuals, making variation virtually nil. (Few populations would have had the capacity even to survive normal environmental fluctuations; Simberloff 1988). The populations would not have had the genetic variation to allow microevolution of specialized traits to be common.


  1. Simberloff, Daniel, 1988. The contribution of population and community biology to conservation science. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19: 473-511.

Previous Claim: CH520   |   List of Claims   |   Next Claim: CH541

created 2003-8-27