The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

involves comparing all cataloged proteins expressed in different species to known orthology groups, and grouping organisms based on similar orthology content (O’Micks 2017). For those groups where sizable monobaramins have been identified based on hybrid data, it is clear that considerable diversity exists. At the lay level, creationists have often attributed this to recombination of created alleles, mutation (which is often attributed to random error), and natural selection. Certainly these mechanisms were in operation, but numerous lines of evidence suggest these are insufficient to solely account for many of the patterns we observe today (Rupe and Sanford 2013; Lightner 2015; Anderson 2016). For example, many adaptive alleles are rare and only advantageous in specific environments. This suggests they are not created alleles, but arose rapidly when a particular trait was needed by the organism. Neo-Darwinian mechanisms (random mutation and natural selection) are not genetically adequate for explaining this pattern (Lightner 2014; Lightner 2015). The eKINDS project is investigating alternative mechanisms for the production of new, potentially adaptive alleles in vertebrates, such as mechanisms of directed mutation. It is well known that DNA editing occurs during meiosis in a process known as homologous recombination, which encompasses both crossing over and gene conversion. DNA editing is also involved in antibody formation as part of the immune system; this includes somatic hypermutation and class switch recombination. These processes are essential for life. It has been noted that one of the enzymes used in antibody formation, activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID), has also been found in the germline (e.g., see discussion in Lightner 2016). As part of the eKINDS project, we intend to look for evidence that this enzyme may have been active in making heritable genetic changes. The generation of new alleles is only one factor involved in diversification and speciation. There also are mechanisms that can increase or decrease the prevalence of alleles in a population. Natural selection has been reviewed in detail elsewhere (Lightner 2015). Genetic drift is considered to be important in small or declining populations. Other factors, some of which we have begun to explore in more detail as part of the eKINDS project, are founder events, hybridization, and non-Mendelian inheritance. Non-Mendelian inheritance, often termed “meiotic drive,” was first recognized over sixty ago. It involves the preferential transmission of one allele over the other in a heterozygous genotype. Probably the best known example is biased gene conversion (Lightner 2015). Based on their world-view, evolutionists have assumed that meiotic drive is always random with respect to fitness, which appears to be a convenient excuse to ignore its effects. However, the reality that complex designed mechanisms underlie gene conversion suggests that various forms of meiotic drive may actually be designed to facilitate the spread of potentially adaptive alleles. Thus, meiotic drive is important to examine in more detail. Finally, evolutionists have often taken biologic and fossil data and attempted to infer the natural history of organisms as they have transformed through time. The problem with their explanations is that they assume universal common ancestry and do not account for the global Flood of Noah’s time. Creationists are in a position to propose a more robust natural history of life, based upon both biblical history and physical evidence from creation. As we attempt to do this, we should continue to uncover evidence that substantiates (or possibly modifies) our current understanding of kinds, and how God designed them to reproduce and fill the earth. IDENTIFYING KINDS The molecular based baraminology method the eKINDS project has been developing measures the similarity in expressed orthologous protein content (using the Jaccard Coefficient Value, or JCV) between species and assigns them to individual baramins. It is based on the assumption that different created kinds were likely endowed with a different array of protein coding genes, which have remained largely conserved throughout history. It assumes similarity in phenotype has been retained within baramins, and an analogous set of core proteins underlies this similarity. The method has been applied to various prokaryotic groups, and clustering based on orthologous proteins was found. It should be noted that the term “orthologous” is used for simplicity, but the evolutionary interpretation that similar protein coding genes have all arisen from common ancestry is rejected (O’Micks 2017). In a creation paradigm, similar proteins may have been provided for separate kinds when there was a biologically sound reason for doing so (just as reuse of design elements is common in human engineering). Within the eKINDS project, this method was first applied to 104 insect species from four orders (Diptera, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, andLepidoptera) (O’Micks andLightner, unpublisheddata).Diptera forms two clear clusters. The first cluster was comprised of the species in the suborder Nematocera, which included five species of mosquitos (family Culicidae). The second dipteran cluster included members from four of the numerous families in the suborder Brachycera. These four families are in different superfamilies, and represent a sizable portion of this suborder. Hemiptera split into two clusters, only one of which was statistically significant. The pattern was unpredicted based on current taxonomic status, and many members of the cluster that lack statistical significance had far fewer orthologs than the others (<7500). All 43 species of Hymenoptera that were included in this study fell into one cluster. They represented 14 different families across the three major groupings in the order: Aculeata (ants, bees and stinging wasps), “Symphyta” (sawflies, horntails and wood wasps), and “Parasitica” (parasitic Apocrita) (BugGuide.net). The ten species of Lepidoptera, which represented six different superfamilies, clustered together, though two of them with fewer orthologs (<6000) did not group as strongly as the others. Comparisons have also been run between humans and other primates. In this case humans ( Homo sapiens , Denisovans and Neanderthals) formed a clear cluster, and great apes clustered with the Old World and New World monkeys. When a larger group that included other mammals and birds was analyzed, differences between humans and other primates were comparable to the differences between humans and some of the cats (Fig. 1). There are several conclusions we can draw from these comparisons. First, there is clear discontinuity within the class Insecta, and sometimes it is below the level of the order (e.g., Diptera). There Lightner and Anderson ◀ The CRS eKINDS research initiative ▶ 2018 ICC 186