We were recently asked to provide a response to an article entitled “Land animals evolved from ocean ancestors – new study unravels the genetics behind the transition” on theconversation.com, dated March 26, 2026. The following is that response.
Before we can delve into the genetics in the assumed “transition,” we must first examine the underlying assumptions underpinning the evolutionist understanding of life history. Evolutionist scientists assume that life on land did not originate there but evolved and “transitioned” from life in water. This assumption is based upon another assumption regarding the geologic column, which is the general sequence of fossils from lowest to highest in the fossil record; the lowest fossils are aquatic, and the lowest fossils are assumed to be the oldest. That the lowest fossils are aquatic is a fact. That the lowest fossils are the oldest is an assumption: Evolutionists assume that the fossils lowest in the column appeared millions of years, often many tens or hundreds of millions of years, before those fossils higher in the column. They assume this because they are assuming the rock layers, or strata, formed via the principle of superposition which is an axiom of stratigraphy (stratigraphy being the branch of geology that studies strata and stratification— rock layering) where the younger rock is on top of the older rock. This is a principle that has been relied upon in geology since the days of Nicolas Steno (a creationist who became a Catholic Bishop) in the 1600’s. The following simple video illustrates this concept:
Everyone agrees that the rocks around these fossils are sedimentary rocks—rocks that have formed from sediments in water. But the principle of superposition cannot be relied upon in moving water. On the contrary, Guy Bertault has shown through multiple experiments, rather than mere assumption, that moving water naturally sorts sedimentary particles by weight, shape, and density, and causes multiple layers to form simultaneously:
These experiments show that it is truly an unfounded assumption that the bottom layers of rock formed eons before the top layers in a slow, relatively static system. Indeed, given that currents are usually present in water, particularly under environmental conditions where much sediment is deposited such as under windy, flooding conditions, we have every reason to believe that the vast majority of rock layers were laid down rapidly via this dynamic system. Indeed, the lack of erosion and disturbance between rock layers is strong evidence for this.
If the axiom underlying one’s assumptions are wrong, then the assumptions are predicated on faulty principles, and this should lead us to reevaluate any such assumptions. If the rock layers surrounding the fossils did not form bottom to top over eons of time, but instead formed virtually simultaneously over a short period of time, then the fossils are not separated by vast eons of time, and there is a very plausible reason why certain aquatic life is at the bottom of the geologic column, namely that life that dwells at the bottom—bottom dwellers—will get buried at the bottom in a catastrophic deluge. In the described dynamic burial system in a catastrophic flood, the next group of creatures to get buried above the bottom dwellers would be the fish. And this is what we do see. In nature, reptilian creatures and amphibians dwell above the fish, and this is what we see buried next in the geologic column. Above the amphibians and reptiles dwell in nature the mammals and birds, and this too fits the geologic column.
With this explanation of the fossil record, we need not assume the creatures below evolved into the creatures above, but that these different creatures naturally dwelt in different levels and ecosystems and were buried accordingly. Variations within the described general system can be plausibly explained by the fact that carcasses of different creatures have various shapes, sizes, and densities and may have been sorted hydrologically according to the same principles experimentally observed in the flume experiments of Guy Bertault and others, with land dwelling creatures naturally sorting above the sea dwelling creatures below.
With the above understanding of the fossil record, the geologic, and stratigraphy, it behooves one to seriously question the assumed “transition from water to land,” and we can see why it “is a question that still intrigues [evolutionist] scientists.”
The article assumes an evolutionary timeline with animal life starting “over 600 million years ago” with a link to a study that admits molecular (genetic) clock analyses do not easily align with the fossil record. The study can only get molecular (genetic) clock results closer to the fossil record when the authors “reject a literal reading of the fossil record.” This is a strange final conclusion for the evolutionist worldview because it admits that the evolutionist reading of genetics does not align well with the evolutionist reading of the fossil record.
The article states animals began their transition to land “500 million years ago,” with a link to a study which is the basis of the article in question that starts by plainly admitting in its first sentence of the abstract, “The challenges associated with the transition of life from water to land are profound […].” The study’s title sums up the study’s conclusion: “Convergent genome evolution shaped the emergence of terrestrial animals.” To understand what this means, one must understand the evolutionist concept of so-called “convergent” evolution.
According to Wikipedia, “Convergent evolution is the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages. Convergent evolution creates analogous structures that have similar form or function but were not present in the last common ancestor of those groups.” When an evolutionist sees essentially the same structure in multiple creatures, yet that structure must have arisen via evolution independently, the “explanation” given is “convergent evolution” which is really not an explanation at all but merely a term to describe this most improbable of coincidences. We are told that somehow the same environmental pressures must have acted upon each creature that evolved the organ or genetic sequence, causing evolution, which is said to rely upon essentially random mutations guided by natural selection, to bring about the same structure again and again. Of course, when one realizes the probability of even one such structure being caused by a completely unintelligible chain of just-so causes and effects, surely it takes a religious faith to believe that such unlikely effects just happen again and again, even though this has never been experimentally observed and is merely the product of an imagination that cannot imagine the God who spoke and it was made, who commanded and it came forth.
Utilizing Grok, we can view a list of a number of organs that we are told to believe arose independently (not through common ancestry) via “convergent evolution:”
Top Convergent Organs (High # of Independent Origins)
| Organ / Structure | Independent Origins | Groups Involved | Function | Why Convergent |
| Vermiform Appendix | 32–38 times | Mammals (primates, rodents, marsupials, bats, opossums, etc.) | “Safe house” for gut bacteria; immune function | Same position off cecum, same role — but scattered across mammal tree |
| Electric Organs | ≥6–11 times | Fishes: Electric eels (Gymnotiformes), electric catfish (Malapteruridae), electric rays (Torpediniformes), stargazers, etc. | Generate electric fields for hunting, defense, navigation | Modified muscle or nerve tissue → electricity; no shared ancestor |
| Camera-Type Eyes | ≥8–10 times (complex image-forming eyes) | Vertebrates (humans, fish), cephalopods (octopus, squid), some jellyfish (box jellyfish) | High-resolution vision | Lens + retina evolved separately; inverted vs. everted retina proves independence |
| Swim Bladders / Lungs | ≥2 major times (lungfish + tetrapods; swim bladder in ray-finned fish) | Fish (actinopterygians), lungfish, tetrapods (amphibians → mammals) | Buoyancy (fish) or air breathing (tetrapods) | Homologous in origin? No — recent evidence suggests convergent gas-filled sacs |
| Milk-Producing Glands (Mammary Glands) | ≥2–3 times | Mammals (monotremes, marsupials, placentals); possibly in synapsids | Nourish young with nutrient-rich secretion | Skin glands modified independently in different mammal lineages |
| Venom Glands | >100 times | Snakes, spiders, scorpions, cone snails, centipedes, platypus, slow loris | Toxin production and delivery | Salivary or skin glands repurposed — different toxins, same function |
| Bioluminescent Organs (Photophores) | >40 times | Deep-sea fish, squid, jellyfish, crustaceans, bacteria (symbiotic) | Camouflage, luring prey, communication | Luciferase enzyme systems evolved separately in each group |
Other Notable Convergent Organs (5–20+ origins)
| Organ | Origins | Groups | Function | Notes |
| Ceca / Fermentation Pouches | ~25–30 times | Mammals (horses, koalas), birds (paired ceca), some lizards, fish | Digest plant fiber via microbes | Often confused with appendix; larger, broader role |
| Ink Glands | ≥5 times | Cephalopods (squid, octopus), sea hares (Aplysia), some fish | Defense via ink cloud | Chemically different inks, same escape strategy |
| Silk Glands | ≥23 times | Spiders, silkworms, caddisfly larvae, glow-worms | Web, cocoon, or trap construction | Proteins (silk) evolved independently |
| Adhesive Toe Pads | ≥14 times | Geckos, anoles, tree frogs, some bats | Climb smooth surfaces | Microscopic setae or mucus — no shared structure |
| Echolocation Organs (Larynx + Nasal Passages) | ≥3 times | Bats (microbats), toothed whales (dolphins), shrews | Sonar navigation/hunting | Same frequency use, different anatomy |
| Thymus Gland | ≥2 times | Jawed vertebrates (sharks → mammals); possibly in lampreys | T-cell maturation | Immune organ evolved separately in vertebrates |
There are also many examples of complex gene networks exhibiting “convergent evolution:”
| Rank | Network | Independent Origins | Key Components & Complexity | Why Convergent? |
| 1 | C4/CAM Photosynthesis GRNs (Gene Regulatory Networks for carbon fixation in dry/hot environments) | ≥62 (C4); ≥20 (CAM) | – Involves ~50–100 genes across Kranz anatomy (C4) or temporal separation (CAM). – Hierarchical: Upstream TFs (e.g., GRFs, KNOX) activate mid-level modules (e.g., PEPC, PPDK for CO2 concentration) with feedback loops for diurnal rhythm. – Scale-free topology with hub genes like PPCK (regulates nocturnal CO2 uptake). – Emergent: Robust to water stress via co-option of ancient desiccation tolerance pathways. | Evolved independently in angiosperm families (e.g., grasses for C4, succulents for CAM) via co-option of conserved seed DT (desiccation tolerance) networks into leaves, despite no shared ancestry; transcriptomic shifts in expression timing (e.g., PPCK from day to night) recur across lineages. |
| 2 | bHLH Transcription Factor Networks (Basic Helix-Loop-Helix for cell fate decisions in development) | ≥10–15 (symmetrical topologies in eukaryotes) | – ~20–50 interconnected bHLH proteins (e.g., Myc/Max, MASH1) forming dimeric hubs with DNA-binding motifs. – Multi-layered: Input (ligand binding) → dimerization → output (gene activation/repression) with negative feedback loops. – Scale-free: Hub proteins (e.g., Max) connect >80% of interactions; emergent symmetry in regulatory graphs. – Complexity: Emerges from single-gene duplications, yielding robust, modular circuits for neurogenesis or myogenesis. | Convergent symmetrical topologies arise in unrelated clades (e.g., animal neurogenesis, plant stomatal development) via duplication-divergence; same hub roles (e.g., choice between expression patterns) evolve independently, minimizing pleiotropy. |
| 3 | Staufen-Mediated mRNA Decay (SMD) Network (Post-transcriptional regulation in muscle development) | ≥2 (mammals: humans vs. mice) | – ~30–40 genes, including Staufen1/2 (RNA-binding hubs), UPF1 helicase, and SINE-derived noncoding RNAs. – Hierarchical: SINE insertion in 3′ UTR → Staufen binding → decay via nonsense-mediated pathways. – Scale-free: Staufen as central hub regulates >100 myoblast transcripts; feedback with splicing factors. – Emergent: Stabilizes muscle differentiation genes under stress; >20 convergent gene pairs identified. | Independent insertion of lineage-specific SINEs (e.g., human Alu vs. mouse B2) recruits orthologous genes (e.g., same myoblast targets) into the network, regulating identical proteins despite 80+ My divergence; excess pairs beyond chance indicate selection for shared decay control. |
| 4 | Dosage Compensation GRNs (Chromosome-wide gene upregulation in sex chromosomes) | ≥3 (Drosophila clades; plus mammals/birds) | – ~100–200 sites (e.g., chromatin entry sites/CES) with MSL complex (MOF acetylase, MLE helicase, roX RNAs). – Multi-layered: High-acetyl motifs → spreading along X chromosome → histone acetylation loops. – Scale-free: MSL2 hub binds >1,000 loci; dynamic turnover of sites via transposable elements. – Emergent: Balances X-linked expression; evolves rapidly with chromosome fusions. | Convergent acquisition/retention of CES on neo-X chromosomes (e.g., Drosophila 3L vs. ancestral X) via independent motif recruitment; shared regulatory motifs and turnover patterns despite separate origins ~10–50 Mya. |
| 5 | Viviparity GRNs (Placental development and maternal-fetal nutrient exchange) | >150 (vertebrates) | – ~50–80 genes (e.g., prolactin family, Wnt/IGF signaling) in uterine-embryo interface. – Hierarchical: Hormone sensors → TF cascades (e.g., HOX for trophoblast invasion) → immune tolerance modules. – Scale-free: Prolactin hub regulates >40 targets; feedback with EGF for placentotrophy. – Emergent: Suppresses rejection while enabling nutrient transfer; toolbox co-option from oviduct genes. | Different orthologs recruited across fish, reptiles, mammals (e.g., no shared upregulated genes, but same functions via paralogs); redundancies in signaling “toolboxes” enable repeated evolution from ovipary, constrained by lineage ancestry. |
How does the evolutionist explain the plethora of seemingly impossible coincidences of evolution called “convergent evolution”? “Co-opting.” They explain that somehow the evolution mechanism utilizes pre-existing molecular structures and modifies them to get a different outcome. The problems with this explanation are manifold:
- It is a fact that there are multiple similar molecular structures within various creatures, and the “co-opting” hypothesis rests upon this recognition of similar structures across various organisms. The thought process is, “Since we see similar molecular structures across seemingly not closely related organisms (based on evolutionist phylogenetic studies), and since we know evolution is true and is the only acceptable explanation for how these molecular structures got here, then surely at some point in its evolutionary history the organism in question must have utilized the framework of the molecular structure this other organism possesses as a basis for forming the current molecular structure we see in the organism, and this not only explains the molecular similarity, but how evolution doesn’t have to begin from scratch on each example of convergent evolution.” Notice the lack of detailed explanation for the exact specific genetic changes needed for such a “co-opting” which would require delicate coordination, allowing intermediate organisms to still be functionally and selectively advantageous. That there are similar structures across not closely related organisms is not a problem for the Creation explanation as this is just the homology argument; a common designer would tend to utilize the same basic design when accomplishing the same basic function.
- Where are the experimental examples? Rather than experimental examples demonstrating precisely how this co-opting explanation actually works, we have instead retrospective and comparative analyses which use ad hoc inferences to hand wave; we do not get from these analyses demonstration of novel molecular building of structures which fill in the extraordinary amount of missing genetic and protein-based molecular data which would be necessary to actually show us how a naturalistic process that goes through a highly complex transformations needed to explain, for instance, the creation of the veriform appendix in 32-38 novel, separate instances.
- No acknowledgment is given that even the already complex “toolkits” involved, the molecular frameworks claimed to be the building blocks of the hypothesized co-opting events, had to have come from somewhere, but how did the framework of these complex “toolkits” arrive in the first place?
- The co-opting explanation ignores the instances where supposed convergences utilize totally different genetics. I asked Google Gemini to “list any convergent evolution examples that seem to have genetics that do not match and seem to defy a co-opting explanation for their independent origins:”
While many examples of convergent evolution—like the “camera eyes” of humans and octopuses—are often cited as having a shared genetic “toolkit” (such as the Pax-6 gene), there are specific cases where the underlying genetics are fundamentally different. These examples suggest that evolution can find the same functional solution through entirely unique molecular paths, defying the idea that it must always “co-opt” the same ancestral genes.
Here are the most striking examples of convergent evolution where the genetics do not match:
1. Type I Antifreeze Proteins (AFPs) in Fish
Perhaps the most robust example of genetic non-matching occurs in polar fishes. Many different species have evolved Type I Antifreeze Proteins, which are alanine-rich, alpha-helical proteins that prevent ice crystals from growing in the blood.
- The Mismatch: Research has shown that Type I AFPs have evolved independently at least four times from completely different “progenitors.”
- The Genetics: * In the Cunner (a type of wrasse), the AFP gene evolved by duplicating and “sculpting” a portion of a GIMAP gene (normally used in the immune system).
- In Snailfish, the AFP gene appears to have emerged de novo from “junk” DNA (non-coding repetitive regions and transposons).
- Why it defies co-option: Evolution didn’t just tweak a common “antifreeze-ready” gene. Instead, it built the same protein structure using a functional protein in one lineage and “trash” DNA in another.
2. Bioluminescence (Fireflies vs. Ostracods vs. Bacteria)
Bioluminescence has evolved independently over 90 times across the tree of life. While the phenotype (producing light) is the same, the biochemistry and genetics are often wildly different.
- The Mismatch: To produce light, you need a luciferin (the fuel) and a luciferase (the enzyme). In many lineages, these are entirely non-homologous.
- The Genetics: The luciferases in fireflies, jellyfish, and ostracods (seed shrimp) belong to different protein families and have no common ancestor. Even when they use the same fuel (like the common marine luciferin coelenterazine), the genes coding for the enzymes that process it are unrelated.
- Why it defies co-option: It represents dozens of “bottom-up” inventions rather than a single shared light-producing toolkit.
3. Cyanide Production (Plants vs. Burnet Moths)
Both certain plants (like bird’s-foot trefoil) and certain insects (like the Burnet moth) produce cyanogenic glucosides to ward off predators.
- The Mismatch: Both the plant and the moth arrived at the exact same chemical “poison,” but they use different sets of genes to build it.
- The Genetics: While both use enzymes from the large Cytochrome P450 family, the specific sub-families and the sequence of the metabolic pathway are distinct. The moth’s genes are not the result of horizontal gene transfer from plants; they are a purely independent invention of the same chemical weapon.
4. C4 Photosynthesis
C4 photosynthesis is a “CO2 pump” that allows plants to thrive in hot, dry climates. It has evolved independently over 60 times in different plant lineages.
+1
- The Mismatch: While C4 plants use the same core enzymes (like PEPC), the regulatory genetics that tell the plant where and when to build the “Kranz anatomy” (the specialized leaf structure) are often unique to each lineage.
- The Genetics: In some lineages, the C4 pathway is controlled by specific ancient genes that were repurposed, but in others, the regulatory logic is built from scratch using different “promoter” sequences in the DNA.
5. Magnetoreception (Iron-based vs. Cryptochromes)
Many animals can sense the Earth’s magnetic field, but they appear to have evolved entirely different genetic and cellular mechanisms to do so.
- The Mismatch: Some animals use a mechanical system based on tiny crystals of magnetite, while others use a quantum system based on light-sensitive proteins.
- The Genetics:
- Biogenic Magnetite: Requires genes for iron transport and mineralization (similar to building bone).
- Cryptochromes: Uses blue-light sensitive proteins in the eye (related to circadian rhythm genes).
- Why it defies co-option: These are two fundamentally different physical principles (mechanics vs. quantum chemistry) reaching the same sensory goal.
Summary Table: Convergent Traits with Divergent Genetics
| Trait | Organisms | Genetic Mechanism |
| :— | :— | :— |
| Antifreeze | Cunner vs. Snailfish | GIMAP Protein vs. Non-coding DNA |
| Light Production | Fireflies vs. Ostracods | Distinct non-homologous Luciferases |
| Cyanide Defense | Plants vs. Moths | Different P450 enzyme lineages |
| Magnetosensing | Salmon vs. Robins | Iron mineralization vs. Light-sensitive proteins|
Sources:
| Topic | Primary Reference | Notes |
| Antifreeze (Cunner) | Graham, L. A., et al. (2013). “The cunner antifreeze protein gene: a case of recent gene duplication and sculpting of an immune system gene.” PLOS ONE. | Confirmed: Case of immune gene co-option. |
| Antifreeze (Snailfish) | Graham, L. A., et al. (2008). “Identification of a Type I antifreeze protein gene in the snailfish Liparis gibbus.” Marine Biology. | Confirmed: Suggests de novo origin from non-coding DNA. |
| Bioluminescence | Haddock, S. H., et al. (2010). “Bioluminescence in the ocean: Origins of biological, chemical, and ecological diversity.” Annual Review of Marine Science. | The “gold standard” review for the 90+ independent origins. |
| Cyanide Production | Jensen, K., et al. (2011). “Convergent evolution in biosynthesis of cyanogenic defence compounds in plants and insects.” Nature Communications. | Proves identical chemical output via non-homologous pathways. |
| C4 Photosynthesis | Williams, B. P., et al. (2013). “Phenotypic landscape inference reveals multiple evolutionary paths to C4 photosynthesis.” eLife. | Correction: This is in eLife, not Nature, though it is widely cited in Nature reviews. |
| Magnetoreception | Mouritsen, H. (2018). “Long-distance navigation and magnetoreception in migratory animals.” Nature. | Comprehensive look at the mechanical vs. quantum mechanisms. |
| Arthropod Eyes | Oakley, T. H., & Cunningham, C. W. (2002). “Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the independent evolutionary origins of an arthropod compound eye.” PNAS. | Challenges the idea of a single ancestral “eye gene” fixing all paths. |
Note that there are no examples of random mutations that de facto create truly novel functional information to the genome of any plant, animal, or human. Without this, molecules to man evolution is dead in the water. Hypothetically, if a claim was made that a mutation or series of mutations were to seemingly add a new function, this would be because of a designed framework whereby the mutations are actually designed results of environmental changes, such that the final effect is not actually some truly novel one built by Darwinian evolution, but is a designed feature only made possible by the created genetic framework in which that mutation happened. For instance, so far as we can tell, all bears descended from other bears. Certain characteristics of polar bears almost certainly involved mutations from the proto-bear, but it cannot be said that these mutations were random; the created genetic framework was designed to allow for such changes to be triggered by the environment. Limited variation within a created kind is observed. Changes from one kind of organism to another are never observed: A polar bear remains a bear. The vast majority of mutations we observe are simply errors in the code. These errors deteriorate the genetic code causing the genetics to crumble with time, not improve. This is because the genetic code is just that, a code, and codes convey information, and in this case, programming instructions. For more information, please see here.
Getting back to the article in question, it states:
We found that most transitions to land were accompanied by a large gene turnover, with many gene gains and reductions happening at the same time. The ability of genomes to gain and lose genes played a key role in animal adaptation to new habitats.
So in other words, it was noticed that there was a big difference between the genetics of the sea creatures and the genetics of the land creatures. This finding should surprise no one. Inference was then used to determine that many genes were “lost” and many were “gained” in each supposed transition from sea creature to land creature. The study authors then went on to determine that land animals have in common certain functions coded by certain genes which the article claims were “gained” and sea creatures have in common certain functions coded by certain genes that the article claims were “lost” in the land animals. We are not told in any precise terms to what degree there is similarity in the genetics of the various functions supposedly gained or lost.
The article says land-based animals had evolutions that were “specialized” and had “distinct traits which reveal unique evolutionary histories[…].” This seems to be an acknowledgement that the genetics behind the supposed land evolutions/adaptations must have involved many instances of the evolutionist’s infamous rescue mechanism, “convergent evolution.”
The article goes on to say how they grouped the organisms they looked at into various groups that made various transitions to land and concluded with the following:
This study offers a glimpse into what might happen if we could replay the tape of life: some genetic changes seem inevitable, appearing again and again, as life adapts to land, while others are rare. Our research shows how evolution continuously finds new solutions to the challenges of life on Earth.
Notice in this conclusion how the author cannot help but describe “evolution” as if it is an intelligible entity that is almost omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent: Evolution is so knowledgeable that it can “continuously find” not only solutions, but “new solutions,” it is so powerful that it can handle all “the challenges of life” and it is so ubiquitous that it is everywhere present “on Earth.” What conclusion can the reader come to other than given enough time, since Evolution has no age limit, Evolution can accomplish anything; indeed, to Evolution, nothing is impossible?
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels, And every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ.
2 Corinthians 10:4-5
