
Access the full text at the publisher's website
Bergman, Jerry (2021) Evolution of the Vertebrate Kidney Baffles Evolutionists. Answers Research Journal, 14: 3. pp. 37-45. ISSN 1937-9056
An unbridgeable gap exists between the simple urinary system used in invertebrates and the far more complex kidney system used in all vertebrates. No direct evidence of the evolution of one system into the other exists, nor have any viable "just-so" stories been proposed to explain the evolution of the simple invertebrate urinary system into the complex vertebrate kidney-urinary system. The common reason evolutionists give for the lack of evidence to bridge this chasm is that soft tissue is usually not preserved in the fossil record. The problem with this claim is thousands of so-called "living fossils" exist that are claimed to be anatomically close to their hundreds of millions years old design which should display evidence of the less evolved organs. Thus, if kidney evolution occurred, evidence of primitive kidneys in living animals that bridged the two very different systems would exist. Comparisons with living fossils reveals a "paleontologic record [that] is ambiguous and open to controversy" (Romer and Parsons 1986, 399). Another problem for evolution is that a design is employed even in the simplest, least-evolved mammals, that is very similar to that used in the highest-evolved primates, including humans (Romagnani, Lasagni, and Remuzzi 2013). All vertebrates use very close to the same design, and the few variations that exist are relatively minor. The main reason the designs are very similar is that, functioning effectively to remove waste products requires a specific, irreducibly complex kidney design.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Subjects: | Q Science (General) > QH Natural History. Biology > QH359 Biological Evolution Q Science (General) > QL Zoology > QL801 Anatomy |
| Depositing User: | Admin |
| Date Deposited: | 04 Sep 2026 23:43 |
| Last Modified: | 04 Sep 2026 23:43 |
| URI: | https://crsq.creationresearch.org/id/eprint/1648 |