The Kentucky Derby Limit

Because of its association with gambling, thoroughbred horse racing may not enjoy as much respect as the breeding programs at prestigious universities. But fruit fly racing isn’t a major American sport, so Drosophila breeding doesn’t attract big bucks from corporate sponsors. On May 2, 1998, Real Quiet made a net profit of $738,800 for his owners in just two minutes and two and one-fifth seconds. Can you name any fruit fly that made nearly three quarters of a million dollars for the breeding scientist last year? We doubt it.

Our point is that money is a wondrously effective motivating force behind some serious breeding programs in countless stables that are not associated with universities. The goal of these breeding programs is to produce 3-year-old horses that can run 1¼ miles faster than any other horse born in the same year. What we want to know is, “Is there a limit to how fast horses can run? Or can horses continually evolve to run faster and faster without limit?”

This is important because the theory of evolution holds as one of its postulates that there is no limit to how much a species can evolve. Evolutionists say this lack of a limit allowed a dinosaur to evolve into a hummingbird. Creationists claim that species can only evolve within certain limits set by the amount of genetic variability in the critter’s DNA. Whose view is more consistent with the data?

Kentucky Derby Data

This year Charismatic won the Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes. There was a possibility that he would win the Belmont Stakes and become a Triple Crown Winner. But he ran so hard that he broke his own leg and lost the Belmont Stakes. Have we reached the point where horses’ muscles are getting so strong that they are too strong for their own bones?

Here is a table of the Kentucky Derby winning times (in seconds) for the last 126 years. If you graph this data you can see there has been no noticeable improvement for the last 50 years. [This article was originally written in 1999; but the statistics have been updated to include Kentucky Derby results after 1999.]

Year	Time	Winner
1896	128	Ben Brush
1897	133	Typhoon II
1898	129	Plaudit
1899	132	Manuel
1900	126	Lieut. Gibson
1901	128	His Eminence
1902	129	Alan-a-Dale
1903	129	Judge Himes
1904	129	Elwood
1905	131	Agile
1906	128	Sir Huon
1907	132	Pink Star
1908	135	Stone Street
1909	128	Wintergreen
1910	126	Donau
1911	125	Meridian
1912	129	Worth
1913	124	Donerail
1914	123	Old Rosebud
1915	125	Regret
1916	124	George Smith
1917	124	Omar Khayyam
1918	130	Exterminator
1919	129	Sir Barton
1920	129	Paul Jones
1921	124	Behave Yourself
1922	124	Morvich
1923	125	Zev
1924	125	Black Gold
1925	127	Flying Ebony
1926	123	Bubbling Over
1927	126	Whiskery
1928	130	Reigh Count
1929	130	Clyde Van Dusen
1930	127	Gallant Fox
1931	121	Twenty Grand
1932	125	Burgoo King
1933	126	Brokers Tip
1934	124	Cavalcade
1935	125	Omaha
1936	123	Bold Venture
1937	123	War Admiral
1938	124	Lawrin
1939	123	Johnstown
1940	125	Gallahadion
1941	121	Whirlaway
1942	124	Shut Out
1943	124	Count Fleet
1944	124	Pensive
1945	127	Hoop Jr.
1946	126	Assault
1947	126	Jet Pilot
1948	125	Citation
1949	124	Ponder
1950	121	Middleground
1951	122	Count Turf
1952	121	Hill Gail
1953	122	Dark Star
1954	123	Determine
1955	121	Swaps
1956	123	Needles
1957	122	Iron Liege
1958	125	Tim Tam
1959	122	Tomy Lee
1960	122	Venetian Way
1961	124	Carry Back
1962	120	Decidedly
1963	121	Chateaugay
1964	120	Northern Dancer
1965	121	Lucky Debonair
1966	122	Kauai King
1967	120	Proud Clarion
1968	122	Forward Pass
1969	121	Majestic Prince
1970	123	Dust Commander
1971	123	Canonero I
1972	121	Riva Ridge
1973	119	Secretariat
1974	124	Cannonade
1975	122	Foolish Pleasure
1976	122	Bold Forbes
1977	122	Seattle Slew
1978	121	Affirmed
1979	122	Spectacular Bid
1980	122	Genuine Risk
1981	122	Pleasant Colony
1982	122	Gato Del Sol
1983	122	Sunny’s Halo
1984	122	Swale
1985	120	Spend a Buck
1986	123	Ferdinand
1987	123	Alysheba
1988	122	Winning Colors
1989	125	Sunday Silence
1990	122	Unbridled
1991	123	Strike the Gold
1992	123	Lil E. Tee
1993	122	Sea Hero
1994	124	Go for Gin
1995	121	Thunder Gulch
1996	121	Grindstone
1997	122	Silver Charm
1998	122	Real Quiet
1999	123	Charismatic
After this article was written
2000	121	Fusaichi Pegasus
2001	120	Monarchos
2002	121	War Emblem
2003	121	Funny Cide
2004	124	Smarty Jones
2005	123	Giacomo
2006	121	Barbaro
2007	122	Street Sense
2008	122	Big Brown
2009	123	Mine That Bird
2010	125	Super Saver
2011	122	Animal Kingdom
2012	122	I'll Have Another
2013	123	Orb
2014	123	California Chrome
2015	122	American Pharoah
2016	121	Nyquist
2017	124	Always Dreaming
2018	124	Justify
2019	124	Country House
2020	120	Authentic
2021	121	Medina Spirit
2022	123	Rich Strike

The Kentucky Derby data does not show increasing speed without limit. The last six decades show remarkable consistency, which seems to indicate that the limit may already have been reached.

When researching the Kentucky Derby data, we stumbled across this interesting passage in the Thoroughbred Times On-Line Stallion Directory.

Simply put, the fact that each cast of the genetic dice is governed by the laws of probability means that the offspring is likely to be closer to the genetic mean than either parent. Thus, even if you mate two Triple Crown winners, you are much more likely to get a modest runner than a Triple Crown winner. 1

We can’t help but point out that the only three fillies (young female horses) to have won the Derby were Regret, 1915; Genuine Risk, 1980; and Winning Colors, 1988. None of them went on to win the Triple Crown. Therefore, since all the Triple Crown winners were stallions, if you mate two Triple Crown winners you won’t even get a modest runner. But the point is still valid--offspring do tend toward the genetic mean.

Evolution and Limits

We agree completely with statements 1a through 4a. We don’t know of any creationists who don’t agree with those statements. The only disagreement is with statements 4b through 5b. Specifically, we believe there are limits. The Kentucky Derby data suggests that there is a limit to how fast horses can run. Statement 4b is false.

Statement 5a depends upon statement 4b to be true. The only way all current species can share a single common ancestor is if there are no limits to how much genes can change. If there is a limit to how much a species can evolve, then all current species cannot share a common ancestor.

Statement 5b is merely a silly gloss intended to support statement 5a. Similarity of species does not necessarily show common ancestry. The similarities could just as well reflect the preferences of a creator.

Geographical distribution of species merely shows that children tend to be born near their mothers. This isn’t a particularly profound statement, and in no way proves evolution. In fact, it would be better proof of evolution if species appeared in places where their parents had never been because that would be evidence that they evolved from something else. For example, if kangaroos suddenly appeared in Nebraska, without any kangaroos being introduced to the state, it would mean that they must have evolved from prairie dogs.

We are starting to grow weary of pointing out that the fossil evidence shows abrupt appearance of species, with very little change after their appearance. Unfortunately, statement 5b requires us to say it again.

Statement 5 is the issue. Students are being taught that all current species have a common ancestor. They are told this is possible because there is no limit to how much a population can evolve. That’s why this essay is emphasizing that there are limits to biological change. The Kentucky Derby is just one example.

The Milk Limit

Seriously, milk contains about 150 calories per cup. That’s 2,400 calories per gallon. Suppose a cow eats 15,000 calories a day. (We are just guessing. Weight Watchers doesn’t publish any recommended diets for cows.) If she is 100% efficient, a cow can produce 6.25 gallons of milk (which contain a total of 15,000 calories) a day on a 15,000 calorie diet. Of course a cow has to expend some calories to grow muscles, and bone, and keep warm, etc., so she can’t turn 100% of her input energy into milk. No doubt someone at an agricultural college has done a Ph.D. thesis relating diet to milk production and can tell us how efficient modern dairy cows are. We just could not find that thesis. ² But we are confident that cows can’t violate the law of conservation of energy, and cannot produce energy out of nothing. Therefore, there must be a limit to how much milk a cow can produce. One could make a similar argument about the egg production of chickens.

Other Limits

But for evolution to be true, there must not only be no limit to existing characteristics, there must also be no limit to the appearance of entirely new characteristics. According to statement 4b, there is no fundamental reason why horses can’t grow wings and learn to fly. That sounds silly (we hope), and will draw criticism because it is a “creationist caricature”, but it is true. Evolution depends upon the idea that a land mammal evolved into a porpoise, complete with sonar. Evolutionists must also believe that (over some controversial period of time) mice can sprout wings and evolve into bats, complete with sonar.

Is it so unreasonable to ask for the slightest bit of scientific proof that there are no limits to evolution? What is the proof that grain-eating mice can evolve into insect-eating bats that use sonar to fly through dark caves? As far as we can tell, the evolutionists’ reasoning is simply that bats exist. Since bats must have evolved from mice, there must be no limit to how much a species can evolve. Since there is no limit to evolution, mice could have evolved into bats. It is an obviously circular argument, which is why you don’t hear evolutionists present it that way.

Yes, we’ve put words in evolutionists’ mouths. That’s because they won’t speak for themselves. What is the proof that there is no limit to how much a population can evolve? There isn’t any. One has to accept, by faith, the doctrine that there are no limits to how much a population can evolve in response to the pressure of selection. Once you accept that false doctrine, then one can accept the false doctrine that all species share a common (unknown) ancestor.

Professional breeders know there are limits because they’ve been pushing those limits as far as they can. If someone could breed a horse that runs the Kentucky Derby in one minute, they would do it. If they could cross a horse with an eagle to produce a flying horse (like Pegasus), they would do it. (Imagine the money maker that would be!) The scientific evidence is that there are limits to the genetic variability of species, which prevent the evolution of entirely new species. Science is against evolution.

For an update on this article, please see "California Chrome Proves Us Right".

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution Home Page	Back issues of Disclosure (our newsletter)
Web Site of the Month	Topical Index

Footnotes:

¹ http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/SDOL99/default.asp
² Some time after we wrote this article, we happened to find Tidbits of the Eastern Sierra Nevada", 5 February, 1999. (Their registered service mark is, "All the News You Never Knew that You Never Needed to Know.") This particular issue said, "The average dairy cow produces about 1,600 gallons of milk annually." That works out to almost 4.4 gallons per day, which is 70% efficiency, if our estimate of caloric intake is correct.