taxonomy, dividing an organism
into multiple species, since many
assumptions and misinterpretations
seem to go into it. The fossils point
to one kind that has much variability
built in. This especially shows up in
the teeth. The special features of the
woolly mammoth could be simply
adaptations to the cold, since they
lived in the colder regions compared
to the Columbian mammoth.
Whether mammoths are one kind,
and separated from extinct Ice Age
mastodons or living and extinct types
of elephants cannot be known for
certain. What we do know supports
what I have suggested before7 that
the elephants of order Proboscidea,
with their many similarities, are all
one kind. This is also the opinion of
Sarfati. 8 This is not evolution, but
simply the variation due to different
environments triggering various
expressions of the pre-existing gene
pool created within the elephant kind.
1. Lister, A. and Bahn, P., Mammoths, MacMillan,
New York, 1994.
2. Lister, A.M. and Sher, A.V., Evolution and
dispersal of mammoths across the Northern
Hemisphere, Science 350:805–809, 2015.
3. Lister and Sher, ref. 2, p. 805.
4. Lister and Sher, ref. 2, p. 808.
5. Milius, S., DNA: mammoths may have mixed—
supposedly separate types may really have been
one, Science News 180( 12):13, 2011.
6. Oard, M.J., Woolly and Columbian mammoths
likely the same species, J. Creation 26( 2): 12–13,
7. Oard, M. J., Frozen in Time: Woolly Mammoths,
the Ice Age, and the Biblical Key to Their
Secrets, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp.
175–179, 187–188, 2004.
8. Sarfati, J., Mammoths—riddle of the Ice Age,
Creation 21( 4): 10–15, 2000.
The tooth wear had caused the
number of lamellae, or parallel ridges,
to have been miscounted, and so the
mammoth was assumed to be the
primitive form. I wonder how often
this kind of mistake happens because
of their assumptions. ‘Advanced’
mammoths are sometimes dated
older than ‘primitive’ mammoths,
adding to their consternation. So, it
appears the evolutionary terminology
‘primitive and advanced’ is subjective
and dependent on reasoning from the
‘dates’. This also shows that both
evolutionists and creationists need to
be cautious with our models and not
jump to conclusions too quickly.
It appears that the European M.
trogontherii and American M. columbi
are the same type of mammoth and
should not be different species:
“On this evidence, the source of
M. columbi lies in M. trogontherii
of Eurasia, its appearance in North
America representing a dispersal
and the distinction between the two
species largely a matter of usage.” 4
Lister and Sher conclude that
despite all the names given to North
American mammoths, there are only
two firmly established ;species;: M.
columbi and M. primigenius. However,
scientists that espouse evolution admit
it is very likely M. columbi and M.
primigenius are the same species, 5, 6
especially since there are a number
of intermediates or hybrids between
these two supposed species that are
given several names, such as M. hayi,
M. haroldcooki, M. jeffersonii, or M.
imperator. It appears the taxonomic
splitters have been responsible for
Evolutionists think that species are
like our created kinds: interbreeding
organisms that cannot breed with other
species. However, we can accept all
these mammoths as one created kind,
since they can interbreed and look
much alike. The kind is obviously at
a higher classification than species
with the average kind at the genus or
The evolutionist taxonomic confusion with mammoths also shows
us that we should be cautious about
accepting the details of mammoth
Figure 1. Complete skeleton of Mammuthus meriodionalis (Museo Nazionale d’Abruzzo, L’Aquila)