In their desire to validate the questionable case for evolution, conventional biologists will appeal to local adaptation, variation, and ecological speciation as supporting evidence. This is exactly what happened with recent research regarding lipstick vine (Aeschynanthus) speciation.¹

There are 160 species of Aeschynanthus that display a typical bird pollination condition. The flowers are designed with extended red corolla tubes and abundant diluted nectar. Botanists are certain that the primary pollinators are nectar-feeding sunbirds. Not surprisingly, the range of the species of Aeschynanthus are contained within the range of sunbirds, except one: Aeschynanthus acuminatus. This strange species has a short, wide, green flower. It is not only widespread throughout East Asia and Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam and Thailand, but it is also found on the island of Taiwan (which has no sunbirds).

The biologists who worked on the 2026 study wanted to test whether the Grant-Stebbins model—a conceptual framework showing how pollinators can drive floral divergence by influencing the supposed evolution of characteristics such as flower color, shape, and size—could explain the origin of A. acuminatus.¹ The authors hoped to “bridge the gaps between microevolution and macroevolution” by studying this plant-pollinator relationship.¹

Since sunbirds aren’t pollinating A. acuminatus, botanist Jing-Yi Lu set up trip cameras in Taiwan to record which birds are coming to and going from the flowers.¹ He found that generalist passerines (perching birds and songbirds), which have shorter beaks than sunbirds, pollinated A. acuminatus. So, they determined “The origin of A. acuminatus likely involved a pollinator niche expansion to include generalist passerines, an ecological shift that enabled its subsequent range expansion.”¹ They continued, “There must have been circumstances under which natural selection favored this transition toward generalist passerine birds with shorter beaks as pollinators [emphasis added].”² This, supposedly, validated the Grant-Stebbins model, resulting in ecological speciation.

But ecological speciation, of course, is far removed from real evolution and is better explained within ICR’s model of continuous environmental tracking (CET)³ and adaptive radiation⁴ (a phenomenon that shows organisms are uniquely designed to move into different environments or ecological roles). Within the genomes of plants, animals,⁵ people,⁶ and bacteria⁷ are adaptive allelic variants placed there at creation. Speciation is driven by this encoded genetic information and not by natural selection or random mutations.

Lu reported that the flower of A. acuminatus evolved a new shape, but evolution was not involved.¹ It is well known by botanists how big the typical plant genome is. For example, the rose genome is 600 to 700 megabases (Mb). Indeed, some polyploid varieties (the plant possessing one or more sets of homologous chromosomes beyond the normal two sets) can possibly exceed one gigabase (Gb). The genetic diversity for significant morphological variation (phenotypes) is within a plant’s genome. It is logical to assume this would include flower shape. The lipstick vine can move in and fill new environments (such as Taiwan, where sunbirds are absent) and adapt to new pollinators via its large, complex, engineered genome.

In fact, Lu found that,

Corolla tubes of A. acuminatus are wider and shorter than the typical sunbird-pollinated form of other congeneric [belonging to the same genus] species, facilitating nectar access by the usually thicker and shorter beaks of generalist passerines.¹

There was a phenotypic change in the flower so that generalist passerines could pollinate it. Because of this, the pollinator niche was expanded, enabling the vine’s subsequent expansion in range (e.g., Taiwan). This is the CET model and adaptive radiation in action.

Whether these vines are found on Taiwan or mainland Asia, they all belong to the genus Aeschynanthus. No macroevolution occurred. The trait variation caused by the preexisting genes that Jesus created resulted in the subspecies (morphs).

References

1. Lu, J. et al. Testing Macroevolutionary Predictions of the Grant-Stebbins Model in the Origin of Aeschynanthus Acuminatus. New Phytologist. Preprint. Posted on nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com January 27, 2026.
2. This Flower Evolved a New Shape so that Different Birds Could Pollinate It. Field Museum news release. Posted on fieldmuseum.org January 27, 2026.
3. Guliuzza, R. J. and P. Gaskill. 2018. Continuous Environmental Tracking: An Engineering Framework to Understand Adaptation and Diversification. Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism. 8: 158–184.
4. Sherwin, F. Where Did Most of Earth’s Species Come From? Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org December 15, 2025.
5. Thomas, B. 2023. Trait Variation: Engineered Alleles, Yes! Random Mutations, No! Acts & Facts. 52 (7): 12–15.
6. Guliuzza, R. J. 2025. Sickle Cell Research Confirms TOBD Prediction: Directed Genetic Adaptations. Acts & Facts. 55 (1): 6–7.
7. Corrado, J. K. Built to Adapt: What Microbial Flexibility Reveals about Biological Design. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org January 16, 2026.

* Dr. Sherwin is a science news writer at the Institute for Creation Research. He earned an M.A. in invertebrate zoology from the University of Northern Colorado and received an honorary doctorate of science from Pensacola Christian College.