Evolution Cruncher Chapter 9
changes within species
This chapter is based on pp. 347-391 of
Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved
Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 154 statements by
scientists. You will find them, plus much more,
in the 3 Volume Encyclopedia on this site.
A fundamental teaching of evolution is
that every living thing in our world—whether it be a plant, animal, or
bird,—evolved from other creatures, which ultimately originated from
dust, rock, and water.
According to Darwinian evolutionists,
this ‘evolving’ was accomplished by "natural selection."
*Charles Darwin said that natural selection was the primary way that
everything changed itself from lower life-forms, and new species were
In the years that have passed since
Charles Darwin, this theory of "natural selection" has
continued as a mainstay of evolutionary theory.
In this chapter we will carefully
consider natural selection, what it can do and what it cannot do. This
is an important chapter; for, along with fossil evidence (chapter 12)
and mutations (chapter 10), natural selection ranks at the top in the
esteem of committed evolutionists. Disprove the validity of these three,
and the whole theory falls apart.
STILL DEFENDED BY SOME—(*#1/6
Evolutionists Defend Natural Selection*) It is a remarkable fact that
some evolutionists still defend their natural selection theory. But we
will discover why so many have abandoned it.
THE BASIC TEACHING—When a plant or
animal produces offspring, variations appear. Some of the offspring will
be different than other offspring. Some evolutionists (Darwinian
evolutionists, also called "Darwinists") declare that it is
these variations—alone—which have caused all life-forms on our
planet: pine trees, jackals, clams, zebras, frogs, grass, horses.
"So far as we know . . natural
selection . . is the only effective agency of evolution."—*Sir
Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 36.
"Natural selection allows the
successes, but ‘rubs out’ the failures. Thus, selection creates
complex order, without the need for a designing mind. All of the fancy
arguments about a number of improbabilities, having to be swallowed at
one gulp, are irrelevant. Selection makes the improbable,
actual."—*Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (1982), p. 308.
In this chapter, we will learn that this
statement is wishful thinking in the extreme, with no scientific support
in its favor. On the face of it, the statement is false merely from the
fact that evolutionary theory requires change by random action alone. If
even half of the random changes were positive, the other half would have
to be damaging. But *Ruse views all changes as being selectively
positive. In addition he ignores other scientific facts, such as the
powerful one that the closest thing to natural selection (gene
reshuffling) never goes across the species barrier to produce a new
Not only is natural selection said to
have produced everything, but the entire process was said to be entirely
RANDOM! Therefore it is not "selection," for nothing was
selected! Just whatever happened next was accepted. Random variations
and chance accidents are said to have produced all the wonders around
us. Their theory should be called "natural randomness," not
"Modern evolutionary theory holds
that evolution is ‘opportunistic,’ in the word of paleontologist
George Gaylord Simpson. At any point, it goes in the direction that is
advantageous, often reshaping old structures for new uses. It does not
know its destination, nor is it impelled to follow one particular
direction."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 345.
How can total randomness select only
that which is better, and move only in advantageous directions? Random
occurrences never work that way. Yet in the never-never land of
evolutionary theory, they are said to do so.
NEO-DARWINISM—(*#2/38 Scientists Speak
about Natural Selection*) Earlier in this century, a large number of
evolutionists rebelled against this theory, saying that natural
selection has never given evidence of being able to change one species
into another—and is not able to do it. They recognized that so-called
"natural selection" (actually random changes within the true
species) cannot produce cross-species change. These
"neo-Darwinists" decided that it is mutations that accomplish
the changes, and that natural selection only provided the finishing
In this chapter we will discuss natural
selection; and, in the next, mutations. When you have completed both
chapters, you will have a fairly good understanding of the subject.
Keep in mind that, although
evolutionists offer many theories and evidences, they admit that the
only mechanisms by which evolution can occur is natural selection and
mutations. There are no others! It matters not how many dinosaur bones,
ape skulls, and embryos are displayed in museums, if natural selection
and/or mutations cannot produce evolutionary change, then evolution
cannot occur. It is as simple as that.
DEFINITION OF TERMS—(*#3/5 Natural
Selection is a Useless Concept*) Here are some basic definitions that
are needed at this point:
1 - Evolution by natural
plant or animal evolves by natural selection when those processes enable
it to cross the species barrier, and produce a new—a
different—species. But keep in mind that changes within a species are
2 - Species: In these studies, we will
generally refer to the word "species" as the fundamental type,
but there are instances in which such a basic type (the "Genesis
kind," see Genesis 1:12, 21, 25) might refer to genus instead of
species. Plant and animal classifications have been made by men and
errors in labeling can and do occur. There are about three dozen
different breeds of domesticated house cats, and a few taxonomists would
list most of them as different species. But it is generally recognized
that they all are in the cat family, Felidae, the genus Fells, and the
single species F. catus (some authorities call that species F.
domesticus). In general, all life-forms within a true species can
There are over a hundred different
breeds of dogs, yet biologists uniformly recognize that they are all in
the same species.
Yet there are exceptions even to that.
In some instances, variant forms within an otherwise almost identical
species type will not interbreed, and are then classified as
3 - Variations: Variations in the
offspring of a creature can occur by Mendelian genetics, that is by
simple rearrangements or assortments of the existing DNA molecules
within genes. This is what neo-Darwinian evolutionists refer to as
"natural selection." All variations always occur within basic
types (species); they never go across those types—and produce new
types or species. Therefore no evolution occurs. Producing new breeds or
varieties is not evolution, because the species did not change.
Some species have a broad gene pool, and
are thus able to produce many varieties or breeds (such as dogs and
chrysanthemums). Others have a small one (cheetahs have an extremely
small one). Changes in color, bill length or shape, etc., can occur
within a true species because it has a large gene pool. But the flower,
bird, etc. does not change into a new species.
4 - Mutational changes: Occasionally
changes in offspring occur because of a mutational defect. Such
alterations always weaken the individual that has them. A mutational
change is not a normal variational reshuffling of the DNA code, but an
actual change in one tiny item in the code information. The result is
that the perfection of the code has been damaged. The resultant
offspring are weaker and they are more likely to die off.
5 - Survival of the fittest: Organisms
damaged by mutations or otherwise tend to be culled out. Evolutionists
call that culling out process "survival of the fittest." But
all that actually occurred was that misfits produced by mutations or
accidents are eliminated, thus returning the species closer to its pure
pattern. "Survival of the fittest" accomplishes the opposite
of evolution! The hardships of life cull out the weakened forms of each
species, and thus keep each species very stable. There is nothing in
this process that has anything to do with evolution, which is evolving
from one species to another.
First we will consider examples put
forward by evolutionists as evidences of evolution by natural selection
(1 - It Does Not Occur). Then we will turn our attention to the reasons
why natural selection cannot produce evolution (2 - Why it Cannot
1 - IT DOES NOT OCCUR
Species evolution never occurs by means
of natural selection. Evolutionists have ransacked the plant and animal
kingdoms for examples of cross-species evolution (by any means, natural
selection or otherwise!), and have been unable to find them. What they
have found are some interesting examples of variations WITHIN species.
These they present to the public and in schoolbooks as
"evidences" of evolution.
THE PEPPERED MOTH
We will briefly examine several of these
1 - PEPPERED MOTH—The peppered moth in
England is the most frequently discussed evolutionary "proof"
of natural selection. In fact, it is mentioned ten times for every
instance in which any other evidence is mentioned! Therefore, it
deserves special attention. The problem is that evolutionists really
have no proof, and the peppered moth surely is not one.
"This is the most striking
evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by
man."—*International Wildlife Encyclopedia (1970 edition), Vol.
20, p. 2706.
Noting that Darwin was plagued by his
inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, *Jastrow
"Had he known it, an example was at
hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case
was an exceedingly rare one—the peppered moth."—*Robert
Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 235.
In his large 940-page book, Asimov’s
New Guide to Science, *Isaac Asimov mentions that some fools oppose
evolution, saying it has never been proven; and then Asimov gives us a
single, outstanding evidence: the peppered moth. This is astounding—in
view of the fact that it is no evidence at all! Isaac Asimov is the
leading evolutionary science writer of the mid-twentieth century. If the
peppered moth is the best he can come up with in defense of evolution,
surely evolutionists have no case.
"One of the arguments of the
creationists is that no one has ever seen the forces of evolution at
work. That would seem the most nearly irrefutable of their arguments,
and yet it, too, is wrong. In fact, if any confirmation of Darwinism
were needed, it has turned up in examples of natural selection that have
taken place before our eyes (now that we know what to watch for). A
notable example occurred in Darwin’s native land. In England, it
seems, the peppered moth exists in two varieties, a light and a
dark."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p.
Before 1845 near Birmingham, England,
the peppered moth was primarily light-colored, but some had darker
wings. (These darker varieties were called the melanic or carbonaria
forms.) In accordance with Mendelian genetics, some peppered moth
offspring were always born with light-colored wings while others had
darker wings. Thus it had been for centuries. The little moths would
alight on the light-colored tree trunks; and birds, able to see the
darker ones more easily, ate them and tended to ignore the light-colored
varieties. Yet both varieties continued to be produced. But then the
industrial revolution came and the trees became darker from smoke and
grime—and birds began eating the lighter ones. In the 1850s, about 98%
of the uneaten peppered moths were the light variety; because of
recessive and dominant genes, peppered moths regularly produced both
varieties as offspring.
By the 1880s in the Manchester, England
area, toxic gases and soot were killing the light-colored lichen on the
trees and darkened even more the tree trunks. The changeover from light
to dark moths began there also. The smoke and smog from the factories
darkened the trunks of the trees where the moths rested. This darkening
of the trees made the dark-hued moths difficult to see, and the lighter
ones quite easy for the birds to spot.
By the 1950s, 98% of the peppered moths
were the dark variety. All the while, the moths continued to produce
both dark and light varieties.
Evolutionists point to this as a
"proof of evolution," but it is NOT a proof of evolution. We
all know that there can be variation with species. Variation within a
species is not evolution.
There are dozens of varieties of dogs,
cats, and pigeons. But no new species have been produced. They are still
dogs, cats, and pigeons.
There can be light peppered moths and
dark peppered moths,—but they are all still peppered moths. Even as
Asimov admitted in the above quotation, they are but variations within a
single species. The name of the single species that includes them both
is Biston betularla. They are all peppered moths, nothing more and
When *Harrison Matthews wrote the
introduction for the 1971 edition of *Charles Darwin’s Origin of the
Species, he denied the possibility of evolution in several respects, and
made this accurate observation about the peppered moth:
"The [peppered moth] experiments
beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the
fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for
however the populations may alter in their content of light,
intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end
Biston betularia."—*Harrison Matthews, "Introduction,"
to Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species (1971 edition), p. xi.
Let us consider this matter a little
Because of dominant and recessive genes
(Mendelian genetics), this little moth continued to produce both light
and dark offspring for thousands of years, while the birds kept eating
the dark varieties. Yet all that time, dark ones continued to be born!
This is proof of the stability of the species, which is exactly the
opposite of evolutionary "proof!"
For nearly a century, the birds ate the
lighter ones, but the darker ones kept being born. In recent years,
industrial pollution laws are making the air cleaner, and the darker
ones are more frequently eaten.
This is not evolution, but simply a
color change back and forth within a stable species.
"This is an excellent demonstration
of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with
peppered moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as
evidence for evolution."—On CalI, July 2, 1973, p. 9.
In reality, the peppered moth did not
change at all. The dark-winged type is simply a Mendelian recessive, and
both types are continually produced. Birds ate one kind and left the
other. Mendelian genetic variations cannot produce evolution, which is
change across species.
Two leading British evolutionary
scientists, said this about evolutionary claims for the peppered moth:
"We doubt, however, that anything
more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing
genes."—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from
Space (1981), p. 5.
*Grene adds this:
"The recent work of H.B.D.
Kettlewell on industrial melanism has certainly confirmed the hypothesis
that natural selection takes place in nature. This is the story of the
black mutant of the common peppered moth which, as KettlewelI has shown
with beautiful precision, increases in numbers in the vicinity of
industrial centers and decreases, being more easily exposed to
predators, in rural areas. Here, say the neo-Darwinians, is natural
selection, that is, evolution, actually going on. But to this we may
answer: selection, yes; the color of moths or snails or mice is clearly
controlled by visibility to predators; but ‘evolution’? Do these
observations explain how in the first place there came to be any moths
or snails or mice at all? By what right are we to extrapolate the
pattern by which color or other such superficial characters are governed
to the origin of species, let alone of classes, orders, phyla of living
organisms?"—Marjorie Grene, "The Faith of Darwinism,
"Encounter, November 1959, p. 52.
There is a postscript to the peppered
moth story. The above description included data about the habits of
peppered moths in England, as cited by evolutionists. They have been
telling us for years that the variation in the wing color of the
peppered moth was the fact that they rest on the sides of trees, and the
trees became darker. Well, it turns out that they did not even get that
story straight. Peppered moths do not alight on the sides of trees! And
the stock evolutionary "research photos" were made of dead
moths pasted on the sides of trees!
2 - RESISTANT FLIES AND
BACTERIA—Another example of what evolutionists declare to be
evolutionary change by "natural selection," is the fact that
certain flies have become resistant to DDT, and some bacteria are now
resistant to antibiotics. But here again, the flies are still flies, and
those bacteria are still bacteria; no species change occurred. In
reality, there were various strains of flies and bacteria, and as
certain ones were reduced by DDT, other resistant strains reproduced
more and became a majority. When DDT is stopped, after a while the
various strains bounce back. (Additional information on
"immune" flies and bacteria in chapter 10, Mutations.)
3 - PIGEONS—Pigeon breeding first
became popular in Europe in the middle of the nineteenth century.
Pigeons can be bred to produce the most astonishing variety of shapes
and colors. There are dark pigeons, light pigeons, pigeons, that twirl
as they fly, and pigeons that have such showy wings they no longer can
fly. But they are all pigeons.
Since *Darwin did not bring any live
Galapagos finches home with him, he decided to work with pigeons
instead. He joined two pigeon clubs, learned how to breed pigeons and
then set to work. Studying them on the outside and inside as well,
Darwin learned that, although there are seven basic varieties of
pigeons, all the pigeons breed with one another. All were pigeons and
sub-species of one basic species type: the rock dove. Darwin was not
able to get his pigeons to become some other kind of species, although
he tried very hard to do so.
If, after years of effort, *Charles
Darwin with his evolutionary brilliance could not change a pigeon into
something else, why should he imagine that the pigeon could do it by
Not only was the barrier of fixity of
species there, but Darwin sadly discovered that, if left to themselves,
all the pigeon varieties gradually returned toward the original pigeon:
the bluish rock pigeon (Columba livia). And that, itself, tells us a
CHANGES BACK AND FORTH—Evolutionists
strictly maintain, as part of their creed, that the evolutionary process
is not reversible. Part of this irreversibility idea requires that when
one creature has evolved into another,—the new creature cannot evolve
back into what it used to be!
Now that has serious implications for
our present study. Evolutionists present various subspecies changes as
their only actual evidence of evolution. Yet these are all changes back
and forth. This includes changes from white to dark peppered moths—and
back again, changes from one pigeon shape and color to another and back
again to the basic rock pigeon type, and changes back and forth in
bacteria. All these are supposed to prove evolution. But in each of
these instances, we only have changes within a species,—and we have
changes back and forth within that species.
4 - GRAPES AND APPLES—An article in
*World Book Encyclopedia cites the 1849 discovery of the Concord variety
of grape as an example of evolution. Then it gives four other examples:
"Other sports . . as such
variations are called, have produced hornless cattle, short-legged
sheep, "double" flowers, and new varieties of
seeds."—*World Book Encyclopedia (1972 edition), Vol. 6, p. 332.
Obviously, all the above examples are
only variations within species; none go across species. They are not
caused by mutations. All of your children will look like you, but each
will vary in appearance from one another. That is variation within
species, not evolution across species. It is a reassortment of the DNA
and genes, but nothing more.
In the 1920s, a man in Clay County, West
Virginia discovered an apple tree in his back yard with apples that
tasted fantastic. He sent one to Stark Brothers Nursery,—and the
Golden Delicious was the result. Every Golden Delicious apple tree in
the world originated from seeds from that West Virginia tree.
Neither the Concord grape, nor the
Golden Delicious apple was a mutation. Both were the result of naturally
reshuffled genes. Both were "natural selection" at its best,
which is always, only, variation within species. If they had been the
result of mutations, the result would have been weakened stock whose
offspring would tend eventually to become sterile or die out.
5 - GALAPAGOS FINCHES—During *Charles
Darwin’s five-year voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle, he visited the
Galapagos, a group of islands in the Pacific more than 600 miles [965
km] from the mainland of South America. He found several different
finches (Geospizinae) on the Galapagos Islands. Although they all looked
nearly alike, they had developed a number of different habits, diet, and
little crossbreeding between these 14 (some say 13, others 17) finches
occurred. Yet these Galapagos finches were all still finches. When
Darwin arrived back in England, a friend urged him that this was very
significant. So Darwin, knowing nothing of modern genetics and the
boundary imposed by DNA to changes across basic types, imagined that
perhaps these birds were all different types—and evolution across
types had indeed occurred.
If you will personally examine all the
Galapagos Island finches (often called Darwin finches), you will find
that they do indeed look just about alike. They are sub-species of a
single parent species that, at some earlier time, reached the island
from South America. (If hummingbirds can fly across the Gulf of Mexico,
finches ought to be able to be borne by storms to the Galapagos
Islands.) An excellent collection of all 14 of these finches is in the
California Academy of Science in San Francisco. One scientist, Walter
Lammerts, who carefully examined this collection, described their
similar appearance (Walter Lammerts, "The Galapagos Island
Finches," in Why Not Creation? (1970), pp. 355, 360-361).
When he wrote his book, Origin of the Species,
*Charles Darwin gave many examples of variation within species,
and tried to use them to prove evolution outside of true species. All
this was before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, the gene, the
chromosome, DNA, and the DNA barrier to evolution across basic types. In
his ignorance Darwin wrote down his theory; and evolutionists today
cling to it, fearful to abandon it.
Scientists acknowledge that all dogs
descended from a common ancestor, and all are dogs. Yet there are far
greater differences among dogs than there are among Darwin finches or
than most other sub-species in the world. All biologists classify dogs
as being in the same species.
Many other examples of variation within
species could be cited. In south central Africa the Pygmy and Masai
tribes live not far from each other. One is the shortest group of people
in existence today; the other the tallest. Both are human beings; only
the height is different.
Pigeon fanciers tell us there are more
color variations among pigeons than among any other animal or bird in
the world. That is the result of only a couple centuries of intensive
breeding by fanciers in Europe and America. In spite of the variations,
they can all interbreed and are just pigeons.
Within 14 years after writing Origin of
the Species, *Darwin confessed to a friend:
"In fact the belief in Natural
Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations
[faith and theorizing] . . When we descend to details, we can prove that
no one species has changed . . nor can we prove that the supposed
changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork for the theory. Nor can
we explain why some species have changed and others have
not."—*Charles Darwin, letter to Jeremy Bentham, in Francis
Darwin (ed.), Charles Darwin, Life & Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25.
LAMARCKISM—(*#5/7 The Error of
Lamarckism*) An important 19th-century error was the theory of *Jean
Baptist Lamarck (1744-1829), later called "Lamarckism." It is
the theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, and was solidly
disproved by *August Weismann in 1891, when he cut the tails off of 19
successive generations of rats—and they and their offspring continued
to grow tails! Later still, when the inheritance of characteristics was
found to depend on the DNA genetic coding and not habits or
environmental circumstances, the reason why Lamarckism could not work
was then understood.
Lamarckism teaches that one animal grew
an organ for some reason—or no reason at all,—and then passed that
organ on to the next generation, which was stuck with it.
Here are several additional examples of
acquired traits, which were never passed on to offspring: (1) Hebrews
circumcised their boys for thousands of years, but never have boys been
born automatically circumcised as a result. (2) Chinese women bound the
feet of their infant girls for several thousand years, yet the feet of
Chinese women today are normal in size. (3) The Flat-head Indians of
Northwest United States bound the heads of their children to give them
unusual shapes. After hundreds of years of this practice, their babies
continued to be born with normal-shaped heads.
Within each species there is a range of
possible changes that can be made through gene shuffling, within the
gene pool of that species. That is why no two people look exactly alike.
But this variational range cannot cross the species barrier. The DNA
code forbids it.
Here is a very important fact, which
evolutionists do not want you to know: In a later book (Descent of
1871), *Darwin repudiated natural selection as hopeless, and returned to
Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics) as the cause of
evolution.—The one who gave us so-called "natural selection"
as a means of evolution, later gave up on it as a way to produce
INSTINCT—Before concluding this
section, mention should be made of the word, "instinct." This
is a most wonderful word for explaining away facts which are
uncomfortable. The astounding migration of birds, and the amazing flight
paths they take—is explained away by calling it merely
"instinct." The mental abilities of tiny creatures, which
involve definite decision-making processes, is shrugged off as
"instinct." That only pushes back into the past something
evolutionists do not want to confront today. We will not take the space
to discuss this further, but think about all the wonders in nature which
are dismissed as merely "instinct."
2 - WHY IT CANNOT OCCUR
NEVER ACROSS TYPES—Plant scientists
have bred unusual varieties of roses, corn, chrysanthemums, etc., but
never do any of their experiments go across basic types. As we study
wildlife, we find the same thing: Never does one basic species change
into another species.
Neither plants nor animals produce new
types, nor is man able to apply special breeding techniques and produce
from them something that crosses the species barrier. It just cannot be
Modern molecular biology with its many
discoveries of DNA has added immense confirmation to the great law of
heredity. Normal variations can operate, but only within a certain range
specified by the DNA for that particular type of organism. Within this
range are all the possible variations to be found within each species.
HORSE AND MULE—Consider the horse.
There are many types of horses: large horses, fast horses, work horses,
miniature horses,—but each one is obviously a horse. Well, then, what
about the mule? A mule is a cross between two species, the horse and the
donkey. In a few instances such crosses between two species can occur.
But it is a cross, not a crossover. The horse can reproduce more horses,
the donkey can reproduce more donkeys. But when a female horse and a
male donkey crossbreed, the mule that is produced is usually sterile.
But in those rare instances in which a female mule does have offspring,
they revert back toward the horse or donkey species. A horse and a
donkey are very close to the same species, and it is only for that
reason that they can crossbreed and produce a normally barren mule.
There are several instances in which
similar species are crossbred:
"Domestic and wild animals have
produced interesting and sometimes useful (to man) hybrids. Successful
crosses have been made between cattle and bison (‘beefalo’), turkeys
and chickens (‘turkens’) and horses and zebras. Usually, the male
offspring of these unions are sterile, and the females are either
sterile, show reduced fertility or produce offspring that do not live
long."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 231.
DNA, THE BARRIER—Genetic scientists
tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each
type, and never from one type to another. It is the complicated DNA code
within each plant and animal type that erects the great wall, which
cannot be crossed.
There is no evidence that at any time,
in all the history of the world, even one new true species has formed
from other species. Yet evolutionary teachings require that such
dramatic new changes would have had to occur thousands and thousands of
times. More on this in the chapter on Fossils and Strata.
TYPES OF EYES—Each of these eyes are totally different than the
others, and evolutionists say each evolved separately. The Compound
Eye is most commonly found in insects and provides maximum
visibility in such a tiny creature. The Scallop Eye of bivalve
mollusks is many eyes on the edges of the clam shells. Light hits a
mirror-coated back which reflects it onto a concave retina, next to the
lens. The Macruran Eye is one of three different types of
compound eyes. Hundreds of mirror-lined tubes reflect the light onto a
central area. The Octopus Eye is similar to the Human Eye, but
instead of changing the shape of the lens, it changes the distance
between the lens and the retina. The Human Eye, of course, is
also quite complicated.
THE COMPOUND EYE
THE SCALLOP EYE
THE MACRURAN CRUSTACIAN
THE HUMAN EYE
THE OCTOPUS EYE
THE HUMAN EYE
THE AMAZING EYE—(*#6/39
Marvelous Eyes*; cf. #7/21 and #10*) Men presume a lot when they declare
that evolution occurred. Not only new species would have had to invent
themselves, but also the organs within those different species!
For a moment, think of what is involved
in the eye. This is a very remarkable structure, yet evolution teaches
that the eye slowly developed over millions of years,—and that this
miracle of random production of a complete eye occurred at least three
times: in the squid, the vertebrates (animals with backbones), and the
"Consider the eye ‘with all its
inimitable contrivances,’ as Darwin called them, which can admit
different amounts of light, focus at different distances, and correct
spherical and chromatic aberration. Consider the retina, consisting of
150 million correctly made and positioned specialized cells. These are
the rods [to view black and white] and the cones [to view color].
Consider the nature of light-sensitive retinal. Combined with a protein
(opsin), retinal becomes a chemical switch. Triggered by light, this
switch can generate a nerve impulse . . Each switch-containing rod and
cone is correctly wired to the brain so that the electrical storm (an
estimated 1000 million impulses per second) is continuously monitored
and translated, by a step which is a total mystery, into a mental
picture."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 215.
*Charles Darwin had a difficult time
trying to figure out his theory, and frequently admitted in his books
that it appeared impossible. He said that just to think about the eye
and how it could possibly have been produced by natural selection was
enough to make him ill. He also said this:
"To suppose that the eye with all
its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different
distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the
correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed
by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest
degree."—*Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1909 Harvard
Classics edition), p. 190.
"The eye appears to have been
designed; no designer of telescopes could have done
better."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the
Universe (1981), p. 98.
Then there is the wing. Evolutionists
tell us that the wing evolved four separate times: in insects, flying
reptiles, birds, and bats. And each time, they maintain, it was an
unplanned, random accident.
SYNTROPY—In order for a creature to
live, eat, survive, and reproduce, it must be perfect. It cannot have
only part of its structure, but must have all of it. And that structure
must be totally complete. Of the millions of DNA codes within its cells,
essentially all must be there in perfect lettering and sequence in order
for it to live and function. This coding requirement is called syntropy,
and it stands as another barrier to evolution across basic species.
Natural selection within a species may
work fine,—but you have to have the traits to begin with! These traits
may adapt (and adapting traits to new situations is not evolution), but
the traits had to be there to start with.
"Evolution cannot be described as a
process of adaptation because all organisms are already adapted . .
Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not
necessarily lead to greater adaptation."—*Lewontin,
"Adaptation," in Scientific American, September, 1978.
Although it occurs all the time within
species, natural selection does not explain the origin of species or
traits, but only their preservation and more careful use.
*Lewontin is a confirmed evolutionist,
but he recognizes that natural selection could not possibly produce
" ‘Natural selection operates
essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of
adaptation rather than to improve it.’ ‘Natural selection over the
long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but
simply enables it to track, or keep up with, the constantly changing
You cannot select what is not there. If
the trait is not already in the genes it cannot be selected for use or
adaptation. Selecting which trait will be used (which is natural
selection) is not evolution, for the trait was already at hand.
SUBSPECIES—Evolutionists reply by
saying that there are instances in which a species has divided into two
separate species. For example, they tell us of islands in the ocean
where certain flies stopped breeding together—and thus became two
Such flies have not become separate
species, but subspecies. Yet producing new subspecies is not evolution.
Evolution requires going across the species line, not developing
variations within it, such as an earlier-producing tomato or a
higher-yield corn. The tomatoes are still tomatoes, the corn is still
corn, and the flies are still flies.
Genuine evolution requires new genes
into the gene pool of a species. A reassortment of what is already there
is not evolution. If two fly colonies no longer interbreed, each one has
become more limited in its gene pool, and more restricted in its ability
to manage its environment. The long-term result might be extinction.
The test of evolution is a practical
one: The evolutionary scientists need to show us one species that is
changing into another. But, because of the DNA code barrier, this cannot
be done and never will be done.
NATURAL SELECTION ELIMINATES
EVOLUTION—*C. H. Waddington explains that
the processes of natural
selection work exactly opposite to those of theorized evolution. In
fact, natural selection would destroy evolutionary crossovers if they
could occur! A plant or animal can be selectively bred for greater
beauty, etc.; but in so doing, it has become less hardy than the wild,
natural original. Variations are never quite as hardy as the original.
"If by selection we concentrate the
genes acting in a certain direction, and produce a sub-population which
differs from the original one by greater development of some character
we are interested in (such as higher milk yield on production of eggs),
we almost invariably find that the sub-population has simultaneously
become less fit and would be eliminated by natural
selection."—*C. H. Waddington, "The Resistance to
Evolutionary Change," in Nature, 175 (1955) p. 51.
THERE SHOULD BE NO DISTINCT SPECIES—A
confirmed evolutionist has uncovered a powerful objection to evolution.
*Gould, writing in the respected journal, Natural History, said this:
"How could the existence of a
distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed
ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of
nature?"—*Stephen Jay Gould, in Natural History,
What Gould is saying is that, if all
life is constantly changing (evolving) as evolutionists tell us, —then
why are there any distinct species at all? This is a very important
point. *Darwin also recognized this problem, but he finally tried to
solve it—by denying that species existed! Yet such a solution is
merely to bury one’s head in the sand to avoid the evidence. Distinct
species are there, all about us; no doubt about that.
SPECIES—Interestingly enough, there are species that cannot reshuffle
genes enough to produce subspecies variations. How can evolutionary
theory explain this?
One of these is the dandelion. Its seeds
grow without being pollinated, since the pollination factor is entirely
sterile! Yet the lowly dandelion does just fine, without any gene
reshuffling, generation after generation. In temperate climates
throughout many parts of the world you will find these cheerful little
yellow flowers among the first to appear in the spring.
Something of a similar situation
concerns the cheetah, which lacks enough genetic material to produce
sub-species diversity. An in-depth analysis of the cheetah problem will
be found in "Genetics of Cheetahs," Creation Research Society
Quarterly, March 1987, pp. 178-179. Other species lacking genetic
diversity include giant pandas and elephant seals.
How could evolutionary theory produce
the dandelion or the cheetah?
ORIGIN OF SEX—Evolutionists are
overwhelmed by the problem of sexual dimorphism. Why are there male and
female of most of the millions of species in the world? Evolutionists
complain that nature could have accomplished the task of producing
offspring far easier without it.
*Milner explains some of the problems:
"[The many problems] make the whole
rigmarole seem downright maladaptive. Yet it is common, while asexual
reproduction is rare . . The origin of sex remains one of the most
challenging questions in [evolutionary] biology.
"Even Charles Darwin thought
natural selection could not account for peacocks’ tails or similar
fantastic structures so prominent in courtship displays. On the
contrary, elaborate appendages or tail feathers could easily get in the
way when animals had to escape enemies . . Still, if elaborate plumage
makes the birds more vulnerable to predators, why should evolution favor
them?"—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 402-404.
AN UNALTERABLE LAW—There is a law
existing among all living things that has no exception. The law is
stated in the first book in the Bible. It is the Law of the Genesis
"And the earth brought forth grass,
and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit,
whose seed was in itself, after his kind . . great whales, and every
living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly,
after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind . . the beast of
the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing
that creepeth upon the earth after his kind."—Genesis 1:12, 21,
This is the law of fixity of basic kinds
of living things. This phrase, "after his kind," is used 30
times in the books of Moses, particularly in Genesis (especially in
chapters 1, 6, and 7), Leviticus 11, and Deuteronomy 14.
The Genesis kinds were set up back in
the beginning. From that time down to the present day, there has been a
wall of separation between different Genesis kinds.
AN INTELLIGENT PURPOSE—It is totally
impossible to explain anything in plants, animals, earth, or
stars—apart from intelligent purpose. Randomness, accidents, and
chance will never answer the mystery of life and being, structure and
function, interrelationships and fulfilled needs that we find all about
us. The food you eat for breakfast, the flowers in the field, the bees
busily working, the moon circling above you—it all speaks of
thoughtful purpose and intelligence of the highest level. —And it is
Intelligence acting upon the food, flowers, bees, and moon; it is not
intelligence within those objects and creatures. It is not intelligence
within nature that produces the wonders of nature. The Creator is
responsible for what we see about us, not the creature.
In stark contrast, evolution speaks of
crudity, confusion, accidents, mistakes, damage, and errors; for that is
all it has to offer in its mechanisms of natural selection and
KEEPING CLOSE TO THE AVERAGE—Because
each species in the world operates within the definite limits of the
pool of possible traits in its DNA, we should expect two effects: (1) a
number of varieties can be bred, and (2) when not specially guarded, the
varieties will tend to move back toward the average.
And this is what we find in the world
about us. Regarding the first point, most of us are all acquainted with
the accomplishments of plant and animal breeders.
As to the second, there is a principle
involved in intelligence and aptitude testing which is never violated.
Educational psychologists call it regression toward the mean. According
to this principle, some people may excel in certain skills, aptitudes,
or intellectual abilities. But, as a rule, their descendants will
generally move back toward the mean, or mathematical average. This is
because mankind, like all other species, has definite limitations
determined by its gene pool.
(Keep in mind that much of the excelling
in life is done by commonplace people who work hard to succeed. So do
not worry about the averages; like the rest of us you may be very
ordinary, but you can personally succeed outstandingly in a worthwhile
work, and so fulfill God’s plan for your life. Honesty and hard work
is of more value than better intellectual ability without it.)
If everything keeps moving back toward
the average, there can be no evolution. The principle of regression
toward the mean rules out evolution. Variations may and do occur within
species, but there will be no moving out from the species to form
"Species do indeed have a capacity
to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other
characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is
reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average]."—*Roger Lewin,
"Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21,
1980, p. 884.
BUMPUS’ SPARROWS—Hermon Bumpus was a
zoologist at Brown University. During the winter of 1898, he, by
accident, produced one of the only field experiments in survival by
natural selection. One morning, in Providence, Rhode Island, he found
136 stunned house sparrows on the ground. Bringing them to his
laboratory, he cared for them all, and 72 revived while 64 died. He then
weighed them and made careful measurements (length, wingspan, beak,
head, humerus, femur, skull, etc.) of each of the 136.
"Comparing the statistics of the
two groups, he found the measurements of the birds that survived were
closer to the mean of the group than were those of the birds that died.
This type of mortality, where extremes are eliminated, is referred to as
balanced phenotype, or stabilizing selection . . Even today,
‘Bumpus’ Sparrows’ continues to be quoted in about five published
scientific articles every year."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of
Evolution (1990), p. 61.
In "Bumpus’ Sparrows" we
find yet another evidence of the fact that those creatures which are the
closest to the average of each species are the most hardy. Yet, if that
is true, then it would lock each species all the more away from veering
off and changing into another species. And there can be no evolution
within species crossover.
AN OUTER WALL—There is an outer wall,
beyond which a species cannot go. Its internal genetic code forbids it
to change beyond certain limits. Even when highly trained scientists
breed plants or animals, they eventually reach that code barrier.
"Breeders usually find that after a
few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement
is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . Breeding
procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support
evolution."—On Call, July 3, 1972, pp. 9.
HOW TO MAKE AN ELECTRIC BATTERY—ATP is
made in eleven steps. Twice in those steps it is formed (two molecules
formed at step 7 and two at step 10). Since two molecules of ATP are
used to prime the entire process (step 1) initiating the breakdown of
glucose, a net gain of only two molecules results from the entire
eleven-step process of breaking down glucose pyruvate.
HOW TO MAKE AN ELECTRIC BATTERY—Before
concluding this chapter, we want to provide you with just one example of
the thousands of complicated processes which occur constantly within
ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is a
high-energy phosphate compound which provides each cell in living tissue
with all the energy it needs to carry on its work. What is more, the
cell manufactures the ATP out of raw materials. This ATP is then stored
in tiny bean-shaped structures within the cell, called mitochondria. It
is made in the leaves of plants and the cells of animals and man.
If the cell can do it, why can’t we do
it also? ATP would solve all our energy problems. On the chart on a
nearby page, you will find what your body, "by merest chance,"
regularly does. That extremely complicated formula is supposed to be the
result of "natural selection."
As you will notice on the nearby chart,
ATP is made in eleven steps. All the steps must be completed in order to
produce additional ATP. How long did the cells within living creatures
wait till the randomness of "natural selection" devised this
utterly complicated formula. If living plants and animals did not make
it constantly, they could not live; so, from the very beginning, ATP had
to be made.
ONLY SEVEN WAYS—(*#9/15 Planned
Breeding vs. Natural Selection*) Looking a little deeper at this
subject, there are only seven ways in which change can occur within an
1 - An individual can change his
attitudes. Instead of being a sourpuss, he can start being cheerful
about all the situations and problems he must encounter daily.
But a change in attitudes will not
result in a change across a Genesis kind.
2 - An individual can have a physical
accident. The result might be a loss of a limb. But losing a limb is not
a basis for evolution. One researcher tried cutting the tails off rats
for nineteen generations. The offspring continued to be born with tails.
3 - An individual can suffer other
environmental effects. Such changes can cause marked effects in the
appearance of individuals. If the ears of sun-red corn are left enclosed
within the husk while developing, the kernels will be colorless. But if
the husk is torn open so the sunlight contacts the developing ears, a
red pigment will develop within the kernels.
Appearance may have been changed, but
not the genes. The genes of the corn continue on from generation to
generation, and only those ears in any given generation that are exposed
to sunlight will have red kernels.
Environmental effects may include
differential feeding, light, training, and other things can affect an
individual; but these will not change his genes. As mentioned earlier,
the feet of Chinese women were for centuries kept small by tightly
binding them. Yet modern Chinese women, whose feet are no longer bound,
are normal in size.
4 - One type of hereditary variation is
known as a recombination. But it cannot produce new kinds, for it is
only a reshuffling of genes already present. Recombination is the
combining of dominant and recessive genes. Here are some examples:
Black-and-white Holstein cattle are the
result of a dominant gene. If a calf of this breed has received a gene
for black and white from even one parent, that calf will generally be
black and white. The other parent may be red and white, but the calf
will still be black and white. But in some cases, two recessive genes
meet, and then a red-and-white calf is born. But the calf will still
grow up to be a cow; the recessive gene will not have transformed him
into a goat.
Another example would be the genes for
white and brown in sheep. White is dominant, so most sheep are born
white. But occasionally that recessive gene for brown will produce a
brown sheep. These effects are called reversions or
"throwbacks." But the result is still sheep. These hereditary
variations are part of Mendelian genetics.
5 - A second type of hereditary
variation is called polyploidy (or ploidy). It is keyed to a variation
in the numbers of chromosomes and rearrangements of chromosomal
material. But it does not produce change across Genesis kinds.
Normal cells are diploid, with double
sets of similar chromosomes, but reproductive cells are haploid, with
only one set. Haploid male and haploid female cells unite in the zygote
to form a new diploid cell. But in polyploidy, found in many plants but
rarely in animals, three or more haploid sets of chromosomes are
together in the cells of an organism. Man can produce polyploid cells in
plants in several ways, including the use of such chemicals as
Here are some examples: The
pink-flowered horse chestnut (Aesculus Camea) comes from two parents,
each of which had 20 chromosomes in their germ cells. The result is a
horse chestnut with 40, which has pink flowers! Geneticists call this
ploidy, but all that happened is a slightly different horse chestnut. It
has not changed into a maple tree.
There are also ploidy squirrels and
ploidy fruit flies. Each time, the creature is slightly different in
some way, but it always remains basically unchanged. The one is still a
squirrel and the other is still a fruit fly.
"Waltzing mice" cannot run in
straight lines, but only in circles. They are the result of ploidy, or
changes in their chromosomes. But they are still mice.
Sometimes these new strains are called
new "species," but it matters not. Names wrongly applied do
not change the facts. They remain the same Genesis kinds; they are still
mice, squirrels, chestnuts, or whatever their parents were. Because no
mutation is involved in polyploids, no new genetic material results and
no radical change in form occurs. So polyploidy cannot produce
6 - Hybridization can occur. This is a
process by which men artificially pollinate across species in a genus.
Because the offspring are sterile, hybridizing must continually take
place. This is similar to breeding a horse and donkey and getting a
"In the process of hybridization,
two different species of the same genus (in most cases) are crossed in
order to combine the good qualities of both . . Frequently the new
hybrid is stronger than either parent. The offspring are sterile and
require constant hybridizing."—*Biology for Today, p. 294.
7 - Is there nothing that can affect the
Yes, radiation, X-rays, atomic bombs,
ultraviolet light, and certain chemicals,—for they can produce
mutations. With mutations we have come to something which can make tiny
changes within the genes.
The study of mutations is so important
that we will deal with it in detail in the next chapter (chapter 10,
Mutations). But we will here summarize part of it:
A mutation is a change in a hereditary
determiner, —a DNA molecule inside a gene. Genes, and the millions of
DNA molecules within them, are very complicated. If such a change
actually occurs, there will be a corresponding change somewhere in the
organism and in its descendants.
If the mutation does not kill the
organism, it will weaken it. But the mutation will not change one
species into another. Mutations are only able to produce changes within
the species. They never change one kind of plant or animal into another
THINKING IN A CIRCLE—(*#4/5
of the Fittest is Meaningless / #8/6 Natural Selection is Based on
Reasoning in a Circle*) The very terms, "natural selection"
and "survival of the fittest," are actually circular
reasoning! They are tautologies. "Change is caused by what causes
change." "That which is fit survives, because it is the
"Those things which have succeeded
were able to succeed."
"It leads to the justifiable
criticism that the concept of natural selection is scientifically
superficial. T.H. Morgan, famous American geneticist, said that the idea
of natural selection is a tautology, a case of circular reasoning. It
goes something like this: If something cannot succeed, it will not
succeed. Or, to put it another way, those things which have succeeded
were able to succeed."—Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on
Darwinism (1986), p. 49.
"Those that leave the most
"For them [the Darwinists], natural
selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized
relation: The fittest—defined as those who will leave the most
offspring—will leave the most offspring."—*Gregory Alan Peasely,
"The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection," Laval
Theologique et Philosophique, Vol. 38, February 1982, p. 74.
"I tend to agree with those who
have viewed natural selection as a tautology rather than a true
theory."—*S. Stanley, Macroevolution (1979), p. 193.
"The fittest leave the most
"Natural selection turns out on
closer inspection to be tautology, a statement of an inevitable although
previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals
in a population (defined as those which leave the most offspring) will
leave the most offspring."—*C. Waddington, "Evolutionary
Adaptation," in Evolution After Darwin (1960), Vol. 1, pp. 381,
They multiply, because they multiply.
"Thus we have as the question:
‘why do some multiply, while others remain stable, dwindle, or die
out? To which is offered as answer: Because some multiply, while others
remain stable, dwindle, or die out. "The two sides of the equation
are the same. We have a tautology. The definition is
meaningless."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 47.
"Anything that produces
"[*George Gaylord Simpson says:]
‘I . . define selection, a technical term in evolutionary studies, as
anything tending to produce systematic, heritable change in population
between one generation and the next’ [*G.G. Simpson, Major Features of
Evolution (1953), p. 138].
"But is such a broad definition of
any use? We are trying to explain what produces change. Simpson’s
explanation is natural selection, which he defines as what produces
change. Both sides of the equation are again the same; again we have a
tautology . . If selection is anything tending to produce change, he is
merely saying that change is caused by what causes change . . The net
explanation is nil."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p.
The survivors are the fittest, and the
"Of one thing, however, I am
certain, and that is that ‘natural selection’ affords no explanation
of mimicry or of any other form of evolution. It means nothing more than
‘the survivors survive.’ Why do certain individuals survive? Because
they are the fittest. How do we know they are the fittest? Because they
survive."—*E.W. MacBride, Nature, May 11, 1929, p. 713.
In the chapter on fossils, we will
discover that the fossil/strata theory is also entirely based on
CONCLUSION—We have found that
selection does not produce evolution; that is, change from one true
species into another. It is useless for this purpose.
In fact, natural selection is obviously
is misnamed: It is "natural variation," not "natural
selection"—for it is only composed of simple variations, or gene
reshuffling, within an existing species. Or to be even more accurate, it
is "random variation."
It is NOT "selection."
"Selection" requires a
thinking mind, and evolutionists tell us no thinking mind is involved in
these random changes within species. Mindless activity results in
variations; it is only purposive activity by an intelligent agent that
The phrase, "natural
selection," implies something that it is not true. It gives the
impression of thinking intelligence at work while, by the
evolutionists’ own admission, only random activity is said to be doing
According to *Macbeth, so-called
"natural selection" just provides variation for each creature
within a given species, and then that creature dies,—and what has
natural selection accomplished?
"I think the phrase [natural
selection] is utterly empty. It doesn’t describe anything. The weaker
people die, a lot of stronger people die too, but not the same
percentage. If you want to say that is natural selection, maybe so, but
that’s just describing a process. That process would presumably go on
until the last plant, animal and man died out."—*Norman Macbeth,
"What’s Wrong with Darwinism" (1982), [paleontologist,
COULD NOT DO THIS
It all starts with two termites, a
king and queen. They lay eggs, but never teach their offspring anything.
How can they, when they have almost no brains and are all blind? Working
together, the young build large termite towers, part of which rise as
much as 20 feet in the air. Each side may be 12 feet across. The narrow
part lies north and south, so the tower receives warmth in the morning
and late afternoon, but less in the heat of midday. Scientists have
discovered that they build in relation to magnetic north. Because it
rains heavily at times, the towers have conical roofs and sides sloping
from smaller at the top to larger at the bottom.
The eaves of the towers
project outward, so the rain cascades off of them and falls away from
the base of the tower. That takes more thinking than a termite is able
to give to the project. When they enlarge their homes, they go up
through the roof and add new towers and minarets grouped around a
central sphere. The whole thing looks like a castle. In this tower is to
be found floor after floor of nursery sections, fungus gardens, food
storerooms, and other areas, including the royal chambers where the king
and queen live. If termites were the size of humans, their
residential/office/building/factory complex would be a mile high.
these are tiny, blind creatures, the size and intelligence of worms.
Then there is their air-conditioning system. In the center of the
cavernous below-ground floor is a massive clay pillar, supporting the
ceiling of this cellar. Here is where their Central Air Conditioning
System Processor is located. It consists of a spiral of rings of thin
vertical vanes, up to 6 inches deep, centered around the pillar,
spiraling outward. The coils of each row of the spiral are only an inch
or so apart. The lower edge of the vanes have holes to increase the flow
of air around them. The vanes cool the air, and a network of flues
carries the hot air down to the cellar.
From high up in the tower these
ventilating shafts run downward. But carbon dioxide must be exchanged
for oxygen, which the few, guarded entrances cannot provide. So the top
of the flues butt against special very porous earthen material in the
top walls of the tower, just inside the projecting eaves. Fresh air is
thus carried throughout the towers by the ventilating system.
CHAPTER 9 - STUDY
AND REVIEW QUESTIONS
GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE
1 - Could natural
selection produce the human eye?
2 - Write about the
peppered moth of England, and why it is not an evidence of evolution.
3 - Natural selection is
randomness in action. Place 24 marbles in a solid 3 x 3 square in the
center of a less-used room in your house. With a kick of your foot,
apply natural selection to the marbles. Return to the room six times a
day for five days and apply additional natural selection to the marbles.
Under the title, "Natural Selection in action," write notes on
the highly integrated structures produced by the marbles over a period
of time. Did they form themselves into a box? or a mouse?
4 - Write a paragraph
explaining what evolutionists mean by natural selection. Write a second
paragraph explaining why it is incapable of doing what they want it to
5 - What is reasoning in
a circle? Why is natural selection actually this kind of circular
6 - How is
"survival of the fittest" merely circular reasoning?
7 - Why was Herman
Bumpus’ research study on those 136 sparrows so important?
8 - Explain the
difference between in-species or sub-species variations, and
9 - Select one of the
following, and explain why it is not an evidence of evolution (which
requires change across species): antibiotic-resistant flies,
DDT-resistant bacteria, new varieties of tomatoes.
10 - What was Darwin’s
error in thinking that the Galapagos finches were an evidence of
11 - How does the
population principle of regression toward the mean rule out the
possibility of cross-species evolutionary change?
12 - Darwin later gave
up on natural selection as a method for cross-species change, and
returned to Lamarckism. What is Lamarckism and why is it unscientific?
You have just completed
9 Natural Selection
Go to the next file in
Chapter 10 Mutations