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 produced.

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 species.

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 "natural selection."

"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 touches.

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 selection: A 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 not evolution.

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 interbreed.

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 sub-species.

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 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

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 said:

"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. 780.

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 nothing less.

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 more deeply:

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.

"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 itself?

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 lot.

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 Man, 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 evolution!

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."

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 done.

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.

"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.

FIVE 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 OCTOPUS EYE

THE HUMAN EYE

THE AMAZING EYE—(*#6/39 Those 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 arthropods (insects).

"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 evolution:

" ‘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 environment.’ "—*Ibid.

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 separate species.

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, August-September, 1979.

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.

NON-RESHUFFLEABLE 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 kinds:

"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, 25.

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 mutations.

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 different species.

"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.

ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATE (ATP)

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 your body.

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 organism:

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 coichicine.

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 evolution.

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 sterile mule.

"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.

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 kind.

THINKING IN A CIRCLE—(*#4/5 Survival 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 fittest."

"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.

"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.

"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, 385.

"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.

"[*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. 49.

The survivors are the fittest, and the fittest survive.

"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 circular reasoning!

CONCLUSION—We have found that natural 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."

"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 selects.

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 this.

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, American Museum].

EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS

CHAPTER 9 - STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS

NATURAL SELECTION

GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE

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

Chapter 9 Natural Selection
NEXT— Go to the next file in this series,

Chapter 10 Mutations