"Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such . . One organism may indeed be `fitter' than another . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . It is clear, I think that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea." "As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin's theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse." —*Tom Bethell, "Darwin's Mistake," Harper, February 1976, pp. 72, 75.

In this chapter we will carefully consider natural selection and what it can do and what it cannot do. This is an important chapter for, along with fossil evidence (chapter 17) and mutations (chapter 14), natural selection ranks at the top in the esteem of committed evolutionists. Disprove the validity of these three, and the whole theory falls apart.

THE BASIC TEACHING—When a plant or animal produces offspring, variations appear. Some of the offspring will be different from other offspring. Some evolutionists (Darwinian evolutionists, or "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 that 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.

For additional information see the appendix topic, "1 - Evolutionists Defend Natural Selection." . .

Not only is natural selection said to have produced everything, but the entire process was entirely RANDOM! 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.

"Modern evolutionary theory holds that evolution is 'opportunistic,' in the word of 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—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. These "neo-Darwinists" decided that mutations accomplished 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.

For additional information see quotation supplement, " 2 - Scientists Speak about Natural Selection."

DEFINITION OF TERMS—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.

For additional information see the quotation supplement in the appendix, " 3 - Natural Selection is a Useless Concept."

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 some 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 Felis, and the single species F. catus (some authorities call that species F. domesticus). In general, all life-forms within a true species can interbreed. 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.

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").

1 - IT DOES NOT OCCUR

We will briefly examine several of these evidences.

1 - PEPPERED MOTH—The peppered moth in England is one of the most frequently-discussed evolutionary proofs of natural selection.

"This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man."—*International Wildlife Encyclopedia (1970 edition), VOL 20, p. 2706.

After 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; but then Asimov gives us a 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 offspring were always born with light-colored wings while others had darker wings. Thus it had been for centuries. These 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 dark variety, although, 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 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. Variations 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 which includes them both is Biston betularia. 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 said this 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." —*L 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 dark ones continued to be born! This is proof of the stability of the species, which is exactly the opposite of evolutionary "proof!" In recent years, industrial pollution laws are making the air cleaner, and the lighter moths are again becoming more common. 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 moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution." —On Call, July 2, 1973, p. 9.

*Hoyle and *Wickramasinghe, leading British 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 Kettlewell 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 neoDarwinians, is natural selection, that is, evolution, actually going on. But to this we may answer: selection, yes; the colour 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 colour 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.

For more on the peppered moth, see the appendix "The Peppered Moth."

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.

We will give additional information on "immune" flies and bacteria in our study on 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 which twirl as they fly, and pigeons which 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 from them 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 pigeon, 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—At the end of the next chapter, on Mutations, we will discuss a strange but integral aspect of the theory of evolution: Evolutionists strictly maintain that the evolutionary process is not reversible. Part of this irreversibility idea requires that when one creature has evolved into another—that second creature cannot evolve back into the first one!

Now that has serious implications for our present study. Evolutionists present various subspecies changes as their only actual evidence of evolution. 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 have changes within a species—and we have changes back and forth within that species.

Let us take that classic example of evolutionary evidence, which even * Isaac Asimov cites as its outstanding example: the peppered moth of England. Because of industrial pollution, this little fellow began changing to a darker winged variety. But then, as pollution laws were enacted and enforced, he began changing back to the light-winged type. Therefore, according to evolutionary theory, the peppered moth cannot be an example of evolution. Having changed to the dark-winged variety, it should not change back again to an earlier form.    

(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.)

4 - GRAPES AND APPLES—Here is a brief summary of the principle evidences of evolution, as written by an expert in the field for World Book Encyclopedia:

Obviously, all the above examples are only variations within species; none go across species. All of your own 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.

Occasionally, an unusual reshuffling will occur. This is what produced the Concord grape in 1849.

Back about the 1920s, a man living on a hillside in Clay County, West Virginia discovered that a seed tossed out the back door had produced an apple tree behind his house. The apples 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.

But 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. 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 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 cross-breeding between these 14 (some say 13, others 17) finches occurred. Yet they 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 which, 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 who carefully examined this collection, described it in these words:

"The Darwin finches are a rather drab gray to brownish colored group of birds, except for the almost fully black dorsal plumage of the male of some species. The whole collection had an appearance of general uniformity. Only the Certhidea or Warbler finches seemed truly distinctive.

"Were it not for the historical importance of these finches as one of the 'pillars' of evidence for the evolution of adaptive variations, I doubt if much attention would be given to them . .

"If one were to remove all the species labels and arrange the Darwin finches from the largest to the smallest in body and bill size, complete intergradation would be found. The same is true of bill length and width. As mentioned, there is complete intergradation of plumage coloration although the smaller birds tend to have lighter gray feathers . .

"If species are to be erected on such minute norms, then indeed we will be burdened with an almost infinite number of names." —Walter Lammerts, "The Galapagos Island Finches, " in Why Not Creation? (1970), pp. 355, 360-361, 361.

*Darwin stumbled over the truth of species variation. He had never had a day of science training in school, and when he saw a variety of finches he decided that each was a different type of bird—and evolution had occurred! This gave him the idea that if variations go across species—from one basic type to another—then perhaps all the families, genera, and species descended from a common ancestor that created itself!

When *Charles Darwin wrote his book, Origin of the Species, he 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.

One of the Galapagos finches learned to use a small stick to dig worms out of tree bark. The other finches could not do that, so Darwin decided that was a profound proof of evolution. At one time, the present writer had three cockateels in his home; the parents and a daughter. The mother had learned how to open the cage door and hop out. Year after year, the others would watch her do it, without understanding how she accomplished the task. If permitted, she would do it dozens of times a day, yet the others never considered even trying to do it, although with their natural curiosity they would carefully watch her as she did it. Yet they all are the same species of bird; even the same lineage. People are the same way. Some can learn things that others cannot grasp. Yet that is not evolution from one species to another.

It is acknowledged by scientists 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.

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:

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 Flathead 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.

For additional information see the appendix topic, "5 - The Error of Lamarckism."

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.

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 species, nor is man able to apply special breeding techniques and produce from them something which crosses the species barrier. It just cannot be done.

Obviously, the theory of evolution is based on the idea that species change into other species. Toads eventually become elephants, and jellyfish change themselves into sharks.

But there is no evidence at any time in the past, nor in any place in the present where this has every happened. One species never changes into another one, and without species change, there can be no "evolution. "

DARWIN VS. DNA—When *Charles Darwin first published his book, Origin of the Species, it was based on the theory that all life forms originated by natural selection that went across species. But normal variations within species were later found to be subject to the very rigid Mendelian laws of heredity.

There is a remarkable genetic code within the DNA system, which is in every cell in every plant and animal. The code is different for each basic type. The dog code is different than the cat code, and the finch code is different than the owl code. Variation can occur within each type, but the code locks each type into itself, and it cannot produce anything other than its basic type.

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:

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. Geneticists, probably more than any other group of scientists, know the truth of the matter: trans-species evolution is impossible.

The genes and chromosomes, which determine inheritance, are in the DNA within each cell,and each species has its own unique DNA material. Potential variations based on the DNA material are already there, but the DNA cannot generate new structures.

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.

THE AMAZING EYE—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 suddenly appeared fully-developed, and fully-functioning—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.

Careful examination discloses that a majority of the members of the animal kingdom have eyes which, in a number of ways, are different among the various major types. How could even one eye make itself, much less hundreds or thousands?

"My last doubt concerns so-called parallel evolution.. Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It's bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim." —*Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution, " in American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 338.

Then there is the wing. Evolutionists tell us that it suddenly appeared out of nowhere four separate times: in insects, flying reptiles, birds, and bats. And each time, they maintain, it was an unplanned accident.

For additional information see quotation supplement, "6 - Those Marvelous Eyes" and "7- Wings, Ears, and Ocher Things," in the appendix.

THE MARVELOUS ORGANIC FIT—It is difficult for evolutionists to figure out a means or mechanism by which to change one species into another. A key problem in connection with this is what is known as "the marvelous fit of organisms to their environment."

You see, life is more complicated than it appears. Each creature is already perfectly adapted to live its life, and any further adaptation would have to include not one, but a large number of new traits. Consider the cow. It is a large animal that uses only grass to produce a huge amount of bone, muscle, and body tissue, plus a gallon or so of milk a day. To do this requires, among many other things, specially-shaped teeth, and that unusual stomach that it has, which enables it to bite off and swallow grass, and later chew it thoroughly and swallow it again. Many more special requirements could be mentioned in order to make the cow able to survive and produce young. If a cow was to produce a calf that was a new type of creature (a fox, for example), that offspring would have to have a number of special traits that the mother cow did not have.

Living things are just too complicated for one species to originate out of another species.

SYNTROPY—This principle is related to the above one. 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 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.

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:

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.

SUB-SPECIES— 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.

The 14 Galapagos finches were subspecies. Most would not interbreed, and there was a variety of exclusive traits among various members. But they were all finches and could hardly be distinguished by eye. They were subspecies.

NEUTRAL TRAITS—One of *Darwin's assumptions was that every trait in a species was acquired, became fixed, and was passed along because those individuals that had it had a competative edge over the others.

But there are two problems here. One would be what we might call "vital traits." These are factors in the organism needed in order for life to continue: blood, heart, arteries, enzymes,—and literally hundreds of thousands of other needed items. There could be no waiting around until all these gradually evolved.

Second would be, what scientists call "neutral traits." These are factors in the organism which, it is thought, would not particularly help provide him with a competitive edge over others. An example of this would be a brilliant color in a butterfly, when a dull color would hide him better from his enemies.

"The Darwin-Wallace theory of natural selection assumed 'useful' variations would become established in a population, while all others would be eliminated. But some naturalists insisted that many traits in plants and animals had no demonstrable positive or negative advantage—they were non-adaptive or 'neutral.' . .

"The 20th-century synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics renewed interest in the possibility of neutral traits, especially among population geneticists. By 1932, geneticist J.B.S. Haldane had concluded 'that innumerable characters [of animals and plants] show no sign of possessing selective value, and moreover, these are exactly the characters that enable a taxonomist to distinguish one species from another [appearance factors]. " —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 325-326.

GENE CHANGE NEEDED—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 which 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!

"If by selection we concentrate the genes acting in a certain direction, and produce a subpopulation which differs from the original one by greater development of some character we are interested in (such as higher milk yield or 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. *Stephen 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 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? *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.

THINKING IN A CIRCLE—*David Raup of the Chicago Field Museum says that because the organism is there, therefore it must have evolved, and that proves natural selection as the means by which it is done:

"So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare. The best evidence comes from the many cases where it can be shown that biological structures have been optimized—that is, structures that represent optimal engineering solutions to the problems that an animal has of feeding or escaping predators or generally functioning in its environment. . The presence of these optimal structures does not, of course, prove that they developed through natural selection, but it does provide strong circumstantial argument."—*David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, " Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History, January 1979, pp. 25-26.

But reputable scientists recognize the circular reasoning underlying the idea that natural selection can produce evolution.

For additional information see quotation supplement, "8 - Natural Selection Based on Reasoning in a Circle, " in the appendix.

NON-RESHUFFLEABLE SPECIES—Interestingly enough, there are species which 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.

How could evolutionary theory produce the dandelion or the cheetah?

THE NUMBERS SAY NO—*Julian Huxley, a leading advocate of evolution, explains that it is mathematically impossible for natural selection to work. He asked a mathematician to tell him what the chances were that a horse could be produced by the random chance of evolutionary process. He was told that the mathematical likelihood of success would be:

". . the figure 1 with three million naughts [zeros] after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print) . . No one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened." —*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 46.

But neither Sir Julian nor any other evolutionist has ever demonstrated that a microbe or a tadpole could be changed into a horse. Huxley then explains how evolution magically did it:

What *Huxley has done here is to equate two opposites. He claims that randomness is the same as purposive intelligence. Take 27 wooden blocks and toss them on the floor. Then kick them around a bit. You are applying random action to the blocks, but by doing so you will never build a solid square block house that is 3 blocks wide, 3 blocks wide, and 3 blocks high. The block house requires applied intelligence, not random motions. Random movements are not purposive.

In the above quotation, * Huxley says that "natural selection converts randomness into direction, and blind chance into apparent purpose." That is an amazingly fallacious statement. Natural selection IS randomness! How can randomness change itself into direction and purposive action?

Huxley needs to explain how random action and blind chance can produce the wondrous organisms we find in all plant and animal life. In the above quotation, he says that evolution could happen in no other way than by an immense improbability that is totally impossible.

THE GREAT MYSTERY—One of the remarkable mysteries of our time is that evolutionary scientists know that evolution across basic types never occurs, only variations within those types,—and yet they will continue to write in science textbooks that natural selection proves evolution and was the primary means by which it occurred.

In the face of mountains of evidence for fixity of basic types, the continued plea that time will produce new types becomes unreasonable, for it is contrary to observable facts.

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 peacock's 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 its 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.

See what thoughtful men have to say about the matter:

"The design features that fit organisms to their environment are called adaptations. For the evolutionist, those adaptations originated accidentally (although natural selection preserved them once they did come into existence). Evolution is not a conscious force with a will and a plan to fulfill. Therefore, the assumption that an adaptation has a purpose (called telism from the Greek word telos, which means 'a goal, an end.') is foreign to evolutionary thinking. There is little that is more subject to invective and anathema in conventional biology than telism." —Wayne Friar and Percival Davis, A Case for Creation (1967), p. 31.

"In the case of artificial selection, man intelligently controls the breeding to produce an improved end result. Under natural conditions, Darwin appealed to blind chance, which could have no innate intelligence, but there was a dilemma: the theory said that life began as a simple organism and evolved into more complex organisms, which implies an intelligent directing force, but he wanted at all costs to avoid any kind of inference to the supernatural.

"To circumvent the dilemma, he steadfastly avoided using the terms `lower' and `higher' forms of life and spoke rather of `change', which allowed him greater freedom for argument when discussing specific cases. However, his most artful device was use of the word `descent', which he introduced in the first edition of the Origin and continued to use throughout his writings to his Descent of Man, published in 1873. Unlike the word `ascent', which in the context of a sequential process implies purposeful direction, the word 'descent' has rather the connotation of the blind laws of nature, such as water 'finding its own level.' In other words, 'descent' does not imply purposeful design or a Designer." —/an T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men (1984), p. 159.

MOLTING—Large numbers of invertebrates have their bones on the outside of their body. These are called exoskeletons, and are found on many of the 600,000 insects, some other invertebrates, and many reptiles. Because creatures grow, they must have some way of shedding that outer hardened covering, and quickly growing a new one. This is called molting. Our skin comes off in unnoticeable flakes as new skin grows underneath it. But many creatures have a more distinct molting, and the entire top layer comes off.

This molting, done by even the smallest of creatures such as ancient trilobites, is so complicated that it is difficult to see how the creature could have invented the process. Yet it had to begin doing it all at once, or the little animal would have died rather quickly. Without molting, it would die before reaching maturity and bearing young.

Even the very earliest of them, the trilobites had hard body shields and molted several times during growth to maturity. The hardened carapace had to split open, so the soft body within could leave it and grow a new outer exoskeleton. The new soft outer covering would then harden through a process known as chitinization.

The same process has been used from the beginning down to the present time, in the case of every creature that has been enclosed in a hard, outer covering, or exoskeleton.

Innumerable interrelated activities take place during molting. Do not let anyone tell you that it "just happened" by accident. Here is how a scientist would describe the process:

Molting is stimulated by the ecdysone hormone secreted by two glands in the thorax. These glands, in turn, are stimulated by another hormone secreted by specialized neurosecretionery cells in the brain. In addition, separate antagonistic hormones operate which neutralize ecdysone, thus acting as a check-and-balance system. Molting fluid begins flowing above the epidermis and underneath the epecuticle and primary chitinous layer.

Then, a new primary chitinous layer begins growing, and as the fluid increases, the secondary chitinous layer is digested, and the top layer (the old primary layer) separates from the body beneath ft. As that happens, the little creature knows to suddenly swell up its body—and this bursts the old exoskeleton. (Most of the arthropods swallow water or air to produce this expansion, and may increase their body size by 100 percent in order to burst the old outer coat.)

The creature crawls out of its old skin. Calcium carbonate was previously absorbed by the creature from that old exoskeleton—making it a much shallower shell and easier to burst, and now the calcium is added to harden the new coat. A number of other hormones are involved, and the entire process is quite complicated.

What a description of complexity) Yet it all had to be in place on day one, or large numbers of creatures in our world could never grow old enough to reproduce young!

Someone is going to say that "natural selection" figured out all that? If it did, it surely did it pretty fast in the lives of exoskeleton-type creatures and most of those creatures are small and need to grow quickly  to maturity)

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.)

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's 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 in 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 without 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.

ONLY SEVEN WAYS—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 daily encounter.

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. 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. 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 results are 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 colchicine.

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.

6 - Hybridization can occur. This is a process by which men artificially pollinate across species. Because the offspring are sterile, hybridizing must continually take place. This is similar to breeding a horse and donkey and getting a sterile mule. This is a process by which men artificially pollinate across species. Because the offspring are sterile, hybridizing must continually take place. This is similar to breeding a horse and donkey and getting a sterile mule.

7 - Is there nothing that can affect the genes? 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 14, Mutations). But we will here summarize part of it:

CONCLUSION —According to the theory, natural selection—with or without the help of mutations—produces evolution. But, in reality, we have found it to be useless for this purpose. In fact, natural selection is obviously 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."

No, 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 selects.

As we near the end this chapter, here are a few quotations to think about:

The first one is by *Grasse, the well-known French zoologist, who is a former president of the Academie des Sciences, and editor of the 35-volume work, Traite de Zoologie (1948-1972). Considering fossil study the only valid means of determining evolutionary processes, this is what he says about "natural selection:" Traite de Zoologie (1948-1972). Considering fossil study the only valid means of determining evolutionary processes, this is what he says about "natural selection:"

"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation." — *Ibid.

"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 at American Museum.]

For additional information see the appendix topic, "10 – Metamorphosis."

We will conclude with a summary prepared by a conscientious evolutionist: *Gordon R. Taylor:

"In the preceding chapters we have seen at least a dozen areas where the theory of evolution by natural selection seems either inadequate, implausible or definitely wrong. Let me briefly summarize them.

"(1) The suddenness with which major changes in pattern occurred and the virtual absence of any fossil remains from the period in which they were alleged to be evolving.

"(2) The suddenness of new forms 'radiated' into numerous variants.

"(3) The suddenness of many extinctions and the lack of obvious reasons for such extinction.

"(4) The repeated occurrence of changes calling for numerous coordinated innovations both at the level of organs and of complete organisms.

"(5) The variations in the speed at which evolution occurred.

"(6) The fact that subsequently no new phyla have appeared, and no new classes and orders. This, which has been much ignored, is perhaps the most powerful of all arguments against Darwin's generalization.

"(7) The occurrence of parallel and convergent evolution, in which similar structures evolve in quite different circumstances.

"(8) The existence of long-term trends (orthogenesis).

"(9) The appearance of organs before they are needed (pre-adaptation).

"(10) The occurrence of 'overshoot' or evolutionary 'momentum'.

"(11) The puzzle of how organs, once evolved, come to be lost (degeneration).

"(12) The failure of some organisms to evolve at all.

"And, one might add here, the failure of various conceivable patterns to emerge, despite the overwhelming tendency to diversify. (The curious absence of six-legged tigers.)"— *G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 137-138.