Encyclopedia Vol. 2
CHAPTER 13 NATURAL
BASIC ARRANGEMENT OF THIS CHAPTER
Introduction - page 13
Natural selection could never produce trans-species evolution - page
1 - It does not occur - page 348
2 - Why it cannot occur - page 353
Appendices - page 363
1 - Evolutionists defend natural selection - page 363
2 - Scientists speak about natural selection - page 363
3 - Natural selection is a useless concept - page 368
4 - "Survival of the fittest" is meaningless - page 368
5 - Error of Lamarckism - page 369
6 - Those marvelous eyes - page 370
7 - Wings, ears, and other things - page 380
8 - Natural selection is based on reasoning in a circle - page 384
9 - Planned breeding vs. natural selection - page 386
10 - Marvel of Metamorphosis - page 389
Study and review questions - page
So, at present, we are left with
neo-Darwinian theory: that evolution has occurred, and has been directed
mainly by natural selection, with random contributions from genetic
drift, and perhaps the occasional hopeful monster. In this form, the
theory is not scientific by Popper's standards.' " —*Colin
Patterson, Evolution (1978), p. 149.
"It is therefore of immediate
concern to both biologist and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The
theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually
become a religion itself and in its turn is being threatened by fresh
ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the
creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for
political and moral reasons. The main thrust of the criticism comes from
within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political
revolt from within rather than a siege from without." —*B.
Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism
(1982), p. l 1.
"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.
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.
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
lifeforms, 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 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
the top in the esteem of committed evolutionists. Disprove the validity
of these three, and the whole theory falls apart.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
information see quotation supplement, " 2 - Scientists Speak about
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.
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
information see the quotation supplement, " `4 -Survival of the
Fittest' is Meaningless, " in the appendix.
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
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.
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.
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
"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:
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
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
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
"Variations make a plant resist
certain diseases or help it survive under unusual conditions . . Such
new types are examples of evolution on a small and very special scale.
"Some variations, however, go
much further. In 1849, for
example, a wild grapevine suddenly produced big, sweet grapes which
were named Concord. 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. 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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
information see the appendix topic, "5 - The Error of
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.
2 - WHY IT CANNOT
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.
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
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
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:
"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.
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.
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,
HOW TO MAKE AN
ATP is a high-energy phosphate
compound which provides the cell 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.
If the cell can do it, why can't
we do it also? ATP would solve all our energy problems. Look below at
what your body "by merest chance" does in order to manufacture
ATP. It's all very simple:
[in the leaf] contains not only chlorophyll but a full complement of
enzymes and associated substances, all properly and intricately
arranged. It even contains cytochromes by which the energy of
sunlight, trapped by chlorophyll, can be converted into ATP through
oxidative phosphorylation . .
"After the water
molecules have been split, half of the hydrogen atoms find their way
into the ribulosediphosphate cycle, and half of the oxygen atoms are
liberated into the air. The rest of the hydrogens and oxygens
recombine into water. In doing so, they release the excess of energy
that was given to them when sunlight split the water molecules, and
this energy is transferred to high-energy phosphate compounds such as
ATP. The energy stored in these compounds is then used to power the
ribulose-diphosophate cycle."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New
Guide to Science (1984), pp. 591, 594.
As you will notice in
the chart below, in eleven steps ATP is made. 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. 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 the following
utterly complicated formula:
*Charles Darwin had a
difficult time trying to figure out his theory, and frequently admitted in
his book 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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
"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." —*Richard 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
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.' . .
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.
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.
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,
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:
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.
SPECIES—Interestingly enough, there are species which cannot reshuffle
genes enough to produce subspecies variations. How can evolutionary theory
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.
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:
"To sum up, natural selection
converts randomness into direction, and blind chance into apparent
purpose. It operates with the aid of time to produce improvements in the
machinery of living, and in the process generates results of a more than
astronomical improbability which could have been achieved in no other
way." —*Op. cit., p. 54-55.
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
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
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:
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 . .
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
"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.
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.
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
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!
HOW AN ARTHROPOD
The arthropods are the
invertebrates which have jointed legs and segmented bodies. This would
include such things as lobsters, crabs, insects, and spiders. Because they
all have a harder outer covering, rather than the soft skin animals have,
how can they grow larger? It is done by molting.
Looking at the chart
below, here is how it is done: (A1 The fully formed exoskeleton that they
normally have. (B) Molting begins as molting fluid is exuded by the body
to between the outer and inner part of their hard "skin." (C)
The bottom part begins growing a new top part, as the lower half (the
secondary chitinous layer) of the old top part is digested and absorbed.
(D) The old top part is splitting off as, below it, the new exoskeleton
has been completely made.
Now, just how long did all
the arthropods in the world (there are over half a million different
species of them! ) have to die in their hard exoskeletons and become
extinct without completing their life cycle—until one of them figured
out how to molt? And how did he tell the others? And how did he tell his
offspring, since molting was not in his DNA?
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
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
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But a change in attitudes will not
result in a change across a Genesis kind. You may have read about that
kindly lioness that lived in the Northwest. She had a lamb-like
gentleness, but she had not changed species; she was still a member of
the lion family.
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
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:
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.
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.
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
"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.
For additional information
see quotation supplement, "9 - Planned Breeding vs. Natural
Selection, " in the appendix.
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:
A mutation is a change in
a hereditary determiner,—which is 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.
Mutations will be
discussed in greater detail in the next chapter.
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.
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
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
de Zoologie (1948-1972). Considering fossil study the only valid means
of determining evolutionary processes, this is what he says about "natural
"Directed by all-powerful
selection, chance becomes a sort of providence which, under the cover of
atheism, is not named but secretly worshipped." —*Pierre P.
de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 107.
"Natural selection is no longer
regarded as all-or-none process, but rather as a purely statistical
concept." —*Ernst Mayr, Animal Species, p. 7.
"Search for the cause of evolution
has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single
cause." —*George Gaylord Simpson, Major Features of
Evolution, p. 118-119.
"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).
appearance of organs before they are needed (pre-adaptation).
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.
You have just completed
CHAPTER 13 NATURAL