“It is good to keep in mind … that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin’s theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted.”
(Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press)

In the classrooms, they teach that part of the proof and mechanism of the evolutionary process is called “Survival of the Fittest”; first used in 1866 by Herbert Spencer after reading Darwin’s concept of Natural Selection laid out in Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.  However, Survival of the Fittest and Natural Selection are not the same thing as I will cover in a forthcoming treatment of Natural Selection.  Survival of the Fittest is the belief that only the fittest organisms will prevail and that the strong survive at the expense of the weak.

Is this true?

Did the fittest survive when the Titanic or the British H.M. Troopship Birkenhead went down and all the sailors and men valiantly decided “Women and children first!”, establishing the precedent?

Is Survival of the Fittest scientifically substantiated?

Two simple and elementary questions should provide the answer.

Student: “Teacher, why did these animals survive?”

Teacher: “Because they were the fittest., You know, Survival of the Fittest!”

Student: “How do you know they were the fittest?”

Teacher: “Because they survived…”

If a shark swims through a school of fish and eats 80% of it, its not survival of the fittest.

It’s survival of the luckiest.

Not to mention that Survival of the Fittest does not explain the Arrival of the Fittest!

Just one more classic example of the kind of circular reasoning Evolution Theory demands.

“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”
(Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolutionist)

About these ads