On Why Natural Selection Does Not Produce Evolution

Tags

darwin, faulty assumptions, fruit flies, genetic complexity, mutants, mutations, natural selection, proof of evolution, random mutations, survival of the fittest

“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection – quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.”
(Arthur Koestler, author)

One of the “proofs” that Science Textbooks and Evolution Theorists put forth to prove the validity of Evolution is Natural Selection. Natural Selection is defined as the gradual, nonrandom process of biological traits becoming more or less common in a population in marked contrast to their forebears. Natural Selection, beyond a considered “proof” of Evolution Theory is actually described as the “the key mechanism of Evolution”.

The reason they believe Natural Selection proves Evolution is because Evolution is based on two faulty assumptions:

Faulty Assumption #1:

Mutations make something new

Faulty Assumption #2:

Natural Selection makes it survive and take over the population

However, according to Pierre-Paul Grasse, author of Evolution of Living Organisms, “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”

Mutations rearrange existing information but they do not increase genetic complexity.

Consider this 5-legged Bull:

This 5-legged Bull is a mutant. However, no new information has been added. Didn’t the bull already have the genetic code for a leg? Of course it did. It simply formed one in the wrong place. This is not new information. This is the scrambling of existing information.

Or consider these sheep from Allyn and Bacon Biology, 1977, p.364:

These mutant sheep have short little legs. Once again, we can see that existing information has been rearranged to produce shorter legs, yet legs nonetheless. No new information or genetic complexity has been introduced. Not to mention, far from this mutation taking over the population, these poor guys are going to be the first ones that the wolves eat.

I was given an assignment in the 2nd Grade that I believe captures the essence of the truth I am trying to convey. Our Teacher gave us the word “Christmas” and we were tasked with figuring out how many words we could make by only using the letters in that word. Well, you can form the words: has, cat, Christ, mist, hit, and sat to name a few.

But you can never form Xerox, Zebra or Queen!

This is exactly like Natural Selection. It can only rearrange existing data.

See if you can catch this clever, “smoke in mirrors” deception as is noted below from a standard Science Textbook:

“Figure 15-11 Normal fruit flies have two wings. This mutant has four. This rare mutation, like most mutations, is harmful. Beneficial mutations are the raw material for natural selection.”

Did you catch that boys and girls?

They show you a picture of a harmful mutation and then tell you that beneficial mutations are how it works.

Question: Um, Teacher? Why not show us a picture of a beneficial mutation?

Answer: Because there is no such thing as a “beneficial mutation”.

Young Earth Creationist’s like myself, have no argument with natural selection. In fact, we thought of it first!

Natural Selection is merely a conservative process that removes defective organisms and keeps the species strong. These observations were made by Edward Blyth decades before Darwin came on the scene.

According to the textbook Parasitology, “Natural Selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs.” (6th ed. Lea & Febiger, p. 516.)

Finally, lets say that you worked at a car factory and were in charge of performing quality control for every car that came off the production line. And let’s say that in the process of kicking the tires, slamming the doors and driving them around, you caught every single defect and sent the cars back for correction.

How long would it take that process to turn those cars into jets?

The same amount of time it would take Natural Selection to produce evolution.

Never.

“If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak, namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze.”
(Evolutionist Herbert Nilson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden:Verlag CWK Gleerup Press, 1953, p 174)