Home / Science VS Evolution / PDF /Encyclopedia  /Pathlights Home / Bookstore


"Natural Selection" never produces cross-species changes. Yet without such change there is no such thing as evolution. Consider these facts. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: Natural Selection: 1

The Evolutionary Theory of "Natural Selection": According to the theory, plants and animals regularly change themselves, by accident, into new species
Facts which Disprove Natural Selection: Several reasons why cross-species changes do not and cannot occur

Page numbers without book references refer to the book, NATURAL SELECTION, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on
, only 164 statements are by creationists.


What the theory teaches.

Evolution is cross-species change; it is the "evolving" of one creature into a totally different one. Evolutionists say that all evolution of life forms occurred either by "natural selection" and / or "mutations."

In this article, we will learn that "natural selection" is a concept without real meaning. In the next article in this series (Mutations), we will learn that mutations could not possibly produce a transition from one species to another.

Evolution can only occur if one creature produces ("evolves into") another distinct species. If a rabbit becomes a beaver, that is evolution; but, if a red rose is bred to produce an orange rose, that is not evolution.

The basic teaching. We know that when plants or animals bear young, there are variations. But these variations are always within the same species, or type, of creature.

Yet evolutionary theory teaches that these changes cross over from one species—and produce totally new, different, types. The changeover mechanism is called "natural selection."

Some evolutionists say that only natural selection produces evolutionary (cross-species) changes while others say that mutations also do it.—pp. 11-12.

(Keep in mind that when we speak of "species," we are referring to true species. Many species, and even some genera, listed in botanical and zoological lists are only subspecies.


Several reasons why cross-species change cannot occur.

It is a remarkable fact that the fiction of "natural selection" survives—when there is so little evidence to support it and so much evidence against it.

What is the evidence favoring it?

Natural selection sounds like a good idea, because, all about us, we see variation within species. There are many kinds of roses, finches, dogs, and horses—but all the roses, finches, dogs, and horses are just that; they never change into daisies, parrots, cats, or cows.

What is the evidence against the theory of natural selection? Just look at it all:

Always within the same species. All the offspring produced in the plant and animal kingdom remain in the same species. The production of new creatures never occurs.

Entirely random. Not only is natural selection supposed to have produced everything, the process is said to be entirely random! Evolutionists can never admit that any intelligence was involved in the formation of squirrels, humming birds, or human beings.

Yet, how can it be called "selection"—when nothing was selected! And, surely, it cannot be considered "natural" since cross-species transitions never occur.

Evolutionary theory requires change by random action alone. Yet, if even half those random changes were positive, the other half would have to be damaging.

How can total randomness select only that which is better and move only in advantageous directions?—pp. 11-12.

Neo-Darwinists. Charles Darwin said that natural selection made every single transition from one species to another. Those who adhere to natural selection as the only way evolution can occur are called Darwinists or Darwinian evolutionists.

But, earlier in this century, some evolutionists already recognized that natural selection was a laughing stock and never produced new species. So they said that the trans-species changes were made by mutations and only the finishing touches within a species were done by natural selection. These evolutionists are called Neo-Darwinists.—p. 12.

In the next major article in this series (Mutations), we will show that scientific facts annihilate the possibility that mutations could ever accomplish anything worthwhile.

A basic issue. If natural selection and mutations cannot produce new species,—then there is no way that new species could occur by evolution! Although they have tried for decades to invent something better, evolutionists have no other methods to offer.

Keep in mind that changes within a species are not evolution. They occur all the time.

One of the first scientific statements. The first scientific book in the world (the book of Genesis) declared that no trans-species changes would ever occur. And they never have. (Read Genesis 1, and note verses 12, 21, 24, and 25. The key phrase here is "after his kind.")—p. 12.

Genesis kinds. The "Genesis kinds" are those original types, or species, of living creatures brought into existence during Creation Week. One Genesis kind never changes into another. It cannot do so. We will learn, in this entire series of books, that there is no evidence in biology or geology that it is now happening or has ever happened. The species are always separate and distinct.

Yet there are many, many variations within the species. Some we call subspecies, and some we call varieties. But, in spite of how many there are of them,—roses are still roses, mums are still mums, dogs are still dogs, and horses are still horses.

In most (but not all) cases, subspecies can interbreed. But, with the passage of time, changes in characteristics, such as size and exceptions, occur.—p. 12.

Mutational changes. Mutations always damage and never help the organism (see Mutations). Therefore, they cannot improve a species, much less make new and more advanced ones.—p. 12.

Survival of the fittest: This is another buzz word of evolutionists: "survival of the fittest." But it is meaningless, as far as enabling new kinds to occur. The truth is that "survival of the fittest" is the opposite of evolution; it means that creatures which are not fit enough, whether produced by mutations or by accidents, are eliminated, thus returning the species closer to its pure species pattern.

Interestingly enough, as the mechanism for evolution, the term was invented by a man while in a fever in the Moluccas. More on this in a later article (The History of Evolutionary Theory).—pp. 12-13.


To the NEXT PAGE to conclude what you are now reading (Natural Selection: Part 2 of 2)