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.
Genuine evolution requires introducing 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 evolutionist scientists need to show us one species that 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! A plant or animal can be selectively bred for greater beauty, etc.; but in so doing, it has become less hardy than the wild, natural original. Variations are never quite as hardy as the original.
"If by selection we concentrate the genes acting in a certain direction, and produce a sub-population 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. *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 Jay 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? This is a very important point. *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.
NON-RESHUFFLEABLE SPECIES—Interestingly enough, there are species that 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.
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.
How could evolutionary theory produce the dandelion or the cheetah?
ORIGIN OF SEX—Evolutionists are overwhelmed by the problem of sexual dimorphism. Why are there males and females 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 peacocks’ 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 his 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 the 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.
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 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. Honesty and hard work is of more value than better intellectual ability without it.)
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 very cold 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’ Sparrows continue 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 which are the closest to 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.
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.
HOW TO MAKE AN ELECTRIC BATTERY—Before concluding this chapter, we want to provide you with just one example of the thousands of complicated processes which occur constantly within your body.
ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is a high-energy phosphate compound which provides each cell in living tissue 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. It is made in the leaves of plants and the cells of animals and man.
If the cell can do it, why can’t we do it also? ATP would solve all our energy problems. On the chart of page 308, you will find what your body, "by merest chance," regularly does. That extremely complicated formula is supposed to be the result of "natural selection."
As you will notice on the chart, ATP is made in eleven steps. 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 this utterly complicated formula. If living plants and animals did not make it constantly, they could not live; so, from the very beginning, ATP had to be made.
ONLY SEVEN WAYS—(*#9/15 Planned Breeding vs. Natural Selection*) 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 encounter daily.
But a change in attitudes will not result in a change across a Genesis kind.
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.
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.
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. However 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 result is 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 coichicine.
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.
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 in a genus. Because the offspring are sterile, hybridizing must continually take place. This is similar to breeding a horse and donkey and getting a sterile mule.
"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.
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 10, Mutations). But we will here summarize part of it:
A mutation is a change in a hereditary determiner, —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.
THINKING IN A CIRCLE—(*#4/5 Survival of the Fittest is Meaningless / #8/6 Natural Selection is Based on Reasoning in a Circle*) The very terms, "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest," are actually circular reasoning! They are tautologies. "Change is caused by what causes change." "That which is fit survives, because it is the fittest."
"Those things which have succeeded were able to succeed."
"It leads to the justifiable criticism that the concept of natural selection is scientifically superficial. T.H. Morgan, famous American geneticist, said that the idea of natural selection is a tautology, a case of circular reasoning. It goes something like this: If something cannot succeed, it will not succeed. Or, to put it another way, those things which have succeeded were able to succeed."—Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986), p. 49.
"Those that leave the most offspring."
"For them [the Darwinists], natural selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized relation: The fittest—defined as those who will leave the most offspring—will leave the most offspring."—*Gregory Alan Peasely, "The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection," Laval Theologique et Philosophique, Vol. 38, February 1982, p. 74.
"I tend to agree with those who have viewed natural selection as a tautology rather than a true theory."—*S. Stanley, Macroevolution (1979), p. 193.
"The fittest leave the most offspring."
"Natural selection turns out on closer inspection to be tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those which leave the most offspring) will leave the most offspring."—*C. Waddington, "Evolutionary Adaptation," in Evolution After Darwin (1960), Vol. 1, pp. 381, 385.
They multiply, because they multiply.
"Thus we have as the question: ‘why do some multiply, while others remain stable, dwindle, or die out? To which is offered as answer: Because some multiply, while others remain stable, dwindle, or die out. "The two sides of the equation are the same. We have a tautology. The definition is meaningless."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 47.
"Anything that produces change."
"[*George Gaylord Simpson says:] ‘I . . define selection, a technical term in evolutionary studies, as anything tending to produce systematic, heritable change in population between one generation and the nex’ " [*G.G. Simpson, Major Features of Evolution (1953), p. 138].
"But is such a broad definition of any use? We are trying to explain what produces change. Simpson’s explanation is natural selection, which he defines as what produces change. Both sides of the equation are again the same; again we have a tautology . . If selection is anything tending to produce change, he is merely saying that change is caused by what causes change . . The net explanation is nil."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 49.
The survivors are the fittest, and the fittest survive.
"Of one thing, however, I am certain, and that is that ‘natural selection’ affords no explanation of mimicry or of any other form of evolution. It means nothing more than ‘the survivors survive.’ Why do certain individuals survive? Because they are the fittest. How do we know they are the fittest? Because they survive."—*E.W.
MacBride, Nature, May 11, 1929, p. 713.
In the chapter on fossils, we will discover that the fossil/strata theory is also entirely based on circular reasoning!
CONCLUSION—We have found that natural selection does not produce evolution; that is, change from one true species into another. It is 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." 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.
The phrase, "natural selection," implies something that is not true. It gives the impression of thinking intelligence at work while, by the evolutionists’ own admission, only random activity is said to be doing this.
According to *Macbeth, so-called "natural selection" just provides variation for each creature within a given species, and then that creature dies,—and what has natural selection accomplished?
"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, American Museum].
Porpoises have a special region in their head (called the "melon") which contains a special type of fat. Because the speed of sound in that fatty tissue is different than that of the rest of the body, this fat is used as a "sound lens" to collect sonar signals from a distance, which are then transmitted by nerves to the brain—producing a small TV screen "sound picture." Because the composition of the fat varies in different parts of the melon, this produces a "doublet" lens which is more accurate. Surely, the porpoise did not make this equipment.
It all starts with two termites, a king and queen. They lay eggs, but never teach their offspring anything. How can they, when they have almost no brains and are all blind? Working together, the young build large termite towers, part of which rise as much as 20 feet in the air. Each side may be 12 feet across. The narrow part lies north and south, so the tower receives warmth in the morning and late afternoon, but less in the heat of midday.
Scientists have discovered that they build in relation to magnetic north. Because it rains heavily at times, the towers have conical roofs and sides sloping from smaller at the top to larger at the bottom. The eaves of the towers project outward, so the rain cascades off of them and falls away from the base of the tower. That takes more thinking than a termite is able to give to the project.
When they enlarge their homes, they go up through the roof and add new towers and minarets grouped around a central sphere. The whole thing looks like a castle. In this tower is to be found floor after floor of nursery sections, fungus gardens, food storerooms, and other areas, including the royal chambers where the king and queen live.
If termites were the size of humans, their residential/office/building/factory complex would be a mile high. Yet these are tiny, blind creatures, the size and intelligence of worms. Then there is their air-conditioning system. In the center of the cavernous below-ground floor is a massive clay pillar, supporting the ceiling of this cellar.
Here is where their Central Air Conditioning System Processor is located. It consists of a spiral of rings of thin vertical vanes, up to 6 inches deep, centered around the pillar, spiraling outward. The coils of each row of the spiral are only an inch or so apart. The lower edge of the vanes have holes to increase the flow of air around them. The vanes cool the air, and a network of flues carries the hot air down to the cellar. From high up in the tower these ventilating shafts run downward.
But carbon dioxide must be exchanged for oxygen, which the few, guarded entrances cannot provide. So the top of the flues butt against special very porous earthen material in the top walls of the tower, just inside the projecting eaves. Fresh air is thus carried throughout the towers by the ventilating system.
1 - Could natural selection produce the human eye?
2 - Write about the peppered moth of England, and why it is not an evidence of evolution.
3 - Natural selection is randomness in action. Place 24 marbles in a solid 3 x 3 square in the center of a less-used room in your house. With a kick of your foot, apply natural selection to the marbles. Return to the room six times a day for five days and apply additional natural selection to the marbles. Under the title, "Natural Selection in action," write notes on the highly integrated structures produced by the marbles over a period of time. Did they form themselves into a box? or a mouse?
4 - Write a paragraph explaining what evolutionists mean by natural selection. Write a second paragraph explaining why it is incapable of doing what they want it to do.
5 - What is reasoning in a circle? Why is natural selection actually this kind of circular reasoning?
6 - How is "survival of the fittest" merely circular reasoning?
7 - Why was Herman Bumpus’ research study on those 136 sparrows so important?
8 - Explain the difference between in-species or sub-species variations, and cross-species changes.
9 - Select one of the following, and explain why it is not an evidence of evolution (which requires change across species): antibiotic-resistant flies, DDT-resistant bacteria, new varieties of tomatoes.
10 - What was Darwin’s error in thinking that the Galapagos finches were an evidence of evolution?
11 - How does the population principle of regression toward the mean rule out the possibility of cross-species evolutionary change?
12 - Darwin later gave up on natural selection as a method for cross-species change, and returned to Lamarckism. What is Lamarckism and why is it unscientific?